LokeYou forget two very important things:
– Saab doesn’t know a magic trick to have it all on one single plane, and a design is always a matter of compromise. Adding fuel, IRST/TV, better ECM, etc etc will increase weight, and also wingloading. The structure will probably need to be beefed up too, which will lead to more weight increase. So while it may gain in some areas, it will lose in others, as others pointed out.
– For a foreign sale, you can’t take your vanilla F3 AdlA Rafale. You have to take into account the development available for the Rafale too. For instance the 20% thrust increase on offer should a customer require it that is already available (unlike the hypothetical thrust increase of the F414 mind you).Again comparing a projected thrust rating of an engine still in development, to an operational version of an engine which is already available on the shelf with 20% more thrust is what I call biased! It’s just one example, but I haven’t read much integrity in the rest of your writings thus far.
Nic
Saab hardly knows any magic tricks… however in earlier presentations Saab said the weight increase would be 300 kg, now it’s 200 kg. In any case whether it’s 200 or 300 it’s not a huge increase in weight. Perhaps they are wrong and weight will increase more, but currently that’s the info we’ve got.
One possible explanation as to why the weight does not increase much more is that Gripen is already a 4. gen fully developed a/c; why does it matter? Because it means that instead of just adding stuff, you actually replace stuff. And for e.g. the electronics the new stuff may actually weigh less than the old stuff. Perhaps that’s why Saab believe they can deliver NG at only 2-300 kg extra. For the engine I think it adds 50 kg.
Drag: It seems Saab is confident that drag will not increase much, since they boldly claim that NG will be able to supercruise in an a2a config, and not just “on a cold day in Sweden”. As we all know, the capability to supercruise depends, amongst other things, on drag (or lack of it).
Thrust: I agree that currently we should stick to the 22,000 lb thrust figure however higher thrust for Gripen is of course feasible by 2014 (already tested by GE), as it would be for Rafale as well! However even with the 22,000lb figure we’re still some 25% above the thrust of current Gripen, which seems to be doing quite well.
Honestly I think that both Rafale and Gripen (and SH) would meet all basic requirements for Brazil. And that’s probably why they made it on the short list?
So the decision will then probably me made on the basis of politics, offsets and cost. Gripen will win on two of those, and probably lose on the first (which may be the most important factor).
L
LokeIn that case, why has SAAB contracted with Thales for an array? I realise that doesn’t make Thales necessarily SAABs future collaborator on Gripen radar development, but it suggests it’s plan A or at worst B.
Elbit is probably plan Z, for sound economic reasons.
Thales was contracted for the Demo not the NG, and my understanding is that the reason was that the US did not allow export of AESA technology to Saab…
I believe (as do others) that the reason for this US export restriction is simply to make it harder for Gripen to win competitions perhaps in particular the Norwegian competition (F-35 vs Gripen). It’s just 48 a/c however the signal effect could be there since it would be the first partner to drop out and go for a cheap 4.gen instead of the F-35.
I expect that if Gripen NG wins a contract the export restriction will be lifted and e.g. Raytheon equipment will enter the Gripen. Raytheon would not like to lose the Gripen NG contract to Thales… and they would work hard to convince the US authorities how stupid it would be to not allow US export to NATO country Norway (or Brazil, given that SH with US AESA is already in the tender). If for some reason the US refuse to export AESA tech to Saab also after Gripen has won a contract well then in that case Saab will be forced to use non-US tech however I don’t think that will happen. Although I could be wrong.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/892donqz.asp?pg=2
Following U.S. export and technology transfer regulations, Sweden has applied to the U.S. for release of AESA technology for the Gripen program. So far, the U.S. has refused to release the system. At present no reason has been given for this decision, though several have been postulated. One is security related: transfer of AESA technology would threaten the U.S. lead in radar technology, as well as revealing secrets of our stealth and counter-stealth capabilities. However, Sweden is, if anything, more scrupulous than the United States when it comes to technology transfer to third parties; and we are going to release the AESA to Norway on the JSF in any case. And we have also already released AESA to the United Arab Emirates, among others. A variant argument posits that Saab would be the first foreign integrator of the technology into a non-U.S. aircraft, and that this would require more detailed knowledge of the radar than if it was just handed off to Sweden as a “black box.” But integration of the radar could be handed off to an American subcontractor, with firewalls installed to ensure that Saab never gets its hands on the family jewels. Some Swedes with whom I have spoken believe it is pure protectionism, that American companies don’t want Saab getting AESA technology. But this makes no sense, if we are speaking of U.S. radar companies. Raytheon would make the radar, whether it went on Gripen or JSF. So what gives?
