LokeWhere did you get those fuel numbers? AFAIK, the Typhoon figure is for a two-seater (given as 4950 to 5000 kg for a single-seater), & the Gripen NG figure is ridiculous. It implies a clean T/O weight of 11500 kg. According to SAAB, the Gripen NG has 40% more fuel than a Gripen C, i.e. 3000 kg.
As for your weapons figures – too low, too low. Add in 9 pylons (they’re part of the external load, though often ignored, & SAAB include them in that 6000 kg), & add something for your underestimates of the weights of those weapons. What weights are you using for AIM-120, bombs, & IRIS-T?
BTW, you’re right that there is an inconsistency in your figures. 4700 kg max internal fuel, 5300 kg external load – at a weight of just under 24000 kg. There’s weight unaccounted for, even allowing for the particular example being an IPA with a lot of internal monitoring equipment. More fuel, pylons, the weapons are heavier than you think. And the 23000 kg isn’t official. Official is 23500 kg, but that’s always explained as “at least”, not an absolute limit. Also, if you deduct the official empty weight & 5000 kg for fuel from 23500 you get 7500 kg. That’s how the Gripen 6000 kg payload (that’s the word SAAB use) is calculated: 16000 kg max T/O, 7000 kg empty, 3000 kg fuel = 6000 kg residual. It’s not the external weapons load. Look here.
Note that this is a real Typhoon payload, that the aircraft took off with, not a hypothetical maximum load calculated by adding up hardpoint capacity, or calculating residuals. There is no suggestion that it is the maximum load, or the heaviest the aircraft can take off at. The T/O weight is from Eurofighter (see link), & is for IPA3, heavier than a production aircraft . A production aircraft taking off at the same weight would carry more. http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Update1-2006.pdf
Swerwe, I stand corrected, those fuel figures were not correct. My apologies.
For the weapons I used the following:
GBU-16: 454 kg X 4 = 1816 kg
AIM-120: 152 kg X 4 = 608 kg
IRIS-T: 87.4kg X 2 = 174.8kg
If these are also incorrect, I am happy to correct them 🙂
The pylons: Good point, I did have a feeling I forgot something. Are they heavy?
L
LokeMy problem with the Gripens is three fold,
one, its too small for the job the MRCA will have to shoulder, even with the NG, I am a bit wary of the range vs payload specs
Also, the issue of US content – the US has this habit of armtwisting others who use their IP and the end user may pay the price if it doesnt play nice with the US at times
Finally, its similar to what the LCA is now becoming, why buy 2 a/c of the same type.
range vs payload is not an issue, look at the figures.
US contents: I don’t think this is an issue for India anymore.
Similarity to LCA: This is a question of perception. Look at what the a/c can do, not just at the outer dimensions 🙂 If it meets all requirements then what’s the problem?
L
LokeYou keep saying this, & failing to respond to the hole in the argument: there are two partner countries which are not in the JSF consortium, & have no plans to buy it for their air forces. Germany & Spain are going to keep EF going, regardless of what the UK & Italy do. I’ve already pointed out to you that because of their absolute (& funded) commitment, Tranche 3 is guaranteed. The worst case is a reduction in numbers. Typhoon has twice as many guaranteed sales as Rafale, in the worst case for Typhoon.
I minor comment: Although Spain is not a JSF partner it is generally assumed they will buy some F-35 to their carrier.
L
Loke1. Maximum theoretical external loads are rarely carried. They usually assume take-off at sea level, in benign conditions. “Small payloads” are what aircraft actually carry most of the time.
Agreed. For a quick-and-dirty comparison it does give you an indication though.
2. Range empty on internal fuel doesn’t tell you how far it’ll fly loaded to the brim. Any given load is likely to degrade the performance, including range, of a small aircraft more than a large aircraft.
True, however being small and light also has some advantages, since fuel consumption is much less. Range on internal is important since drop tanks are inefficient and add a lot of drag. So the difference may be smaller than one might think.
3.. Actual, demonstrated Typhoon performance exceeds many of the quoted figures. e.g. it’s widely stated to have a maximum T/O weight of 23000 kg, but has taken off at a weight of 24000 kg, with an external load of 3 x 1000 litre tanks, 4 x GBU-16 bombs, 4 x Amraam & 2 x Iris-T.
If I’ve done my math right the above weapons payload is 2600kg. 3000 litre Jet fuel should be approx 2400kg; I don’t know how much those drop tanks weigh, no more than 100kg each? Total weight 5321 kg.
