LokeThe Gripen NG, despite bigger fuel tanks, cannot compete. That’s barely enough to make it comparable to F-16 or Mirage 2000.
so what is the maximum combat radius of mirage and F16?
Loke(not to mention DIRCM, LOAL missiles with HOBS, etc…)
Are you saing that 4.5 gen fighter cannot have DIRCM and LOAL missiles with HOBS?
LokeSo is there any timeline as to development? Can the Gripen NG be ready in time for the Brazilian orders when its systems have yet to be developped?
Although all the structural change has been demonstrated by the NG demonstrator, how safe is it to bet that all the systems are going to be ready in time? And at what development cost?
Nic
No, of course there are no timelines, Saab is a bunch of moronic clowns that have no clue what they are doing:rolleyes:
As said earlier, the C/D upgrade was delivered ahead of time and below budget. Saab has a very good track record. The program is on time and on budget.
And most of the systems have already been developed….
Saab was involved in developing the Taurus — guess what development time we are talking about? AFAIK, 9 months…! How is that possible? Easy, the technology was already with the companies, they mainly had to integrate and tweak it, and there you go, 9 months “development time”. The technologies going into the NG have been developed for many years already, the AESA is one good example.
LokeThe only thing is this bit further down in the article:
“The move apparently means priority has been put on strengthening air-defense capabilities as neighboring China makes efforts to enhance its air force by developing its own next-generation aircraft, analysts said.”
I don’t see the F-35 as being an air-defense aircraft, so maybe this article is more something put-out by a ministry bureaucrat than an actual official statement of intent (This does happen in Japan from time to time).
Also, the F-35 was supposed to be the focus of the F-XX requirement, the F-X being the AD fighter. From ARES
“Japan’s F-X program is aimed at buying 20-60 high performance F-22-like aircraft. The follow-on F-XX effort is being written to an F-35-like requirement for many more aircraft. Both programs will replace existing aircraft.”
So maybe there’s either been a mix-up by the journos – or F-X has morphed into the F-XX programme. Hard to tell which is the more likely – Japanese Bureaucrats move in mysterious ways…
yes, but with the F-22 not an option, what will be the second best air defence fighter in the near future? The Typhoon rules today (IMHO) however the F-35 will have some advantages when it gets finalized… Stealth and some incredibly impressive sensors in combination with HOBS and a great MMI will give the F-35 an edge. We’re talking 5. gen versus 4.5 gen. I think F-35 will beat even the Typhoon in a2a, once it gets finalized…
LokeGripen NG
1,300km radius + 30min CAP with 6 AAMs and 2x 1,700L drop tanks
–> About 3,000km effective range
–> About 2.5kg fuel consumption per kmRafale
1,780km interception radius with 8 AAMs and 3x 2,000L drop tanks
–> About 2.9kg fuel consumption per km assuming 1,000L used in combat (usually 5 minutes)
–> Only 20% more than Gripen NG with much more payload/range!
As others have pointed out, the above is wrong.
NG: 1,500 km radius with 6 AAMs and 1 drop tank.
NG: 1,900 km radius with 6 AAMs and 2 drop tanks….
The Rafale is impressive, but so is also the tiny Gripen 🙂
And at half the price, according to the latest info from Brazil!
LokeDidn’t even Embraer retract from saying their favor the gripen ?
Nope, industry still supports Gripen:
http://www.ciespsjc.org.br/conteudos.php?act=ler&tipo=2&id=1157
Fiesp defends technical choice in the final program of the F-X2
The expectation of finishing the year with a contract of sale of 36 supersonic fighters signed with the Brazilian Air Force has increased the lobby of the competitors in the F-X2 program.
On the one hand fighter Rafale, the French group Dassault, are appointed as the preferred political authorities, the Gripen NG, the Swedish Saab, has the support of all the Brazilian aerospace supply chain.
Who guarantees the Jairo Candido, director of Comdefesa (Department of Defense Industry), Fiesp (Federation of Industries of Sao Paulo).
In an interview with Valeparaibano Candido said the only open technology is presented by Saab, a factor considered by him as crucial to technology transfer procedures, item pointed by the Ministry of Defense – the body responsible for conducting the auction – as the main to choose the winner in the race, which still has the participation of US-based Boeing, with the F18 Super Hornet.
“The Gripen NG is an enhanced version, this improved version we have the opportunity to work in production. Do together is something that allows us a unique opportunity, I believe this is the best way to transfer technology,” said Candide.
Below the main parts of the interview.
Valeparaibano-Did you have access to proposals submitted by three competitors in the program? What do you think best?
