LokeIt had better be given that that Gripen couldn’t likely fly much past the airfield fence in that loadout.
LOL.
I think Gripen will do much better than that for the following reasons:
1. The new RBS-15 will be much lighter (and presumably also smaller) than the current RBS-15.
2. Gripen E has grown quite a lot since Gripen C; if you look at my previous post, it is now (compared to F-16 block 50) roughly the same length, empty weight is approx. 600 kg less but still carries 200kg more internal fuel than the F-16 block 50.
Of course Gripen E will still remain a small fighter so range will probably drop considerably when carrying so many missiles, but at least it will have a significantly better “starting point” than the current Gripen.
LokeActually they started with three options: CFTs, relocate landing gear, and make the Gripen longer. They chose to go with a combination of the latter two. Gripen E is 15.2m long and has a width of 8.6m compared to 14.1m and 8.4m for Gripen C (Gripen D is a 14.8m long).
Of course I do not know if all this extra space is used for fuel, perhaps some of it is used for other purposes… perhaps it also partly explains the increase in empty weight?
Edit: This is a nice summary: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
Internal fuel capacity increases by 50%…
To compare the Gripen E to F-16 block 50:
Gripen E: Length 15.2m, Width 8.6m, Wing Area: 31 m2, empty weight 8,000kg, max internal fuel 3,400kg, MTOW 16,500kg*
F-16 bl50: Length 15.06m, Width 9.96m, Wing Area 27.9m2, empty weight 8,570kg, max internal fuel 3,200kg, MTOW 19,200kg
Gripen is has grown to be roughly in the same class as the F-16 block 50. The main concern I would have for the Gripen E is if the engine is powerful enough.
(of course F-16 block 60/70 has also grown compared to block 50….)
*(recent sources claim 17,000kg)
LokeSame news but in English:
Saab lists the 4.35m (14.3ft)-long, sea-skimming RBS15F ER as weighing around 600kg (1,320lb), including a 200kg warhead. It cites an operational range of more than 108nm (200km).
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-e-to-gain-enhanced-anti-ship-missile-435772/
Not a word about reduced RCS…
Anyway, my guess is that the JSM will probably be fitted to Gripen if Finland (against all odds) purchase the Gripen E.
LokeThe question is if they should revisit CFTs as part of a “Silent Gripen” where drop tanks are replaced by low-RCS CFTs and the munitions are positioned in a low-RCS pod. However there is a risk that the Gripen is too small for this to be efficient. I can see Rafale move in this direction.
LokeWe only have rumors, no hard facts regarding the Rafale’s performances during those exercices. Keep in mind too that Slovakian S-300s used in those exercices are early 90s models (S-300PMU). I dont think they are truly representative of current or upcoming “double-digits” SAM systems.
True; otoh Rafale F4 will be quite different from the Rafale at that time; and also very important the missiles and targeting pods will also be very different from that time.
Lokefrom what i understand it was a choice between CFT vs redesigning land gear to boost range,
the latter was decided on, when it became clear how much it could accomplish
Actually they started with three options: CFTs, relocate landing gear, and make the Gripen longer. They chose to go with a combination of the latter two. Gripen E is 15.2m long and has a width of 8.6m compared to 14.1m and 8.4m for Gripen C (Gripen D is a 14.8m long).
Of course I do not know if all this extra space is used for fuel, perhaps some of it is used for other purposes… perhaps it also partly explains the increase in empty weight?
Edit: This is a nice summary: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
Internal fuel capacity increases by 50%…
LokeMost capable is a judgement not substantiated. Most cost effective imho is certainly not true. More growth potential? It is already struggling to gain weight… And EOTS showed internal thingies do not evolve as fast as … eg. designation pods.
Well the reports so far seem to indicate that it is hugely more capable than the F-16 and F-15 it has met so far; and even more importantly that it is much more survivable around SAMs, including double-digit SAMs.
