LokeYes for heavier loads it will be an advantage to be bigger but perhaps the difference is smaller than you may imagine. Gripen NG is much more potent than Gripen C/D.
Rafale is bigger but also twin-engine and therefore needs more fuel, which translates into more and larger drop tanks, which means more weight and drag.
This will to some extent reduce the “kinematic advantage”.
Anyway, it’s funny that Rafale in some cases actually can carry less ordnance than Gripen NG… 🙂
A pity we don’t know anything about the ranges for these different loadouts, that would have been interesting.
All we know (currently) for Gripen NG is that with one drop tank and six a2a missiles it will have 1300 km combat radius (2600 km range) with 30 minutes on-station.
Replace the a2a missiles with something heavier and increase external fuel by 100-200%, and God knows what the range will be 🙂
LokeIt seems that in some cases the Gripen NG can actually carry more a2g than Rafale!
Air to Ground with 1000-lbs Precision Guided Munition.
Maximum PGM load:
Gripen NG : 7
Rafale: 51000 lbs PGM + 2 large fuel drop tanks for extended range:
Gripen NG : 5 (2 x 1700L)
Rafale : 3 (2 x 2000L)Comment:
Gripen carries a large supersonic droptank at each wing root, one PGM under each wing. plus three PGM’s on the belly. LDP on sensor pylon.Rafale carries a large supersonic droptank at each wing root, one PGM under each wing, one PGM on the centreline. LDP on sensor pylon.
Gripen and Rafale both fly out under MTOW with full internal fuel load.
…The 1000 lbs example is a bit heavy of course for Gripen, under MTOW yes but still heavy. The same results apply to 500 lbs bombs though.
Gripen NG would deliver more 500lbs PGMs than Rafale thanks to more A2G pylons.
And continued….
A2G Weapon capability
AGM-65 MAVERICK (if integrated on Rafale)
Rafale: 4
Gripen NG: 6AGM-65 + Two Drop Tanks
Rafale: 2
Gripen NG: 4Laser Guided Bomb 1000 Lbs
Rafale: 5
Gripen NG: 7LGB 1000lbs + Two Drop Tanks
Rafale: 3
Gripen NG: 5“Big Punch” A2G
Gripen NG: 2 x LGB2000, 2 x LGB1000, 2 x 1700L DT
Rafale: 1 x LGB2000, 2 x LGB 1000, 2 x 2000L DT(2000L Drop tank on Rafale, 1700L Drop tank on Gripen NG)
Thanks to Signatory 🙂
LokeThe payload of Gripen NG has been increased from 6,000 kg to 7,200 kg according to the newest advertisement from SAAB. However, the MTOW of Gripen NG still remains to 16,500 kg in that advertisement.
It seems that when Gripen NG takes off with the maximal payload (7,200 kg), it won’t carry the 100% internal fuel (16500 – 7200 – 7000~7100 = 2200 ~ 2300 kg).
It does not make sense to fly with a maximum payload and less than 100% internal fuel…
Then I feel it makes more sense to consider the other possibility; that the MTOW (for whatever reason) is understated.
The a/c most similar to Gripen NG is the Lavi:
Length: 14.57 m
Wingspan: 8.78 m
Wing area: 33.05m2
Empty weight: 7000kg
MTOW: 19250kg
Max Payload: 7260 kg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/lavi/
Gripen NG:
Length: 14.1 m (3%) (although some sources say 14.9 m…)
Wingspan: 8.6 m (2%)
Wing area: 31 m2? (6.5%)
Empty weight: 7000 kg? (0%)
Max Payload: 7200 (0.83%)
MTOW: 16500??? (17%)
So apart from the MTOW and wing area all other parameters are 3% or less off the Lavi; this looks a bit strange, I would say. If the MTOW is like the wing area also off by 6.5% then the MTOW for Gripen NG could be 18090 kg.
NG empty weight + internal fuel + max payload = 7000 + 3500 + 7200 = 17700
18090 – 17700 = 390 kg — enough for a Swedish pilot perhaps? 🙂
LokeGripen with 4000 lbs (1800 kg) LGBs:
Courtesy of Signatory.
Gripen with Taurus:
LokeSecondly two aircrafts don’t necesserly do better than one fighter. If you don’t have the legs you don’t have the legs and if you can’t carry the load to the appropriate range you can’t. Even with two aircrafts. A gripen with 2 taurus or two 1000Kg bombs will not be as good as the SH and the rafale. And that is not two gripen that will change it.
Apart from the fact that instead of having one Rafale carry 2 Taurus you can have two Gripen carry 1 Taurus each. I’m sure a Gripen NG can carry one Taurus quite far…
Of course, Gripen is a smaller and lighter a/c than either the SH or Rafale, so there will be limits to what can be done.
However if you look at sales you notice that a/c like Mirage, F-16 and Gripen tend to outsell Rafale, SH and Typhoon… and the main reason is that those smaller single-engine planes meet the requirements of most countries and cost less…
But anyway, as we also know, the main driver behind the final decision is politics.
Rafale will most likely win this (although all the delays must be quite nerve-wrecking for the French……)
LokeSingh: Gripen has 70% probability of winning in India
Google translated (with minor corrections):
According to Singh Pushpindar F18 is a too big plane for the Indian needs and for political reasons, it is doubtful whether the Indian government may choose F16.
– It would be political suicide to buy the F16.
Pushpindar Singh believes that the Gripen is the best of the six competitors:
– The chance is greater than 70 percent of India selects Gripen.