Now here comes the point: The fuel consumption is much higher for Typhoon than for Gripen. Since you basically need to multiply external fuel by 2 (to compensate for drag) you would need significantly more fuel for the Typhoon compared to Gripen. Perhaps I am missing something here, but your example did not (yet) convince me 🙂 Gripen should be able to carry 2600 kg of weapons load quite some distance, and with signficiantly less external fuel than Typhoon; you enter a virtuos cycle instead of a vicous; less consumption means less drop tanks which means less drag and less total weight which again means less fuel needed…
Of course if Typhoon can carry much more than the 6500kg number I referred to then that may change the picture — actually something does not quite add up because you state the above example would give a total weight of 24000 kg as opposed to the “official” of 23,000 kg. This does not fit with the other pieces of information (max payload 6500 vs 5300 for you example) Did I miscalculate?
L
LokeMy two pesos on the contenders:
Gripen: It can be debated that the Gripen and Tejas are too close in capability and it would become redundant. And it’s small size and payload might hurt it.
I did some reading on this recently and became surprised when I discovered that Typhoon can take 6500 kg whereas Gripen NG will be able to take 6000kg. However NG has greater range on internal tanks; so for medium and long range missions Typhoon would need more external fuel than NG and the effective payload of NG will be the same or probably even bigger than with Typhoon. Those twin engines need a lot of fuel…
You could of course argue that both Typhoon and NG can take small payloads 🙂 For some reason people use the small payload argument only for NG, whereas it should apply equally to both IMHO.
IMHO, 6tons payload is sufficient for a Medium Multirole a/c.
Coming back on-topic; I think this sale would be very important to any of the eurocanards. The winner of the India tender could make a kind of “break-through” in export sales. The losers will face a tought future. If none of the eurocanards win this one I think they all 3 will keep struggling… I could be wrong of course. There are other sales out there, as already mentioned.
L
LokeIt’s not just about cost, but also capability. The Gripen is cheaper but also less powerful. No one of the customers is likely to train their pilots better with Gripen. The FH would be the same.
Many countries are struggling with their defence budgets, and operating cost is becoming a major issue. Several Air Forces have to reduce the number of training flight hours because of this. Operating costs for Gripen is said to be 50% less than F-16; some have qouted 2000-2500 Dollars pr. hour. One increasingly important factor is the cost of fuel; lightweight, single-engine Gripen has an advantage in this respect.
Having said that, the current Gripen C/D is in some ways less capable than the Typhoon of course. Gripen NG under development will significantly reduce the gap. The NG is now competing in Norway, Denmark, Holland, India, and Brazil. The increased range, increase payload, AESA, IRST, higher thrust, etc. makes it a tough competitor to the others, including the Typhoon. Combat radius (incl 30 min. on station) 1300 km with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. Five hour unrefuelled maritime reconnaissance, ferry range 4075 km.
It will be able to supercruise. How fast, well that remains to be seen. The current Gripen can supercruise at mach 1.1 with 4 amraams, one drop tank and 2 sidewinders “on a cold winter day”. NG will have the same fuselage as C/D and approx. 25% more thrust.
Norway has been offered 48 NG for 23 billion NOK (2.34 billion Pounds, 4.27 billion USD); this includes spare parts, manual, simulators, training, 20 years maintainance. Industrial offsets: More than 180%.
So, how does the Typhoon version offered to e.g. India and Brazil compare ?
L
LokeWho knows? If at the end of the year (scheduled decision time) Norway decides against the Gripen but all LM can offer is an indicative price available from an indicative time for delivery at an indicative time at an indicative specification, the politicians may tell the top brass that they don’t want an indicative air force and might then invite Eurofighter to get involved again.:D
I am curious: what capabilities would make Norway prefer Typhoon to Gripen? Granted the Typhoon is larger and can carry a larger payload. Gripen on the other hand has a very short turn-around time. Typhoon has the much-hyped supercruise (which NG also will have, maybe probably less super although we can’t tell until it’s been tested).
However will those advantages be enough to defend the higher costs? Presumably it will also be much more expensive to operate.
Do you see other advantages? To me it seems both will become very capable 4.5 gen platforms around 2015, with AESA radars, IRST, improved data link, electronic warfare systems, etc. etc.
If you consider that fighters never operate in a vacuum, that missile range and capabilities are also very important (and improving), and that tactics and training also play an important role, I am not sure if Typhoon will have much of a “real-world” advantage but I may be wrong… (and probably somebody will tell me why :))
L
LokeI don’t agree with your assessment of Typhoon in Norway. The Typhoon was certainly taken seriously by the RNorAF, and enjoyed some real support in some areas. Typhoon certainly competes with F-35 on price and offsets (if not with Gripen) and has some particular capability advantages – especially for Norway.