The answer, I believe, is a convergence of interests on the part of Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force to protect the JSF program at all costs. With the price of a JSF escalating by the minute, the lesser partners in the program, and particularly Norway, are beginning to look towards the exits. They have invested huge sums of money in the development program to date and are beginning to see the airplane priced out of their budget, so they are looking towards any viable alternative. Gripen with AESA is such an alternative; Gripen without AESA is not. If Sweden can integrate AESA on the Gripen, then there is a chance (not a huge one at this moment, but growing) that the Norwegian government, in the name of economy and Nordic Cooperation, would pull out of the JSF program to buy the less capable but more affordable plane (after all, does Norway really need all the bells and whistles of the JSF?). And if Norway bolts, it’s Katie bar the doors–other partners presently “on the bubble” will also begin to rethink their commitment. Every time a partner leaves the program, the anticipated production run shrinks and the unit cost rises. And, as the cost differential between the JSF and the “high end” F-22 begin to disappear, the United States will also have to rethink the program (which is losing Congressional support as the price tag soars). Therefore, it is in the interests of both Lockheed Martin and USAF to keep all the partners in line, and beat down any emerging competition.
L
LokeBut if that relates to early build Block 1 aircraft, then the SH will still be around for a lot longer with the USN.
Would it not make sense for the USN to phase out the SH pretty quickly once the F-35 gets ready? With one-a-day production rates those F-35 will arrive in huge numbers quite fast! And operating more two types of a/c is more expensive.
Also keep in mind that even some years before starting out-phasing the SH, the USN will lose interest in investing in that platform, which means less integration of new weapons and less upgrades towards the end.
I tried to find the source for the 2030 date but did not locate it yet, so it may be wrong?
L
LokeThe aircraft has a healthy production back log and a couple of export sales in the bag so I wouldn’t really call it a flop.
Actually Eurofighter is in a safer position then many other manufacturers when it comes to the export market. The lines are going to be open for years yet meeting the orders it already has making it easy to slot export orders in, the partner nations have been happy to accept delays in their own delivery schedules for exports.
Several good points here…
I think it is silly to ask whether it will “flop” or not. However a more interesting question could be why it has not scored more sales? in particular considering the points you mention above. Typhoon pulled out of the Norwegian and Danish competition because they could not compete with Gripen NG; too expensive, no strategic advantages, offset package way below Saabs, etc.
It also lost in Brazil which was a surprise to me.
Actually I am not convinced that Typhoon will win that many sales. Like Gripen it contains US components; it is more expensive than SH, F-16 and Gripen; T3 seems not to be properly defined yet(?), offsets are always so-so, at least compared to Saab, and as for political clout, well you can’t compete with the US. Throw in the competition from F-35 and it does not look too bright for the Typhoon.
L
LokeWhat makes you think the Gripen NG is as good as a Rafale? It hasn’t even flown, so I don’t see how you could be so sure of Saab’s figures. Besides, how do you know that the Gripen radar and ECM suites can match the RBE2 or SPECTRA? And does the Gripen NG have an IRST/TV sensor?
Most of the Gripen NG capabilities are not known to the public; presumably also the Rafale capabilities relevant for Brazil (2014) are also not known, since it will probably be different from Rafale of today.Most likely the Gripen NG radar will be as good as or better than Rafale’s; see below.
NG will of course have IRST/TV sensors.
Even if it could really match the Rafale, you would still be subject to the good will of the US to operate, since many of the Gripen’s components come from the US.
Nic
Gripen does contain many US parts; the fact that Saab can pick and choose components from both Europe and US means that Gripen will be not just a very good plane but also very cheap. This is not anymore a problem for Brazil; 2 of the 3 planes on the short list contains a lot of US parts; SU-35 did not make it to the short list.
Regarding the radar: Saab is considering working with Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Elbit, or Selex to develop the radar. Thales is plan D (or E, or something…). Saab will simply pick the best available… Dassault needs to use French components, which often is very expensive. Sometimes the French stuff is world-leading, other times not. Saab can alway pick the best and the most cost-effective since it is not locked into using parts from one country only. In this respect Saab may have an advantage even compared to the US companies which tend to pick US components even if European components sometimes can be better…
IMHO both Gripen NG and Rafale will be excellent planes in 2014; which is better suited to Brazil will depend on the requirements; in addition politics and offsets will of course also be important.
Many seem to believe that SH should be the strongest candidate; I am not so sure. When will the US start to decommission the SH? Somebody told me 2030, is this correct? Consider if this happens in 2030, and if Australia is the only customer apart from Brazil; Operating the SH could then become quite expensive, being one of only two customers interested in upgrades and integrating new weapons…SH has a huge range of weapons available today; This is not of interest to Brazil. What is interesting, is: which weapons will be available in the timeframes 2014 – 2044 ? And which upgrades?
