LokeI guess thats why some planes regularly hit 10.5/11 g in air shows…
Regularly!?
Also it depends on the pilot; if a pilot has a “bad day” he may put himself at risk if he goes to too high g’s. I read something about that recently, can’t remember where?
The suit is of course also important to be able to handle such high g’s. Which suit are used by Rafale pilots? Is it as good as the one used by Typhoon pilots (which I think is state of the art).
LokeThey don’t.
Numbers please (with source if possible) 🙂
Loke“We still today have a distinct advantage with our fifth-generation airplanes versus the capabilities that our adversaries are developing,” said Rob Weiss, executive vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs — better known as the Skunk Works.
“We’ve done this analysis for more than a decade now and it’s clear that the fifth-[generation F-22s and F-35s] are very capable versus a threat and substantially more capable than any fourth-generation airplane,” he told a small group of reporters Tuesday.
Read more:
LokeIt doesn’t need the CFT’s for that, the Rafale already is the Western fighter that come closest to the Strike Eagle in terms of range and carrying capacity.
I am not so sure — F-16 block 52+ and/or bl. 60 with CFT may actually beat a Rafale without CFT, at least in some cases (sure the Rafale can carry more than the F-16 however it will need to carry more drop tanks due to lack of CFT)
LokeNot as different from Gripen C/D as the Super Hornet is from F-18A-D. Look up the dimensions. And it’s come about by a very different process. The Super Hornet was a new aircraft from the start, disguised as an upgrade. Gripen E began as an upgrade, with a prototype modified from a JAS39D, & the scope of the changes increased, IIRC in response to customer requests.
Percent change in Hornet -> SH:
Length: 7%
wingspan: 11%
MTOW: 27%
Percent change Gripen C -> Gripen E:
Length: 8%
wingspan: 2%
MTOW: 18%
Note that there has also been a Gripen A; same dimensions as Gripen C but %change in MTOW going from A to E is 27%.
For both Hornet -> SH and Gripen C -> E there is:
* New engine
* New avionics suite
* More hardpoints
I guess one difference is that the SH is more “stealthy” than the Hornet — I don’t know if the Gripen E is much more stealthy than Gripen C? Probably not but since things will hang underneath it is also a question of diminishing returns (the C already has a quite low RCS)…
LokeRange and carrying capacity… just as I said in the Canada thread, a larger aircraft has an inherently greater capacity to carry large loads long distances. There is no Western fighter that can come close to an F-15E when it comes to delivering large bombs a long way.
I agree — what is funny is that if they make CFT to Rafale it would probably be the Western fighter that would come closest to F-15 in terms of range and carrying capacity.
LokeThe ultimate top line is still being negotiated between the US and Israel. Sources in Israel have said that if the final figure comes in around $40 billion, Israel will have to limit fighter procurement to additional squadrons of F-35s. If that number is closer to $50 billion, Israel will be able to accommodate new F-15I buys. Israel would like to buy two additional squadrons of F-15I fighters.
Interesting that they are thinking about more F-15I — probably the F-35 range with full external loadout is not that great? And of course the F-15 can carry more than the F-35 (10,400 kg vs 8100kg). Interestingly the tiny Rafale can carry up to 9.500 kg, just between what the F-15 and F-35 can carry.
Loke… and these efforts are not just limited to RCS and IR. The F-35 incorporates a new generation of datalinks, a LPI radar, etc, to avoid/limit radio emissions as well. Being the stealthiest thing in the sky is always nice, but it is even nicer when you don’t have to fly blind because you can’t use your radar or datalink.
Gripen is also said to have directional data link (but of course it lacks the low RCS and low IR signature of the F-35).
“LPI radar”; AFAIK any modern AESA radar can (or will be) LPI, that’s more a question of software controlling the radar.
LokeDefence and security company Saab is pleased to invite media, financial analysts and investors to the annual Gripen seminar in Stockholm, Sweden, on 17 March 2016. Join the seminar for an update on the current status of the Gripen programme.
Webinar
The seminar will be live-streamed on http://saab-seminar.creo.se/160317. It will also be possible to post questions over the web. For online participation, registration is not necessary.