I do think, however, that the Gripen has certain advantages that could allow it to overturn what seems to have been the undeclared decision in favour of JSF that prompted EF’s withdrawal.
Jackonino,
Again thanks for an informative post. I am curious about your comment regarding Typhoon and RNaF; all the sources I have (not that many I admit) have all said that F-35 and not Typhoon was preferred. For instance the documentary that was referred to by KKM57P they did talk to the pilots and it was said the pilots were in unison in preferring the F-35. I don’t know any pilots myself however I’ve got 5-6 friends who knows pilots and they all told the same story; they all wanted the F-35. There are also some other sources. Do you have any sources for the Typhoon preference, or any further information? Do you know if it was the pilots themselves or was it other parts of the RNAF organization that showed interest in the Typhoon?
Re. advantages for Gripen; do you see others than those I mentioned ? (price, offsets and politics, in my opinion the latter two being most important)
Thanks,
L
LokeFunny how they can ‘make a decision’ when one has a price and the other doesn’t… perhaps the decision is already made and price doesn’t enter into it.
Perhaps Eurofighter GmbH were right to pull out.. I wonder what the key triggers were for the decision (its been mentioned that offsets were different/ommitted/favoured for the LM bid, but to what extent?)
cheers
Both LM and Saab have mentioned a price… Saab “guarantees” the price, LM also claim that their price is “fixed”. However there are some requirements that must be met for this “fixed” LM price to work out. The most important seems to be that all partners must buy the number of planes that they have indicated initially. If you sell more than 3000 planes it’s not that hard to offer a good price.
Eurofighter was probably right to pull out.
RnAF was never interested in the Typhoon: As stated before they see F-35 as the only possibility. As also stated elsewhere, Gripen may stand a chance due political support. After all the politicians not the RNAF will make the decision. Saab offers a 50 billion NOK offset package, LM is currently at “above 20 billion NOK”. Also some politicians are looking into building a Nordic defence alliance (to supplement not replace NATO), this may also strenghten the case for Gripen.
Best case, Typhoon would have finished second. They could not compete on price and offsets…and had no overwhelming advantages in terms of capabilities :diablo: And a Norwegian/German or Norwegian/British defence alliance on top of NATO would seem… strange. And probably not needed or wanted in London or Berlin.
L
Loke[i][Nor is India a shoo-in for Rafale, though the success of the Mirage 2000 helps counteract BAE’s long history with the IAF. But at the end of the day, politics may dictate a US solution, while cost/capability could favour Gripen or Typhoon. You might think that Dassault will offer Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon, though with a higher unit programme cost, they might find that difficult. You may think that India would be relaxed about being the first (and perhaps the only) export customer for the type. I think that Rafale faces an uphill battle in India.
Thanks for a very informative post. Regarding Rafale in India: As mentioned both in the iaf and the rafale thread, India has reached agreement with Snecma to produce a new engine for the Tejas, based on the ECO core.
Do you think this could influence the outcome of the MRCA deal?
L
LokePossibly. Lockheed Martin is supposed to be looking at a stripped-down version that will satisfy US legislation about supplying certain classified technology on the export market with a decision due by 2013. If anything, it might have limited changes or evolve into an export version that will be available to anyone who is not involved in the project.
Do you have more information on this? We toutched upon this subject here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=82797&page=7
I am still puzzled about how this will work — on the one hand, the F-22 cannot be exported to anybody, not even the closest allies of the US in spite of several requests. On the other hand I’ve heard many say that there will be few to none export restrictions on the F-35 at least for the partners.
It was also my understanding that in some areas the F-35 will actually surpass the F-22 in capabilities (some of which will be floated down to the F-22).
Now, given the above, how can some people conclude that the US authorities will not put restrictions on the technologies in F-35 as they did with the F-22? Presumably the “black boxes” in the F-35 should be the solution to let LM export the F-35 without any (or to many) limitations, but do we have any evidence that the US authorities will accept this solution? Also, can all the sensitive technologies be put into black boxes?
Moreover, there is no longer any serious doubt that not all F-35s will be equal in stealth. Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.”
Perhaps some of the distinguished experts on this forum could comment further on this ? 🙂
L
LokeIf they have not tested the 35, then how can they say they want it?