L
Loke1. Dimensions:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Length: 18.38 m / 15.27 m / 14.75 m
B. Span: 13.68 m / 10.80 m / 8.40 m (*1)
C. Height: 4.87 m / 5.34 m / 4.50 m
D. Wing area: 46.45 m2 / 45.70 m2 / 30.00 m*1: The wing span of F/A-18E is 9.32 m with folded outer wings.
2. Weights:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Empty weight: 14,288 kg / 9,500 kg / 7,100 kg
B. Internal fuel: 6,780 kg / 4,750 kg / 3,130 kg (*2)
C. Max. ext. fuel: 7,280 kg / 6,800 kg / 4,090 kg (*3)
D. Max. ext. load: 8,493 kg / 9,500 kg / 6,000 kg
E. Max. take-off weight: 29,937 kg / 24,500 kg / 16,000 kg*2: According to the formula: 1 liter fuel = 0.8 kg
*3: F/A-18E: 1,820 L external fuel tank * 5
Rafale C: 2,000 L external fuel tank * 3 + 1,250 L external fuel tank * 2
Gripen NG: 450 Gallon (1 Gallon = 3.785 L) external fuel tank * 33. Flight Performance:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Max. speed, high level: 1.8 Mach / 2.0 Mach+ / 2.0 Mach (Clean fighter)
B. Max. speed, high level: 1.6 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ (A2A mission)
B. Max. speed, low level: < 1.0 Mach / 750 kts / 1.2 Mach (*4)
C. Max. operating altitude: > 15,240 m / 16,760 ~ 18,400 m / 16,500 m
D. Climb rate, sea level: > 254 m/sec / > 305 m/sec / unknown
G. Normal G-limit: -3.0 ~ +7.5G / -3.2 ~ +9.0 G / -3.0 ~ +9.0 G
H. Max. upper G-limit: +10.0 G / > +11.0 G / +12.0 G
I. Normal AoA limit: 60.0 degrees / 29.5 degrees / 50.0 degrees
J. Wing-load for air combat: 402.6 kg/m2 / 280.1 kg/m2 / 323.3 kg/m2 (*5)
K. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 1.067 / 1.205 / 1.029 with A/B (*6)
L. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 0.679 / 0.797 / 0.655 with max. mil. (*7)*4: It is said that F/A-18 E/F’s maximal speed is less than 1.0 Mach at the height below 10,000 fts.
*5 ~ *7:
a. The fighter’s weight for air combat = empty weight + 50% internal fuel + MRAAM*4 + SRAAM*2 + pilot and gun shells.
b. F/A-18E: 18,700 kg; Rafale C: 12,800 kg; Gripen NG: 9,700 kg.
c. Max. A/B thrust: 22,000 Ib for F414 and 17,000 Ib for M88-2.
d. Max. Mil. Thrust: 14,000 Ib for F414 and 11,250 Ib for M88-2.4. Ferry range and Striking radius:
A. Ferry range:
Clean F/A-18E with internal fuel only: 2,346 km.
Clean Rafale C with internal fuel only: > 2,100 km.
Gripen NG with maximal fuel loading: 4,074 km.B. Striking radius:
# F/A-18E:
a. 1,820L tanks*3, AGM-84 *2, ATFLIR pod*1, AIM-120*1, and AIM-9*2.
b. 805 NM or 1,135 NM with air-refueling*1.
# Rafale C:
a. 2,000L tanks*3, SCALP-EG *2 or 500 Ib LGBs*6, and MICA*4.
b. Around 800 NM (hi-lo-hi), or around 1000 NM including the effective range of SCALP-EG.
c. With the help of CFT if the customers wants: 920 to 960 NM, or around 1,100 to 1,175 NM including the effective range of SCALP-EG (*8).
# Gripen NG (*9):
a. 472 nm / 875 km in lo-lo-lo mission with GBU-16*3.
b. 607 nm / 1,125 km in lo-lo-lo mission with GBU-16*2 and external fuel tank*1.*8: Personal estimation according to the declaration from French that the CFTs for Rafale will be able to increase 15 to 20 % fighter’s combat radius.