I am pretty sure the Rafale is “the best” 4.5 a/c out there; it has some weak and strong points but overall it is amazing and very strong in all areas. However at the end of the day it does not have the stealth of the F-35, and the F-35 sensors are also probably a notch above the Rafales. Sensor fusion is great in Rafale; however it seems it is even better in the F-35.
As for cost effective — it depends how you look at it. What is important for Belgium is how much they have to pay to purchase and operate, not the total R&D budget. Since so many countries will buy and operate the F-35, and since the R&D is mainly covered by the US (with some assistance from partner countries) those costs are irrelevant for Belgium. What is more important is that the costs for future upgrades will be shared between a large number of customers.
LokePARIS – Malaysia, which wants to buy up to 18 combat planes in a deal potentially worth more than $2 billion, is now talking to only one supplier, France’s Dassault Aviation, about its Rafale jets, the French government spokesman said on Thursday.
“Negotiations have started. I believe there are now only negotiations with Dassault about the Rafale,” Stephane Le Foll told reporters in a briefing after a cabinet meeting.
Pressed by Reuters on whether Dassault was the only manufacturer left in the running, Le Foll said: “There is now only a bilateral negotiation. There is no other operator.”
Very odd — just days after claiming that no decision has been made and that even the SH and Gripen are in the running…
LokeAs far as i am concerned, i sure as hell hope we dont go for the Rafale. I think it would be a catastrophe for our air force. We would pay more for a less capable aircraft and with less growth potential. Not to mention that the Rafale is a 30+ year-old design. We plan to fly our new fighters until 2058 and i have a hard believing that the Rafale will still be relevant in the 2030s, 40s and 50s…
Well if I had to chose an a/c that was not the F-35 I would have picked the Rafale — IMHO the worst choice on the list would be the Typhoon — less capable than the Rafale and more expensive…
I think you underestimate the growth potential for Rafale — having said that, 2058 is far away, and to be honest the Americans themselves seem not to believe that the F-35 will be able to handle high-intensity threats in that time frame. It is impossible to predict of course but most likely by well before 2050 will it become increasingly dangerous to use also the F-35 in the worst threat environments.
At the same time, in slightly more permissive environments the US will operate 4.5 gen a/c for many decades to come:
“The Navy is buying additional airplanes,” he said in an interview earlier this month. “We saw in the supplemental budget they were getting up toward 24 in fiscal year 2017.”
But, he notes, Boeing is still working on current modification programs to extend the service lives of the existing 568 aircraft to 9,000 hours from 6,000. Indeed, he says, the plan is to build in a 9,0000-hour- service life to the production line aircraft starting in 2020.
So from that perspective you could easily purchase the SH (or any of the other 4.5 gen fighters) and operate that in tandem with F-35 from other countries, and/or in permissible environments. It will still be a valuable addition to the NATO force. Of course having F-35 will make more sense since it will become the dominant NATO a/c in the future, and is also by far the most capable. At the same time no doubt France will fly Rafale for several decades to come; USN (and Canada?) will fly their 9000-hour SH for decades to come; and the Eurofighter partners will also fly their Typhoons for decades to come.
It will be interesting to see what NATO countries like Hungary and Czechia will do when their Gripen C/Ds become old. Will they be able to afford the F-35? Or will they switch to Gripen E/F, which by that time will be a quite mature 4.5 gen fighter, and probably one of the few (the only one?) still in production….
Loke“Saab will have a supply plant for the Gripen program in São Bernardo. The details are being finalized and will be announced in due course, “the fighter plane maker said after questioning the Diary . The name of the company, which was SBTA (São Bernardo Aeronáuticas Technologies), changed to SAM (Saab Aeronáutica Montagens).
The vice president assured that SAM will begin producing the structural parts in São Bernardo in 2019, when the first aircraft is to be delivered. And it has good prospects, as deadlines are on schedule – despite the almost one-year delay in completing the Saab-FAB agreement, the advance of the economic crisis and the drop in interest rates in Europe, as well as the changes The municipal and federal governments.