Jairo Candide – I saw their presentation at Fiesp, chaired the three presentations. From the viewpoint of technology transfer and point of view of industries in Brazil, the proposal of the Saab is the best. I want to put a caveat before. This question must always be tied to the position that the technical decision of this matter is the Brazilian Air Force. The Brazilian Air Force is who will use the platform, who will use, who will make that kind of thing and has all the expertise to make the decision. But from the standpoint of comfort for the transfer of technology, content and opening, the project of Saab is the best.
LokeSeems the pilots prefers the SH…? A bit surprising they don’t like the Rafale?
Whereas the industry (and probably also the finance department!) prefers the Gripen. And we all know what Lula wants…
http://portalexame.abril.com.br/blogs/primeirolugar/20091123_listar_dia.shtml?permalink=209594
A new data will help the Swedish Saab, which produces the Gripen. According to the report, the cost per hour flown Gripen is 4 000 dollars, 14 000 against the Rafale. Since the cost of the F-18, of Boeing, is around $ 10 000.
FAB pilots have stated a preference for F-18. The game is the most successful in recent conflicts, but it has against him the U.S. government restrictions on technology transfer. Since the Air Force Command and Embraer, which is the national partner of any of those involved, prefer the Swedish Gripen. Besides the lower price by hour flown Gripen costs half the price of French and offers greater access to new technologies.
Still, people close to the government say it is difficult to miss the parade Dassault. Political interests, as France’s support for Brazil’s entry in the Security Council of the UN, should speak louder.
LokeThe most expensive stuff in a plane is the avionics/systems. However they are mostly new. How could a new Gripen with a AESA, an IRST, and plenty of other new avionics come at a remotely similar cost to the older Gripen?
Nic
How could the C/D come at a remotely similar cost to the A/B?
The NG will basically be the upgrade path for the current Gripen. So if Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, Hungary and Czcheckia want to upgrade their fighters with new avionics, it will be what’s in the NG.
What really separates the NG from a future upgraded Gripen C/D MLU will be: the larger internal fuel tanks; the increased MTOW and payload; increased number of pylons; and stronger engine.
The F414 is actually much cheaper than the RM12, so the engine costs will be lower!
And the avionics will be the same (if the current Gripen countries choose to upgrade — I believe at least Sweden will do, they have to in order to stay current).
LokeWhat ever the ratio is definitely not logical. 1000 km with 3500 kg of internal fuel and then >1500 km (>50%) with one external tank which holds abit more than 1/3 of the internal fuel, while adding drag and weight. The 2500 km range figure on internal fuel matches up very closely with the Typhoon’s range on internal fuel. So a useful combat radius of 1500 km with a larger load of external tanks (not just one) might be possible, but with just one tank I think it’s highly unlikely.
The 1500 is based on the 1300 km + 30 min on-station from Saab. The 1000 km is a guesstimate from me, but still based on Saabs statement that one tank adds 1000 km. I agree that sounds like a lot for one tank.
However, would you think it likely that the NG can supercruise at >1.2 Mach in such a config and with smallish F414? As said before the fact that the F414 can sc with such a load can only mean one thing; the drag is unbelievably low (probably similar or less than that of a clean F-16 — show me a F-16 that can sc with one F414, even in clean condition…?)
Such a very low drag translates into less fuel consumption than what you would expect.
LokeSure 1000 km with ~3000 kg of internal fuel and another 500 km with just ~800 kg more in an external tank…
I believe it’s actually more like 3500 kg internal and 1700 litres external; some 1360 kg? (assuming density of 0.8 on the jet fuel).
The Gripen NG has an incredibly low drag in a2a config — consider that it is capable of supercruising at 1.2 mach with 4 AMRAAMs, 2 sidewinders and one drop tank, using a relatively weak F414 engine! Compare that to F-16 that seems to be mainly able to supercruise when it’s clean, in spite of having a stronger engine.
The drop tank adds 1000 km to the range.
I got the “above 1500km radius” estimate as follows: A combat radius of 1300 km with 30 minutes on-station has been published by Saab. I assume that 30 minutes of loiter time can be converted into 400 km extra range; divide by 2 and add to the 1300 and you get a radius of 1500 km. I think Signatory suggested it would be even longer, that’s why I wrote “above 1500”. The drop tank contributes 1000 km to the range. Subtract 1000 km and you get a range of 2000 km on internal only, which gives a radius of 1000 km.
Don’t forget that the NG has 40% more internal fuel than the C version… The F414 is also more fuel-efficient than the RM12.
LokeThis is strange, only 2 AMRAAMS and 2 Sidewinders and you get a radius of only 410 nm (760 km). I assume that is without external tanks!? And why only 2 AMRAAMs?
The Gripen NG should be able to have a radius of more than 1000 km (540 nm)with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders, on internal fuel only… Add one drop tank and you are at more than 1500 km…
NG can also do a maritime recce of 5 hours, unfortunately I don’t know the details of that layout.
Unfortunately I have not be able to find any a2g or multirole config w. ranges however considering the huge range in a2a config I would not be surprised if some of you would be surprised….
