Norwegian Air Force Defence Chief positive towards Gripen

This just in:

http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article377231.ece

Swedish fighter not a problem in NATO

Norway could just as well use a Swedish as U.S. combat aircraft in NATO operations, the air defense chief, who said the Swedes offer a very good aircraft.

Air Force’s top commander, Major General Stein Erik Nodeland, thus reject the claim that the purchase of Swedish fighters would create trouble for Norway in NATO.

– No, there is no problem. Both Hungary and the Czech Republic flies Swedish aircraft and they are both in NATO, “said Inspector General of the Air Force to Dagsavisen.

..

Both planes have their strong and weak points. We will give our input to the government, and they have to make the decision, says Nodeland.

It has been a common belief that F-35 has had a clear lead on Gripen in Norway. Recently Gripen, made by Saab, has been included as a candidate in several other countries planning to to buy a fighter. Nodeland considers this to be a quality mark.

“JAS Gripen has some basic characteristics that many appreciate. Saab has made clear improvements with the latest version (E / F, which is the one Norway considers, editor.). The swedes also appear very orderly, “said Nodeland.

It is no secret that the Norwegian Air Force is “americanized”. Norway has flown American fighters the last 50 years and Norwegian fighter pilots are educated in the US and Canada.

“Refering to this heritage is… well, I can understand that people do that, but still I think it is wrong. We cannot escape our history and we have made many good experiences with the Americans. But we can also think new”, says Nodeland.

He warns against putting too much emphasis on clearly pro-American remarks from the very few in the Air Force that has spoken out.

“I am happy that a lot of people are participating in the evaluation, and I am absolutely certain that their recommendation will not be colored by the history”, says Nodeland.

This is very interesting. If Gripen NG can compete head-to-head with the uber-plane F-35, perhaps it should stand a decent chance also compared to e.g. Rafale and Superhornet?

Perhaps many are still under-estimating Gripen? The next 12 months or so will tell… 🙂

L

Norway is small order when no integration of weopons from east and west.

Yes on paper. not in operations. can u show any pix of it even lifting 4 tons.

50kg heavy? http://www.boeing.com. they clearly said engine is 9 to TWR for F414. that make it alteast 150kg-200kg heavier for twin engine configuration. Dont assume weights of engine system from twin engine fighter. 40% more fuel require very beef up structure. This thing is pure paper specifications.

second only to F-22? it is already obsolete no serious competition will consider it.

Su-35 is not in IAF competition either. Brazil is more interested in offsets and technology transfers and that is only 2014. U cannot expect Russian investing money now for such small order with technology transfer with delivery so much into future. So may be its weak proposal. It has nothing to do with merits of aircraft.

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft-Engines/RM12_a001731001.aspx

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft-Engines/F414-GE-400_a001733001.aspx

As can be seen the F414 is 54 kg heavier than the RM12.

L

surely the level of investment and technology transfer necessary for this size of contract is beyond SAAB capability. SAAB is good for small size contracts of 10 to 20 aircraft supplied over decade with minimum customization.

Saab is part of Investor one of the world’s biggest investor groups controlling huge industries worldwide. Thus offsets is not a problem. Norwegian labour unions have recommended Norway to purchase Gripen due to the much better offsets; not just in scope but also because it’s much more R&D heavy than what LM could offer

JAS-39 is basic airdefence fighter wth performance worse than MIG-29A. It is no match to MIG-29K/MIG-35.

Incorrect. The current Gripen C/D is a full-fledged 4. generation multirole swingrole plane with world-class performance. NG will be a huge improvement, a true 4.5 gen fighter that already is in the process of beating Rafale, Typhoon, SU-35 etc. in competitions.

There is some thing called integrated defence structure. Klimov is under MIG. M-88 is used in Rafale. EJ-200 is only used by EF. what will Saab do? and than there is weopons issue with source codes and ability to modify them for than 300km. Some of the claims related to JAS-39N are plain rediculous. like weight of 7100 kg but with 40% more fuel than JAS-39C. How can this be? when it is using heavier AESA radar with all its requirements, heavier engine, structure stressed for more weopon stations & load. JAS-39 is material and advance manufacturing wise dead end. It is not MIG/Sukhoi that it can take advantage of new lighter avionics, basically same engine weight with new materials and process to lighten the weight or keep the same weight. Thats why in real life it cannot outperform MIG-29A with limited engine life and lack of FBW.

