LokeAnd where is Pepe?
We need Pepe here as well!
I seem to recall he claimed that Rafale was the recommended a/c in the Brazil eval?
LokeOfficial Brazilian Air Force (FAB) Gripen NG website: http://www.gripenng.fab.mil.br/index.php (Portuguese only)
Data about Gripen NG according to FAB Gripen NG website: http://www.gripenng.fab.mil.br/index.php/2013-12-17-17-05-32Peso máximo na decolagem: 16,5 toneladas (MTOW)
Carga útil: 7,2 toneladas (Payload)
Combustível máximo: 7 toneladas (Max. fuel)No info about empty weight.
I did not understand your first link but the second one seem to be out-dated, I would think the Saab web site is up-to-date:
Length over all 15.2 m
Wingspan (including launchers) 8.6 m
Height overall 4.5 m
Maximum take-off weight 16.5 tonnes
Maximum speed M2.0 and supersonic at all altitudes
Thrust > 22000 lbs
Payload 7.2 tonnes
Max fuel 7 tonnes
Super Cruise > M 1.2
Manoeuvrability 9 g
Max Range > 4000 km
Landing distance < 500 m
Engine replacement < 1 hour
Turnaround time < 10 min
Cost per flight hour < $ 4000
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-for-Brazil/The-Fighter-Gripen-NG/
LokeSo SAAB stuck two more heavy duty pylons on the “E”, ten pylon´s versus eight in the “C”, and, according to that Swiss doc, the newer aircraft has less payload than the old one! So, it has more thrust, a new wing, more pylon´s and… less external payload… hmmmmmmmm, right…
May i sugest that doc, maybe, but just maybe, isnt quite right? Just saying. By now i would stick with SAAB numbers and doc´s.
Sintra,
Actually he stumbled across an “issue” with the Gripen E that has been discussed before, but his does not understand what the issue is! (I am surprised it seems you also have forgotten about it).
When it comes to max payload under the wings, the issue is not with “increase in empty weight”; the issue is with MTOW.
Saab has repeatedly say that Gripen NG/E can carry 7100 (or was it 7200?) kg under the wings. HOWEVER there is also the issue of MTOW, and a huge increase in internal fuel.
Problem is simply that MTOW is 16,500. If you add together the empty weight, the weight of the pilot, the weight of the internal fuel etc, it will probably leave you with around 5,200 kg under the pylons until you reach 16,500 kg.
Actually if you look at the Sweetman story I linked to above, it says internal fuel is “greater than 7,400 lbs” (ie greater than 3360 kg), an increase of 1100 kg, much larger than the increas in empty weight.
I suggested a potential solution around this; for those rare one-in-an-thousand mission you want to carry, say, 7000kg under the wings, take off with 1500 kg fuel internally; once in the air, use a tanker to tank up.
Another and perhaps better solution would be to use more a/c; thus if you need to carry 10,000 kg, use 2 Gripen E 😉
If you often have the need for such missions, then perhaps you should go for Rafale or F-15 instead of Gripen…
LokeGripen NG (39-8, etc) has heavier motor, new airframe to have more fuel capacity and different position of landing gear, heavier (AESA) radar, etc.
By the way, I am a Brazilian citizen. And Saab was selected as winner of FX-2 in 18/12/2013. That is the reason I want to know every true facts (costs, performance, etc) of Gripen NG, because it will be Brazilian money spent (US$ 4.5 billion + maintenance + weapons), our air defence will depend on this air fighter, etc. It is the right of every Brazilian citizen to follow the Gripen NG-Br development, its costs, if and how it will fulfill the requirements of Brazilian Air Force, etc.
Since, of all the thousands of performance parameters describing the fighters you have chosen to focus on max payload as the parameter that is of most interest to you; I am curious; is this because you know that this parameter is also the most important one for the Brazilian air force? Do you have further information on that?
Since you are so focused on weight, you may find this statement interesting:
However, the redesign has reduced the airframe’s proportion of the empty weight, boosting useful load.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability
So it seems the weight of the airframe has gone down; a pity we don’t know by how much though. What we do know however is the weight of the new airframe; 3 tons. That does not sound too shabby IMHO.