*9: Personal estimation according to the anticipation from SAAB that the combat range / radius of Gripen NG shall be around 35% more than Gripen C.5. Others:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Pylons: 11 and 5 / 14 and 5 / 10 and 3, all and wet (*10)
B. Unit costs: 55.2 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs / 50.0 million USD (*11)
C. Maintenance: 15 / 12 / 10 Man-hours per flight hour.*10: Wet pylon means the pylon that can carry and use the tank.
*11:
a. The unit cost of F/A-18 E is 55.2 million USDs per fighter in 2008.
b. The average unit price of Rafale F3 during 2008 to 2012 is 69.5 million USDs.
c. The price that SAAB sold Gripen to Thailand in 2007 is around 50.0 million USDs per fighter, including the costs for training and logistics.
Toan, nice overview. A few comments:
The Gripen NG will have 2500 km ferry range on internal fuel (ref. Dutch presentation).
Weight of Gripen: At least for the A/B and C/D versions the “official” weight numbers most likely are not correct. I do not know if the 7100 kg weight for NG is also given incorrectly by Saab, however it might be.
Thrust: In the Gripen NG presentations I have seen it has been given as “> 22,000 lb”; this may indicate that the NG could get a higher thrust level than the current F414. Higher thrust levels have already been tested by GE.
So, with the uncertainty around both thrust and weight the thrust/weight ratio for NG would also be an uncertain estimate.
Recon: As stated in a previous post, according to Janes’, Gripen NG should be able to do a 5-hour recon mission without refuelling.
L
LokeGripen NG is still a paper plane, not necessarily because it uses technology unavailable today, but because nobody signed up for it yet. Interconnecting all these magic black boxes into one working system will require time and money.
Questionable if Brazil wants to become launch customer, while it may if Sweden/SAAB offers something. Let’s not forget that Brazil has an indigenous aircraft industry and might opt for final assembly in its own factories.Rafale has the advantage, that Brazil can benefit from all advances of the French AF Rafale and it will increase the ties between France and Brazil (also and especially in aerospace).
It is correct that NG has not been ordered by a country yet. However this does not mean that the work is not ongoing. The work seems to be progressing very nicely and according to plan AFAIK.
The development work is sponsored by Sweden, Norway, and Saab. I believe also some of the other partners are sponsoring the development work(?).
By the end of this year we will know whether Norway will go for Gripen NG or F-35 — The Americans seems to becoming quite worried, I take this as an indication that Saab has a pretty good chance in Norway. OTOH the political pressure of the USA should never be underestimated. The US ambassador is very active, submitting press releases telling how much better the F-35 is compared to 4. gen a/c. He acts more like a salesman than like an ambassador right now…
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2706787.ece
Google translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2Farticle2706787.ece&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en
Anyway, if Norway buys NG, Sweden is obliged to do the same.
L
LokeThe three established swing role fighters have made the first cut. Since Brazil has neighbors with Flankers there is little doubt in my mind they will also reject Gripen NG simply because its unable to match the bigger foe.
The Gripen was developed by Sweden during the cold war; although it is a multirole plane, no doubt one of the primary objectives was that it should be able to match the soviet planes.
If it is not able to “match” the flankers you are implying that Gripen is a failure since it was specifically developed to match those aircrafts. I have never seen any indications that Gripen was considered a failure in Sweden, on the contrary. Sweden as a neutral country during the cold war was very serious about their defence; failure was not considered acceptable in those days. They did not develop the Gripen just to support domestic industry but because Gripen was considered to be a good defence solution, fully capable of matching the soviet/russian air craft.
Could you substantiate your claim that Gripen NG would fail to match the flankers?
L
LokeAnyone know the range of the Gripen NG compared to the Rafale? Brazil is a big country, and I wonder if the Gripen could cut it?
Gripen NG
Ferry range: 4070 km
Unrefuelled Maritime recon mission: 5 hours
max range on internal fuel only: 2500 km
With 6 a2a missiles Gripen NG will have a combat radius of 1300 km with 30 minutes on-station (Dutch presentation). Those 30 minutes could be converted to another 200 km or so, meaning that 1500 km missions should be possible. This is with two drop tanks; with more drop tanks even longer missions should be possible.
According to the Dassault web page Rafale has a “radius of action” that is “more than 1000 nautical miles” (1850 km);
L
LokeSeventy two SU-27 could beat six F-22s. The sky is falling, we should get hysterical and cancel the JSF and F-22.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/29/316555/war-game-argues-that-usaf-fleet-could-be-outmatched-by.htmlIf the F-22 and F-35 is as ineffective as many of these spammers and political proponents hysterically claim; then why are so many countries trying to copy the technology; by developing aircraft that are similar and using similar technology? If the F-22 is as inferior as some people claim, then why are countries begging to purchase it? If the F-35is as inferior as some people claim, then why are countries lining up and continue to line up to purchase it?