Any ranges for the Typhoon and Rafale, for a2a configs? And for how long can they keep going in a recce role?
LokeIndian Navy has floated an RFI?
Hi,
Is it correct that the Indian Navy is considering to purchase new fighters?
http://beta.thehindu.com/business/article53220.ece
Could this have an impact on the MMRCA? Basically favoring the SH and the Rafale? I am surprised that in particular the SH should be able to operate from the Indian carriers?
I believe I have seen somewhere a reference to a “potential Eurofighter customer” that may be interested in navalized Typhoon — seems like it could be India.
Still, to navalize the Typhoon has been discussed extensively and seems to be very expensive.
LokeI put the Raven ahead of the APG-80 and others because its newer tech, giving it a lead (I presume) versus the APG-80 & Selex has better technology development in airborne AESA than Phaza. RBE-2 is ahead of both, because despite released images, I recall reading articles that said it is >1000 TRM, whereas Raven is 1000 TRM.
The Raven has 1000 modules, no doubt. I have been told by people that are normally well informed that the RBE-2 will have “1001 TR modules”… Thus the same as the Gripen radar.
So I would say that apart from the swash plate advantage of the Raven it’s hard to tell which will be “better”. Both Thales and Saab/Selex have had their development program running for years. Perhaps the combination of Saab/Selex have larger R&D resources than Thales, but that’s just me speculating… 😉
LokeI rather like the NSM – its entirely passive, only that its half the range of Brahmos as I recall. But its passive nature makes it better than its subsonic RF active peers.
The air-launched NSM (known as the JSM) will have longer range than the ship-or land-launched. Not only because of the extra push from the a/c but also because it will not have the rocket stage that the land/ship launched NSM contains. This frees space for more fuel for the jet engine.
The range of the JSM is classified however it is known to be “more than 240 km”….
Kongsberg is quite cocky about the stealth capabilities of this missile claiming that “it cannot be detected even by the American radar systems [until it’s too late]”. They believe it has higher probability of survivial against peer or near-peer system than supersonic missiles, although to be fair I have not seen any direct references to the Brahmos in this context…
Oh, and I don’t think Poland is involved in NSM/JSM construction. Poland is however the first export customer for NSM. NSM is built by the Norwegian company Kongsberg, with essential input from FFI (The Norwegian Defence Research Institute). I believe MBDA was also involved in the development.
Saab was competing in Poland with their RBS-15 missile, they lost to the NSM. Saab has now sued Poland and Kongsberg because they believe NSM does not meet the requirements (one of which was the range). It will be interesting to follow that trial. If Poland and Kongsberg wins perhaps one can speculate that the land-based NSM has a longer range than what is officially hinted at (which is “more than 185 km”). That could also lead to further speculations on the maximum range of the air-launched version…. 😉
LokeI think it was posted on this very forum by one of the Swedish members? It was a Norwegian paper & mentioned some other things, that Norway had run a simulation of the Gripen against the latest Russian fighters & the JSF had the edge, and also that they thought the SAAB team were being very optimistic about the AESA capability whereas the US had more experience etc..
There was lots of debate about it as I recall..
Teer,
I think the debate in Norway was not on whether the Swedes could deliver the capabilities they had promised within the timelines, but rather that they concluded that the F-35 will have greater capabilities that Gripen NG both in terms of stealth (big surprise…) but also sensors. Gripen does not have the EO-DAS system. And the 1000-element Selex/Saab radar will be inferior to the APG-81 at least in terms of range (although the vote is still out on the scan volume, due to the swash plate design the Gripen will probably have a larger scan volume).
I don’t see how this is relevant to the MMRCA: None of the competitors will have EO-DAS similar systems, nor will any have radars that are at the level of the the APG-81, IMHO.
Your point about timelines is well taken — and again the Norwegian competition is not that relevant. Norway will introduce the new a/c in 2016, the earliest. F-35 will most likely be more delayed than the NG, a lot of people suspected this alread one year ago. So in Norway two unfinished birds were competing.
I have not seen anything indicating that the Norwegian air forces believed Saab could not deliver on their promises. On the contrary, the Royal Norwegian Air Force has expressed that they found the Swedes to be highly professional and “trustworthy”.
Pitting a US 5. gen a/c against a Swedish 4.5 gen a/c is… rather peculiar. The Typhoon ad Rafale would not have succeeded in that competition, that’s why Eurofighter and Dassault withdrew early, they realized they would lose in in any case, so why waste the money… When the Swedes were asked why they did not pull out like Eurofighter they admitted: “The Eurofighter team obviously had better intelligence than us.” MI-5 beats the Swedish intelligence service…?
To summarize, there are few if any learnings from the Norwegian evaluation that is relevant for the Indian MMRCA, IMHO.
Sign In