Edit: I just realized that the story linked to above contained also information on empty weight — it says Gripen C empty weight is 13,000 lbs and Gripen E empty weight is “less than 14,000” (which translates into “less than 6,350 kg” if I did the conversion correctly). However as already stated the term “empty weight” is AFAIK not precisely defined. However, using the definitions in that article the weight growth is less than 450 kg.
Whatever definition of “empty weight” used above it definitely includes much more than the airframe which is as already stated, 3t.
LokeCHF 4 billion (for aquisition of 22 Eurofighter or Rafale) is 29% more expensive than CHF 3.1 billion for 22 Gripen E. So 22 Gripen would cost 77.5% of the cost of 22 Eurofighter/Rafale, which is 22.5% less, not 33% less.
About terminology of “cheaper” x “a lot cheaper”, well, you can chose at will. But the numbers are clear.
These aquisition cost differences should take in account the capabilities of the 3 air fighters. Eurofighter with 7.5 tonnes of external load capacity has approx. 50% more than the 5 tonnes of Gripen E. While Rafale with 9.5 tonnes has 90% more external load capacity.
The Swiss DDP has cited 180 hours per year is standard, as yourself found.
I agree that Gripen E can be cheaper (around 1/4-1/3), but it has less capacity (Range x Bomb load, etc). If this is ok for Switzerland, that is fine for me.
Fiat Punto here in Brazil is expensive, starting with R$ 45k (US$ 20k) but going up to R$ 60k.
Good luck to get a Jaguar F.
But this huge sea area, incluindo Madeira e Açores which have airports, is responsibility of Portugal. There are/were many deploiments of F-16 to Madeira and Açores airports.
Ueli Meurer said so, Swiss Air Force lacks Hornet pilots and other personnel to have 24/7 QRA. It seems very strange to me either, but it was said many times this year.
Brazilian Air Force officially confirmed in Parlament (Senado Federal) this 5.2 ton. external load capacity of Gripen NG, see previous post from 05/03/2014.
Gripen NG (39-8, etc) has heavier motor, new airframe to have more fuel capacity and different position of landing gear, heavier (AESA) radar, etc.
By the way, I am a Brazilian citizen. And Saab was selected as winner of FX-2 in 18/12/2013. That is the reason I want to know every true facts (costs, performance, etc) of Gripen NG, because it will be Brazilian money spent (US$ 4.5 billion + maintenance + weapons), our air defence will depend on this air fighter, etc. It is the right of every Brazilian citizen to follow the Gripen NG-Br development, its costs, if and how it will fulfill the requirements of Brazilian Air Force, etc.
Weight of RM12: 1036 kg
Weight of 1109 kg
Increase: 73 kg
Weight of PS05: 150 kg
Weight of Raven: 215 kg
Increase: 65 kg
For someone looking for “true facts”, it seems you are struggling to find the “truth”…
Also, when it comes to payload: of course a bigger twin-engine a/c can carry a bigger payload than a lightweight fighter. However you are very confused if you think that “more payload” automatically means “better a/c”. Such a comparison is useless!
If you are really interested in this I suggest you do some research and try to understand this a bit better. In particular, try to understand that what should be one of the main drivers for a selection should be the requirements and not a fanboy’s fantasy. It may help you in the long term..
I wonder what kind of car you are driving; probably a lorry, due to the large payload it can carry…?
LokeYes, official source, Swiss government evaluation of Gripen E :
DDPS site about Gripen E
PDF Caractéristiques techniques Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter from 18/11/2013
which says :
– empy mass = 7‘800 kg;
– weapons = 5‘000 kg maximum.
Did you not also look at e.g. the Rafale? In the same document you link to it says Rafale has an empty weight of 10,220 kg; however if you look around you will find many sources claim other numbers, and several say 9,500 kg empty weight. The same holds for the Typhoon numbers; there are many “empty weight” numbers for the Typhoon out there that are quite different from what your link reports. Have also Rafale and Typhoon gained empty weight? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not; “empty weight” is actually not a fixed definition that is universal.
Perhaps the Gripen E will be more heavy than previously reported by Saab however there might also be other explanations to this difference in numbers.
LokeBetween 2012 and 2013 , Colonel Fabio Antognini , project manager for the renewal of the fleet to the Air Force flew several times controversial fighter . In all forty hours of flight . For him , no possible doubt : if the Gripen is not the best aircraft in the world , it is certainly one that Switzerland needs to ensure its missions aviation safety. Interview.