Germundsson revealed that he has received 43 localization proposals in the region’s municipality, of which 10 have already been visited and five are being analyzed for the hammer to be struck, which is expected to occur in the next two months after the FAB also approves the site. The estimated investment is $ 150 million.
The executive also said that two potential candidates for the position of general manager of SAM will be interviewed today. He estimated that 200 to 250 direct jobs will be generated between three and five years. This is not to mention the indirect costs, which come from 25-30 suppliers, which may include industrialists from the region. According to the vice-president, it makes no sense to import raw material from Europe and Sweden while the national supply chain can be developed.
“Regarding the technology transfer program, 150 Brazilian engineers are in training in Linköping, Sweden. Another 34 have returned and by 2024 there will be more than 350 qualified. The technology transfer program will be delivered over about ten years and includes classroom teaching, student funding programs and hands-on training during work in Sweden, “Saab said.At the end of the program, according to the company, the aim is for local industry and the FAB to master all the critical knowledge needed for the future development of fighters. Saab wants to make Brazil an export platform for Latin American countries.
Google translated from: http://www.aereo.jor.br/2017/03/22/saab-confirma-fabrica-de-aeroestruturas-em-sao-bernardo/
Something for India to take notice of…?
LokeSaab is actively reaching out to the Belgian aeronautic industry as part of its interest in the Air Combat Capability Successor Program.
During a recent two-day seminar and a series of one-on-one meetings, Saab’s team of experts in Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) met with Belgian industry representatives to further explore industrial cooperation and to map out existing regional capabilities. This seminar was a follow-up to the Gripen Lifecycle Business Seminar which already took place in December.
http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1638
At least they are trying… hoping for a miracle!?
LokeAs far as understand, Sweden does not need to be involved.
The customer should be able to integrate the weapon themselves using an App.
I might be wrong of course, but this type of flexibility was one of the drivers behind the S/W architecture.
I am not an expert on this but I had the clear impression that integration of nukes normally is much more involved than other, more conventional types of weapons.
Furthermore as already stated it does not really matter since, even if it were possible to for Belgium to do this they will still not buy the Gripen; again, review the scenarios and start thinking about how 4 (and only 4) Gripens can successfully complete them. Think about what you need it terms of targeting pods, a2a missiles, a2g munitions, stand-off weapons for some of the scenarios, and then of course drop tanks. You will need something bigger and with longer endurance, something like an F-15 or a Rafale. Or, if you want the easy way out, just get some F-35.
LokeIt seems some of the local media do believe Rafale will get the contract at least if the same PM continue after the snap elections.
On verra.
LokeAFAIK Sweden cannot support integration of nukes on Gripen. In any case this discussion is irrelevant.
Did you not see the mission scenarios in the RFP?
Do you really think that 4 Gripen NG without additional support will manage those missions? I am sorry but although the Gripen is a very impressive little bird, this is too much.
As stated previously I don’t think the SH and Typhoon will be very successful either — and they are significantly larger than the Gripen.
Gripen is expected to have state-of-the-art EWS, however it is IMHO too small to manage such missions single-handed.
F-35 will be the next Belgian fighter jets; that’s for sure. Rafale may be able to handle most (or even all?) of the missions however it will be more expensive than F-35 and it will be less capable. Add in the added value of operating the same a/c as most of NATO (and the Netherlands in particular) and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gripen NG is not for countries that consider the F-35 — it is for countries that do not consider the F-35 and want something Western but cost-effective. E.g. Switzerland (and I guess also Austria, when they need to replace their Typhoons 15 years from now).
LokeBlast from the past: Gripen E/Fs “secret weapon” is the brand new EW suite, based on GaN AESA:
https://twitter.com/gripennews/status/558564889669943296
GaN offers higher output power, and wideband jamming.
From the picture it seems there are seven(?) units — why so many? Will there be enough distance between them to do anything useful? Or is it useful only when used as sensors and not when jamming? Or do you need that many units to do the “active stealth” trick?
How many units does Rafale and Typhoon have for their EW suites?
Sign In