Read Saab’s comments and the Gripen Demo test flight in rough conditions in India in Tuesday’s paper edition of Corren.
http://www.nt.se/nyheter/artikel.aspx?articleid=6080356
Anybody with access to Corren who volunteer to give us a brief summary ? 🙂
Is Singh equally positive to Gripen when he writes in his aerospace magazine, or was he just being “polite” when visiting Sweden?
LokeOne thing a lot of people forget is that Gripen NG is less draggy than other fighters, even when loaded.
Compare the Gripen NG to the F-16; The NG has are relatively weak F414 engine compared to the much larger F-16 engines. In spite of this, NG can SC above mach 1.2 with one large drop tank and six a2a missiles.
That would not have been possible unless the NG had had much less drag than e.g. the F-16. I am no expert in aerodynamics but I wonder if the canards has something to do with this?
Another important thing to keep in mind is that one should always consider the requirements and match with requirements, not which a/c has the biggest payload or longest range.
Finally: There are many ways of doing this. NG will be able to perform very long-range missions however for some of them may need more a/c. So instead of sending 2 Rafale on a deep strike mission, one can distribute the payload on e.g. 3 Gripens. This seems feasible especially in light of the fact that you can get almost 2 Gripens for one Rafale…
Edit: Oh, and H_K those drag indices are relative not absolute, so you simply cannot compare them across a/c…
LokeThat is still a lot less than rafale and SH…especially that at a given load they will perform better du to their size advantage. (more trust to weight ratio, more range etc).
At gripen max load it will be a medium load for SH and rafale.
It is less than Rafale and SH but in the range of Mig-35 and F-16.
How often do the French Rafale fly with 7200 kg of payload?
LokeFrom the Navy News thread:
http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2010/06/13/marinha-do-brasil-vai-de-fremm/
So Brazil is buying Italian Fremms with engines from — GE, the company that also makes the F414 engine for Gripen NG…
I thought one of the arguments of Jobim against the Gripen was the US engine…?
This seems rather inconsistent to me.
LokeWhy did Brazil buy Fremms from Italy and not France?
I thought they had this grand defence collaboration ongoing with the French?
LokeAccording to the latest from Saab, maximum payload of Gripen NG is now 7200 kg: http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/06/12/tudo-o-que-voce-gostaria-de-saber-ou-nao-sobre-o-sobre-o-gripen-ng/
In the past I believe they just said “more than 6000 kg”.
Interestingly the only slightly larger Lavi could carry about the same payload:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi#Specifications_.28Lavi.29
What is the maximum payload of the Mig-35 and the F-16?
LokeAccording to Saab executives, the decision to go ahead with the Gripen Next Generation has already been taken by the Swedish government.
If Saab wins one or more of the upcoming fighter competitions – with Brazil and Switzerland among those closest to a decision date – it will affect the timing of Sweden’s own deployment of the Gripen NG, already identified by the Swedish military as the JAS 39E/F. But the decision to acquire the fighter has already been taken, according to head of Gripen marketing and campaigns Hans Rosen.
“Sweden has committed itself to using the Gripen beyond 2040,” Rosen said at Malmen air base on Saturday. “The question is when to acquire the Gripen NG, and how many.” The basic program calls for the new variant to enter service in 2017-18, but Sweden has told export customers that it will adjust its schedule so that Sweden deploys the JAS 39E/F before they do.
Rosen’s comments on the future of the Gripen in Sweden echoed remarks made by defense minister Sten Tolgfors at a top-level air power conference held at Malmen on Friday. Tolgfors noted that the modernization of the Gripen force is proceeding according to plan, with the conversion of a final batch of 31 JAS 39A models to 39C standard, leaving the air force with a smaller force of 100 fighters. The next step will see all these aircraft modernized to a common configuration known as Materiel Standard 20, already under contract.
The MS 21 configuration is being defined – but it is now clear that MS 21 is in fact the NG, with the new General Electric F414G engine, modified airframe, Selex Galileo active electronically scanned array radar and new core avionics. It is understood that development is being quietly funded by the Swedish government.
The Demo prototype had completed 152 flight test sorties as of Saturday, Rosen said, and completed a successful demonstration in India in May (the company previously performed demonstrations with the C/D version in India) including a successful landing and restart at the Leh airfield in Kashmir, 10,800 feet above sea level. It is currently testing new external stores and will then enter a lay-up period for avionics updates.
Some more interesting info on the NG here:
Payload has now been increased to 7200 kg!
LokeWhen it is per flying-hour the number of aircraft does not matter.
… yes, unless the sample size is too small, which leads to an imprecise estimate from the underlying distribution– if you know the number of aircrafts you know the sample size and can therefore get a better understanding of the accuracy of the estimates.
LokeA- To address the airframe shortage that is going to be a very real issue.
B- The F-35 was never intended to replace the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet’s replacement is the F/A-XX.
A — yes I understand that, however they could consider to sell the newest SH and replace both the old and new SH with F-35. There is a great market for second-hand 4. gen a/c, just look at all the second-hand F-16 being sold.
B — This is what I don’t understand. The F-35 fanboys keep telling us that in the future 5. gen a/c like the F-35 is the only thing that will “cut it”. At the same time the same fanboys seem to have no problems accepting that the SH will be good enough for the USN for many many years to come.
LokeOne thing I do not understand; Why does the USN keep ordering more SH if it will be inferior to F-35 in all respects?
And why will the F-35 replace the old Hornets only and not also (in the longer run) the SH, given the above-mentioned superiority of the F-35?
Sign In