– GHI : Colonel Fabio Antognini , if you were going into battle , you choose the Gripen ?
– Fabio Antognini : As a soldier , I use the material provided by the army. This is not the pilot to make that choice . But the Gripen is an efficient and modern aircraft .
– However, it was rated as the least efficient appliances competition by a committee of the National Council ?
– The three models evaluated in 2008 (note: the Swedish Gripen , the French Rafale and the Eurofighter a European consortium ) fulfilled all the conditions of the specifications of the Swiss Air Force . Switzerland does not need the best fighter but efficient aircraft that allows the military to fulfill its political mandate . Gripen is the aircraft with the best quality / price ratio.
– What are the main advantages of the Gripen in flight ?
– Gripen belongs to a generation of aircraft that revolutionized the steering hunters. The aircraft maneuver very direct and fluid engagement manner. If I compare it to the F / A 18 using a metaphor, I would say it is a bit like skiing with carvings instead of the older models of skis. It makes a huge difference.
– Swiss pilots are trained to take orders quickly ?
– Of course drivers must undergo specific training. But for an experienced F / A 18 , as a young driver who has completed training on PC-21 pilot , this is not a problem .
– We were told the Gripen behind technologically. Where is it located exactly ?
– Arming the Gripen corresponds to that used by other European hunters. System-level defense electronics and embedded radar , it is at the forefront of technology. It’s the same communication system that is among the best . The advantage is that we will benefit from the latest models developed by the Swedish carmaker Saab with the latest technology and that for an absolutely competitive price.
– Presented as versatile, this device is really capable of carrying both air defense missions and hunter?
– Yes. Thanks to its modularity , it can handle multiple tasks at once. In other words , control and defend the airspace at the WEF in Davos for example. But also perform aerial reconnaissance in case of natural disaster. It can also support ground troops . That can not be our current F- 54 fighter 5.
– To ensure these missions aviation safety , Austria fewer than twenty aircraft. So why must you buy 22 Gripen ?
– You must have a vision of the army long-term agreement with the mission that the federal parliament gave him. Our Tiger F-5 will be decommissioned in 2016. ‘s F / A 18 will be in 2030. If we do not buy the Gripen , we will overuse the F / A 18 and we already meet again in 2025 without operational aircraft .
– With what consequences?
– Without credible air force , the army is no longer able to ensure its primary mission : to ensure security on the ground and in the air . I fly for almost 30 years and I am convinced that the purchase of Gripen is a good choice for Switzerland.
Google translated from: http://ghi.ch/le-journal/la-une/jai-pilote-le-gripen
LokeGripen E far cheaper than Rafale and Eurofighter ? They were approx. 1/3 (CHF 4 billion x CHF 3,1 billion) more expensive :
About operational costs, see previous post in this topic, where the Swiss government says that each Gripen E is expected to cost CHF 4.64 mi (US$ 5.28 mi)/year in total, divided by 180h/year it gives US$29,3 thousand/hour. While Rafale total operational cost is approx. US$ 36 thousand/hour in France.
So I don’t see how Gripen E is “far cheaper”. It is expected to be cheaper, but not far cheaper at all.
About 1/3 more in aquisition costs and operational costs.
You forget to say that Portugal has a large sea area (Madeira islands, etc). And Switzerland has 32 F/A-18 C/D lacking pilots to be fully exploited in QRA, not lacking combat air planes.
You know very well that Gripen Demo is a Gripen B converted to Gripen D converted to Gripen NG Demo. And the Gripen NG Demo 39-7 since 2008 has weight and airframe diferent from the final 3 Gripen E prototypes 39-8, 39-9, 39-10, which will have about 7.8 tonnes of empty mass, greater than 10% more than than the expected value until 2009, 7.1 tonnes (so the maximum external load decreased from 6 ton 5 tonnes). Also the dimensions will be greater than previously expected :
A billion CHF is a lot of money in particular if you don’t have them. I am surprised by your claim that “it is not significant”.
Operating costs; there are notoriously difficult to analyse and compare. You cannot just compare one number from Switzerland with another number from France. Your “analysis” of this is therefore invalid.