Complete nonsense.

NG will use the Volvo/GE developed F414 engine.

Saab has complete control on all source code to everything they build.

7100 kg is the dry weight of the plane. 40% increase in fuel is obtained by moving the landing gear to the wings this frees space inside the plane for additional 40% internal fuel. The new engine is 50kg heavier than the old but with approx. 25% more thrust.

Gripen NG will have low RCS, low IR signature (“second only to F-22!”), increased range, thrust, revolutionary man-machine interface, electronics warfare system that will overwhelm anything Russia can build within the next 20 years.

You may ask, why is Gripen NG on Brazils short list, but not a single Russian a/c? That tells you something about the real life… :diablo:

L

Sign,

You are comparing Gripen’s stall speed (97kts) with Rafale’s approach speed (120kts). 😮 To be brutally frank, you are completely discrediting yourself as a so called “expert”… 🙁

FYI, the Gripen’s approach speed is about 125kts.
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/D477E794-3F21-45AC-BBC3-D0E535F446E3/0/GRI9182AirDisplay_low060620.pdf

FYI, the Rafale’s stall speed is below 100 knots. Rafale A flew at 100kts on flight #16 (1 Aug 1986) and 81kts (150kph) on flight #460 (12 Jul 1989). http://www.avions-militaires.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3859&start=0

So Gripen & Rafale are in roughly the same category as far as lift & minimum speeds go. Since Gripen NG will be heavier than Gripen, it will comparatively disadvantaged in terms of lift and maneuverability.

According to Saab empty weight will increase by 200 kg (less than 3%). At the same time thrust will increase by more than 22%.

Max take-off will increase by 2 tons which is 14% not 28%. So with more than 22% increase in thrust and 14% increase in max TOW I do not see the problem? When landing, I would think that the weight is normally far, far away from MTOW.

My understanding is that in most cases one would also not fly around at MTOW. The larger internal fuel storage means that for most missions Gripen NG will have roughly the same weight as gripen C/D but with more than 22% increase in thrust. I have seen somewhere that as a rule of thumb only half of the external fuel adds to your range (compared to internal fuel). With a massive 40% increase in internal fuel you can do with less drop tanks, reducing drag, and weight! A drop tank of 1000 L would contain 800 kg fuel (roughly?) which should correspond to 400 kg internal fuel. Internal fuel increases by 1200 l which would be 960 kg! So you could actuall drop 2 1000L tanks and fly with internal fuel only. Two 1000L tanks would be more than 1600 kg (how much does a drop tank weigh?), which is less than 960+200kg (= 1160 kg).

It is puzzling how you can reach the conclusion that NG will be disadvantaged in terms of lift and manuvrability when it seems to me that the opposite is true! Internal fuel is a big win compared to external drop tank.

I am certainly no expert and I would not dare to say that others are not experts, I leave that to the true experts of this forum 🙂

L

Otaku,
“Typhoon is a serious competitor.. and a good aircraft.”

Well spotted.

“But hardly enjoying any decisive superiority over other competitors.”

WRONG! Typhoon enjoys a decisive edge in instability/supersonic agility, in supercruise performance, in A-A radar range, and above all in MMI. Even Rafale enjoys a worthwhile edge over most of its competitors in these areas – but Typhoon is a further step ahead of Rafale in THESE areas.

Scorpion,

Typhoon pilots who are fresh from exchange tours on the F-16MLU, and who have experienced Gripen’s datalink or the Rafale’s MMI, and TPs who know F-22, JSF and Rafale would disagree with the idea that the differences between Typhoon’s MMI and the rest “aren’t that great any more.” This remains the area where Typhoon is furthest ahead of the competition.

There is one thing that is sorely missing from this otherwise excellent thread :rolleyes:

I will not tell you what, but leave it to the reader to guess… on the basis of this post.

A few facts about Gripen:

Unlike Rafale and Typhoon, Gripen uses fuel to cool the engine and avionics! Like the F-35 the heated fuel is burnt. Together with several other techqniues (some of which are also found in the SH, see below) this gives the Mighty Gripen an IR signature second only to the F-22!