Sometimes people takes the opinion from one pilot and put it as the general opinion of the whole air force, tipical overhypping, that is an usual thing when ppl are talking about the stealthy thingys
Lets be objetive, and wait until the pilots test both grippenNG (or grippen), and the 35, lets dont rush in such unbased conclussions
First, it’s Gripen not Grippen. Second, I doubt that Norwegian pilots will have the opportunity to fly neither Gripen NG nor F-35 prior to the decision end of this year. Both planes are being developed and exist only as test versions.
This is not just “one pilot”; A documentary in Norwegian Television early this year interviewed several air pilots, they all said they prefered F-35 (not just because of “stealth”, but because it’s US and it’s 5. gen). I have had this confirmed from many independent sources. Even the political leadership of the Norwegian DoD have expressed their are woried that the RNAF has made up their mind without even considering the alternatives. I have also read interviews and opinions/letters in Norwegian newspapers written by high ranking officers in RNAF. They are clearly biased. Not a big surprise since they have been “married” to the US companies and USAF for more than 50 years.
However Gripen still has a chance since the politicians and not the RNAF will decide.. and the politicians are very much aware of the bias in the RNAF.
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=128150
Barth Eide var i gĂĄr ogsĂĄ opptatt av ĂĄ stoppe dem som hevder at det allerede er avgjort hvem som skal levere kampfly til Norge. Og kom med et stikk til Luftforsvaret, der JSF er det foretrukne alternativet.
– Hvis man som pilot har fĂĄtt hele sin utdanning
og bygget opp nettverk i USA er det lett å si at vi bør kjøpe amerikansk. Men vi snakker her om å kjøpe fly som skal holde i 40 år. Da kan vi ikke begynne i fortiden. Det er viktig å røske opp i tilvente forestillinger, sier Espen Barth Eide til VG.
Barth Eide also wanted to stop those who claim that it is already decided who will deliver fighters to Norway. And came with a “pinch” to the Air Force, where JSF is the prefered alternative.
– If a pilot has had his whole education and built a network in the US it’s easy to say that we should buy american. But were are talking about buying planes for the next 40 years. We cannot start in the past. It is important to shrug off old attitudes says Espen Barth Eide to VG
(I apologize for the poor translation, but I think you should get the gist of it.)
Barth Eide is “Statssekretær”, I don’t know what this translates to in English but he is second to the Defence Minister (political position), and very much involved in the process. He has flown both Typhoon and Gripen (he even landed Gripen himself…!)
L
Loke“pilots want the F-35”
Hmm..pilots from Norway have flown the 35?
Probably not. I think pilots from Norway have tried the simulator.
What’s your point?
L
LokeWell, Norway has not left the JSF Program! As a matter of fact the Norwegian Air Force has express its desire over and over again for the F-35 against all competitors…………….Remember, the first thing you must consider about the media. “Its not what they tell you……….but what they don’t!”
???
I am fully aware that the RNAF prefers the F-35 to all other fighter jets. This is well known. So why are we running a competition you may ask? It’s because our centre-left government decided that they wanted a competition.
Only one party in the government coalition (SV, “Socialist Left Party”) has openly declared that they favor one fighter; as expected they prefer Gripen. The other two parties in the coalition have not made any statements, they are a bit more sensible and awaits the outcome of the evaluation committee due end of this year. This evaluation commitee will of course recommend F-35.
However at the end of the day the politicians will decide! And honestly I do not know what they will decide. I do know they are working hard on a “Nordic Defence Cooperation” idea; The daddy of Norways prime minister (no less!) is writing a report that by pure coincidence will be ready when the Fighter evaluation report will be ready, i.e. by the end of this year.
Interestingly, Nordic Defence Cooperation is also mentioned in the MOU betweeen Norway and Sweden on Gripen :diablo: (Few people read those MOUs, but I guess I’m a bit of a pervert in this respect :D)
What speaks against Gripen is equally obvious: The RNAF wants F-35 and they do not want Gripen. Deciding against the expressed will of a whole air force cannot be easy. And then there is the U.S.A., they tend to get upset when others are threatening their weapons sales and sphere of influence…
L
LokeThanks Loke – the second page is the one I was refering to – you are correct about it not being Tom – I hadn’t read it for a long time. But according to that Q&A its getting full stealth. Any updates saying it won’t get full stealth?
Well, I noticed that the Q&A session that claimed Norway would get full stealth was from 2006, whereas the last one (from 2008) made no such claims although Tom Burbage did have the opportunity to repeat the statement…
I think we should put more emphasis on what has been said during the last 12 months. Unless we can find a statement from Tom Burbage then I remain sceptical that we are guaranteed full stealth… but I may be wrong.
L
Sign In