It is well known that the Demo plane is not identical to the Gripen E; this has been known for a long time, also by the Swiss. The article you qoute is not very clear on this point since it refers to the NG Demo plane as “Gripen NG”. Thus your claim that “the dimensions will be greater than previously expected” is not correct. Once the specifications for the Gripen E was worked out, the Gripen E was “expected” to be exactly what it is; The Gripen NG Demo is something else. Or are you refering to your own “expectations” when you say “expected”?
Do you have a source for the claim that Gripen E empty weight has grown to 7.8 tons?
Edit: the latest figure I have seen is approx 3 tons for empty airframe: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/
So you claim that the engine and other equipment will add up to 4.8 tons? Perhaps it’s correct but it sound too much to me? Anybody who can comment on this?
LokeMeanwhile in the French foreign ministry…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]227822[/ATTACH]
visitors are welcomed by fine art and good manner…
http://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defense/rafale-a-l-honneur-quai-d-orsay-10774
Haha, very very funny:
Dörfer, 1983, 197: ”But his [Chiracs, JR & LS] gross misjudgement of Scandinavian mentality backfired immediately. Although his intervention was known only in close political circles, it was sufficient to kill once and for all any chances the Mirage might have had in Denmark”.
http://cms.polsci.ku.dk/pdf/f16_rapport.pdf
Perhaps the real reason why Rafale is not competing in Denmark…? 😉
LokeThöresson has just been more or less sacked, will be replaced in september…
More or less sacked!?
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told SR that the embassy in Bern was just doing its job.
“Swedish ambassadors should support Swedish export efforts — that’s what they do and that’s what they should do,” Bildt said.
“It is part of their basic activities.”
Sweden’s foreign ministry announced in a statement last Thursday that Thoeresson will become deputy chief of the Swedish permanent mission to the UN in New York.
The new ambassador to Switzerland, Magnus Holm, who previously held positions in Estonia, Germany and Japan, will take over the position next autumn.
The latest leaks were AFAIK published yesterday, so if the announcement was last Thursday I am not sure there is a direct relationship?
Anyway, a nice position at the UN in New York does not sound too bad — personally I would prefer NY to Bern… 😉
LokeCzech Republic Offers Gripen For Baltic Airspace Protection
Czech Republic has offered four Gripen and 300 soldiers to strengthen the defense of the NATO member countries in response to the crisis in Ukraine, reports NSZ Online.
“If NATO requests us, we have four Gripen fighters ready to be sent for the protection of the Baltic airspace or the Polish-Ukrainian border. We also have 300 soldiers for NATO’s rapid reaction units, said Martin Stropnický, the Minister of Defence, Czech Republic.
Read more: http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=887
LokeThe assembly of the first fuselage sections for test aircraft 39-8 started before the summer of 2013 and the design department and the workshops are fully engaged in developing and producing components for Gripen E.
Facts; major milestones
• 2014 the various Gripen E parts will be assembled to form a complete aircraft.
• 2015 the first test flights are planned for 39-8, the first aircraft built according to Gripen E specifications.
• 2018 the first series-produced aircraft delivered under contract.
LokeEven some of the Swiss newspapers start to wonder about who is behind all the leaks:
The big question remains how the explosive documents came into the hands of the Swedish radio. The timing of the publication – three weeks before the Gripen vote – is extremely unfavorable for the camp of supporters . Therefore Eichenberger not exclude the possibility that the leak could be at the losing fighter providers or the intelligence services of those states – this would have an interest in ensuring that the Gripen deal fail.
google translated from: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.suedostschweiz.ch/zeitung/wo-ist-das-leck-der-gripen-geheimpapiere&sa=U&ei=LaVgU7f9A4nIPKXdgNAE&ved=0CCIQqQIoADAB&usg=AFQjCNHbEmnh29YovsbsNsd5HcCW6IgwYg
LokeAgain I feel the focus is on the wrong thing — the F-35 was supposed to be the “new F-16”, a relatively affordable multi-role fighter for the next 50 years that will be produced in large quantities.
IMHO the main question is not regarding it’s capabilities, but whether it is sufficiently affordable. Of course there is a link to capabilities; the more capable the less number of a/c is needed to complete a mission.
Anyway the most interesting thing to me now is to see how much they can reduce costs for the a/c, and what operating costs will be. Still some unknowns there.
Lokebring_it_on,
great post, much appreciated.
Sign In