Link with registration and more info: http://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/news/2016-03/welcome-to-saabs-annual-gripen-seminar/
LokeSorry for going OT but is Canada really considering replacing the Aurora MPA? I thought they just did an upgrade to allow them to fly until 2030?
http://o.canada.com/news/national/replacement-for-aurora-surveillance-aircraft-deemed-unaffordable
LokeSaab has been pretty consistent with both Brazil and India that they offer full control over software. (That’s not even too hard to find in a search).
I’ve never argued that the Gripen was the best choice for Canada. I’ve stated repeatedly that all 5 planes have drawbacks and that all 5 planes are fully capable of sovereign air defence. I like Gripen a lot more as part of a mixed fleet….same for an F35 or even the F18. I like the typhoon (the plane, not the nightmare vendor consortium) and the rafale (candianized) a whole lot more if we have to buy a single type. There is no obvious solution yet. Right now I’m leaning EF.
I also like the Eurocanards, in particular the Gripen and Rafale — however realistically the F-35 is much more capable, and has the advantage (for Canada) of being American. Whether Canada needs the extra capabilities of the F-35 or not, really depends on the Canadian Air Force. My guess is they will strongly prefer the F-35 and therefore write requirements to ensure that it wins. In the end it will come down to cost and politics; look at Switzerland. Rafale clearly won the technical eval and was preferred by the Swiss Air Force, but Gripen NG was found to be sufficient, and was preferred in the end, since it would fit into the budget.
Previous competitions (e.g. Switzerland and Brazil) have shown that Gripen is significantly cheaper than Rafale, Typhoon and the SH (at least in those competitions). For future competitions it will have the advantage that it already has 96 a/c in the order book; and just like the F-35 costs are sinking as the production is increasing, so will the cost of the Gripen most likely be lower for the third country to pick it, than the 1st and 2nd, in particular if they decide to not go for an assembly line which has increased the cost for Brazil.
However this discussion may not be relevant if Canada can afford a sufficient number of F-35. Only if they cannot do that, will they look at other options (similar to what happened to Rafale in Switzerland). Since the cost differential is probably going to be smaller than in Switzerland, and since the capability differential is probably going to be bigger, the likelihood of Canada picking F-35 over Gripen or SH is higher than the likelihood of Switzerland picking Rafale over Gripen; and if you add to that the political dimension, it seems a very high likelihood that F-35 will be chosen.
To be honest I don’t know why Dassault and Eurofighter bother participating.
As for Saab; did they return to this competition or are they still out? Keep in mind they did drop out of it during the previous round.
LokeAs someone pointed out earlier, there is a $3+ billion difference between the highest price GOI rep says GOI are prepared to pay and the lowest price Dassault is prepared to accept. That is a deal-blocking difference. I think both parties are wasting their time in continuing to talk about India buying 36 Rafale from Dassault.
This is what has been reported. We don’t know what is really happening behind closed doors — we just have to wait and see.
LokeIm not sure about the Thales SatCom. The problem we have up North is that geo synch satellites are potentially over the horizon. Beyond having SatCom you need to ensure you can see them. They may need to add something that orbits aroind the poles (two or three of them).
So this is more of an issue with the satellites than with the satcom onboard the plane? How is the F-35 going to resolve this?
Loke@ hopsalot, again Gripen D is carrying a lot less fuel compared to Gripen C, and Gripen E carries a lot more than Gripen C. “Bingo”, this swiss test flight has zero relevance to Canadian range requirements and Gripen E.
This is true, however one should also keep in mind that Gripen E is still a lightweight fighter — it will have a long range mainly for light configs, like a2a. Once you start hanging a lot of stuff under the wings the drag will increase rapidly and range and endurance is dropping faster than for a bigger a/c, and also faster than for F-35.
So it really depends on the requirements. If Canada needs the range mainly for air policing perhaps the Gripen E range is enough? How many air bases are they planning to operate moving forward?
LokeSaab test pilots of the Gripen visited Colombia and conducted a seminar for pilots of the Colombian Air Force . The activity is part of the approaches that has had the Swedish company with the FAC. We talk first hand with Hans Einerth and Marcus Wandt, pilots who visited the country and thoroughly knowledgeable of the aircraft.
Google translated from: http://www.aviacol.net/n/pilotos-saab-gripen-colombia.html
Sign In