The Gripen engine, the RM12, consist of 40% Swedish-made components. Many of the ideas and concepts developed by Volvo Aero actually made it into the F414. So the SH users can actually thank the Mighty Gripen for many of improvements the F414 has compared to the 404. Perhaps this is also why Saab intends to make only small mods to the F414 compared to the 404. Since few mods will be made the Gripen NG engine will be cheaper (but still better!) than the RM12.

According to Swedish FMV, Gripen C has an empty weight of 7000 kg, and max payload of 5300 kg. Some people claim that these 5300 kg includes the pilot, ammunition for the gun, etc. Funnily FMV write “5300 kg across 8 pylons”. This begs the question: “to which pylon do the Swedes connect their pilot”?

The empty weight of Gripen A/B and C/D are well kept secrets. See below…

Now for the anectodes section:

A person having access to classified Gripen info once said that the empty weight(s) known in public are wrong. That was all he said… Obviously the weights given are too high, the real weight of Gripen is lower! This has some impact on parametes like thrust-to-weight and wing loading.

When a Danish test pilot tested the Gripen earlier this year (or end of last year) he was interviewed immediately after the flight. He was extremely enthusiastic, saying “this was fantastic, it was a pilot’s dream” (repeating this several times). What most people failed to notice was that before the flight he was very calm, he looked almost a bit bored… the “before” and “after” difference was huge. Why this huge difference? Because he had few expectations and became surprised, in spite of being briefed on the system. A test pilot can get a pretty good idea about performance from weight, thrust, etc. However if the weight given is wrong, then the expectations will also be off…resulting in a very surprised and enthusiastice test pilot.

The Danish group evaluating F-35, SH and Gripen NG also talked about the Gripen NG MMI being developed: “Wow!” and “Very innovative” (direct quotes). Also the new sensors being developed were very impressive to the evaluation team.

The Indian reporter who made a television series on all the planes for the Indian tender was very impressed by Gripen NG and said it was (in his opinion) a clear favorite in India.

Innovative, “Wow” MMI; 25% more thrust; 35% longer range; 25% more pylons; increased payload; AESA radar, supercruise. Price: 23 billion NOK for 48 planes, training, manuals, spare parts included (USD$ 74 million pr. plane). Gripen NG is still a “paper plane” however it will take just one sale (to e.g. Norway) to make the export life for Typhoon even harder than it is today.

When referring to the NG as a “paper plane” also consider what this implies: In Brazil, Typhoon lost to a paper plane. Oops.

Typhoon is an excellent plane, unfortunately it seems to me that (unless it wins India, where I think chances for Typhoon is quite good since India was offered full partnership) its export success may not materialize. I am sure it will still win some exports, perhaps Romania, but after losing in Brazil (potential of 120 a/c) I think it would need India to really “take off” in the export market. Competition from Gripen NG, Superhornet, F-16 block60+ (and Rafale) is very tough.

L

PS. Now, did anybody guess what was missing from this thread? : 😉

Just to inject some sanity.

All of the fanboys for the aircraft which did not do well in JOUST hate it with a pathological hatred. I can understand that. But what everybody should understand is what JOUST was, and what it was not.

Jackonicko,

thanks.

Do you know if Gripen has been tested using JOUST? Any results available?

Also, I presume since the first JOUST simulations Eurofighter has done many more? Presumably those results are classified? If not, could you suggest some links?

L

I am still a “newbie” with lots to learn, however I also agree that sometimes there seems to be too much noise on this forum.

On the other hand, one could also go too far in the other direction. defencetalk.com could be one example. At least for a non-expert like me it seems to be a good forum, but my goodness how boring! I read there once in a while but to me this forum (and a couple of others) are simply much more fun than defencetalk with all it’s grumpy trigger-happy moderators looking for new victims to ban.

Perhaps something inbetween this forum and defencetalk would be the best?

L

PS: Gripen of 2030 is of course much better than the rest with plasma stealth, TVC, Harry Potter invisibility cloak, coffee machine, and AESA microwave oven. (sorry, could not resist ;))

If they want a modern and performant aircraft with a limited price the gripen is the right choice.
If they want to pay for extra performance to match the SU from venezuela then the rafale or the SH are the right choices.

I agree with the first statement but not with the last.

I do believe Gripen NG will be able to match the SU in a2a. That’s what it’s designed for. In particular the Gripen EW system is very much designed with the Russian air crafts in mind.

Of course, the Rafale and SH will also be able to deal with the SU’s. However why buy a Mercedes if a cheap, reliable Toyota can do the job?

L