Vast quantities of inferior aircraft could overwhelm superior aircraft. So does that mean we should try to defend ourselves using Fokker Dr.Is?
If technology always advanced in the same direction than we would have stuck with triplanes instead of going to the less maneuverable monoplane.
Did you read the story you linked to?
The scenario suggested that no F-22 got shot down but rather some of the 72 SU-27 managed to “get through” and shoot down the F-22 tanker.
Nobody said F-22 was inferior. However even the F-22 needs fuel. And even the F-22 can be outnumbered.
L
LokeExit Typhoon in Brazil
It seems F-16, SU-35, Typhoon dropped out of the Brazil competition, leaving Rafale, Superhornet and Gripen NG.
Any thoughts on why Typhoon didn’t make it? According to recent posts in the Rafale thread, it seems that the price difference between Typhoon and Rafale is minimal; and with the upcoming T3 then Typhoon should become a very capable multirole fighter?
Perhaps the range is too short for such a large country? Or perhaps the Technology Transfer or offset deals did not look sufficiently attractive?
Or is the Typhoon price higher than some people are claiming?
I am mystified.
L
LokeLook at the last paragraph.
However, there is an alternative to filling all capability gaps with new-generation equipment. In the case of fighters, one approach being discussed is for the USAF to continue buying some F-22s and abolish or drastically reduce purchases of the F-35A – using conventional fighters such as the F-15 and F-16 as a replacement.
This must be a printing error!? To even consider to “abolish or drastically reduce purchases of F-35A” is — well, rather drastic.
Is flightglobal.com a reputable source?
L
LokeIR signature reduction and Rafale
Hi,
anybody who has info on IR signature reduction techniques on Rafale?
Does it use the fuel to cool e.g. avionics and then burn the fuel afterwards, like F-35 will do?
L
LokeTyphoon IR signature
Hi,
I am curious about IR signature reduction methods on the Typhoon — unfortunately I did not find much about this topic. Could somebody help me?
Does the Typhoon use fuel to cool components and get rid of the heat (by burning the fuel) like e.g. the F-35 does?
AFAIK the Rafale is employing several techniques to reduce IR signature from the engine and the gases from the engine; presumably Typhoon uses similar techniques?
L
LokeAFAIK, the missiles are right, but you need to add something to the GBU-16 weight, for the guidance kit. I’ve seen an overall weight of 491 kg somewhere, but I don’t know if that’s right. And unfortunately I don’t know how much the pylons weigh. They will be different weights for the different hardpoints & weapons: a 1000 kg GBU-10 will need a heavier pylon than a 90 kg IRIS-T. I wonder where one can find out pylon weights?
For the GBU-16 I found the following: http://www.deagel.com/Bombs-and-Guidance-Kits/GBU-16-Paveway-II_a001151003.aspx. They claim 495 kg. Using that number I then get the following:
4 GBU-16: 1980 kg
4 AIM-120: 608 kg
2 IRIS-T: 175 kg
Sub total: 2763 kg
3000l fuel: 2420 kg
3 tanks: 300 kg
Total: 5483 kg
Now we can add pylons… 🙂 If we assume average pylon weight of 50 kg we are still below the total that Saab claims Gripen NG will be able to carry (6000kg).
I agree that such a huge load will cause the fuel consumption to increase more for Gripen than for Typhoon; however two things to keep in mind: First, even a fully loaded Gripen NG would probably use less fuel pr. km than a fully loaded Typhoon, it is after all much lighter. Second, the argument that fuel consumption increases more for a small fighter than for a big fighter goes both ways: During the second half of the mission, after dropping empty tanks and weapons load, Gripen will use significantly less fuel than a heavier 2-engine fighter. It will carry significantly less fuel however to me it seems it will also use signficantly less.
Range: We got some info from the Dutch presentation: NG should be able to do a 1300km mission with external fuel, 4 AMRAAMS and two IRIS-T/aim9 w. 30 minutes on station. If we as Sweetman says convert those 30 minutes to km we end up at approx 1500 km range. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac37bf741-e055-48ca-8c82-e7234d227276
Of course the range will drop considerably with more weight and drag, I dare not guess how much. And of course, range also depends on mission profile. OTOH, I do not know how much external fuel was included in the above 1500km mission.
So, did I miss anything important this time!?
L
PS
I searched for pylon weights and could not find anything at all! This is actually one of the reasons I believe pylons could not be that heavy(?), my reasoning being that if they were heavy it would become more of an issue and people would talk about it on the internet…a weak argument I admit, but stilll… I did find several references to weight of drop tanks; the estimates I found were actually slightly lower than what I used, but in the same ballpark anyway.
Sign In
