crobatothats my point. when u don know the context. there is little to comment on. Just look at Gripen performance. Brazilian found out. It is close to the older Su-35 with TVC. In acceleration and climb rates it beats any other single engine fighter.
You don’t know the context of how the other figures are derived like that of the Mirage 2000. Its clear the Gripen don’t have the grunt because Austrian pilots testing both the Gripen and the F-16 found the latter much gruntier. If the Gripen gets high performance, its from the superior lift to drag ratio it gets from its design.
I repeat, whatever you say, does not change the fact that the by factory declaration Gripen is officially 6620 to 6800kg on its current variants empty, and the next version is over 7,000kg. It is easier to question the actual ratings of the F404 engine, as this may have been uprated. Nonetheless, the Gripen has inferior TWR to both the EF and the F-16.
The 7000kg for the F-16A is indeed quite light, but if you know the history of the plane, it is also dotted with early structural failures. Hence why the next major version is more than a ton heavier with all the beefing that goes into it. The last thing the Swedes do, by their own engineering traditions and history, is to make things light and flimsy. Sturdiness and strength comes first, especially for a plane that does a lot of STOL type landings and takeoffs. The Gripen isn’t going to be built light no matter what. In addition to that, the F-16A only has bare bones electronics, the Gripen is festooned with computers its like a flying PC. Those avionics add up a lot.
Su-35 and MiG-29 is massively overrated by people like you.
crobatoCrobato, I dont understand why would China need AEGIs secrets, From what I understand IMHO it is a Computer system which bring all the data to one screen type stuff, it fuses all the sensor information of your ships et al.
Any country with a good base in software and hardware can make one like that suited for its own.
That’s not the point, far from it. What about the radar ranges, the radar frequencies, the radar modes, true missile ranges, the datalink frequencies, and stuff like that? These are not the stuff that you use to make your own technological equivalent, this is the kind of information that can be tactically used against the system itself, like in ECM.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20070426.aspx
Horny Troops Succumb to Chinese Vamps
April 26, 2007: Japan has discovered a widespread Chinese effort to use sex to steal military technology. Attractive Chinese female intelligence agents are marrying members of the Japanese armed forces, and then using that access to obtain military secrets. The situation has been complicated by the military attempts to keep these “embarrassing incidents” secret. The government was particularly anxious to keep the Americans in the dark about all this, since the Chinese apparently got their hands on Aegis anti-aircraft system technology via their lady spies.
Actually, most of the Chinese agents don’t have to marry Japanese troops. Just putting out usually does the trick. In Japan, the military doesn’t get much respect, and many of the bases are in backwaters. So the troops are pretty lonely. It’s not unusual for Chinese women to be in the country, as many come, legally or illegally, looking for jobs. The set-up is perfect for using the old “honey pot” (sexual entrapment) routine to extract military secrets.
The military geeks are the most sought after by the Chinese spies, as these guys have access to the most valuable military secrets. Geeks tend to be least experienced with women, and most vulnerable to a clever, and shapely, Chinese spy. Military commanders are not sure if they have got the problem under control, but now that the situation is out in the open, there will be more efforts to tighten up security. As the Japanese expected, the Americans were not amused. And the Chinese honey pot scandal was apparently one reason for refusing to sell F-22s to Japan. To make matters worse, part of the Japanese cover-up involved prosecuting the Chinese spies on immigration, not espionage, charges.
crobatoI wonder if detection ranges were greatly changed on the F-104S as compared to the F-104G. One would think to really utilize the AIM-7/Aspide that the ranges should be good enough to get a solid shot off from well past 20 miles.
Interesting notes on the F-104 as a strike jet, and you seem to hit the nail on the head. I doubt Kelly Johnson had that in mind when he designed the Zipper, but I suppose it worked out in the end for the most part.
The comment on speeds is also interesting. The -104 was quite a speed demon to say the least. After watching the one at the air show the other week, I must say yes, that thing is fast! It rolls very fast too as crobato pointed out. Very fast!
The F-104S is said to have given some nasty surprises in exercises with F-16s and even F-15s. Even if turn rates are not that good, you can still build tactics around the plane’s speed and roll rates. One must add that the wing has a very low drag, though the concept didn’t work as well on the F-18 Hornet.
crobatoPersonally I’d worry less about Japan than some other countries…given the apparent success the KGB had in getting secrets from European industry during the Cold War.
Are you familiar with the recent scare that a Japanese sailor may have inadvertently passed AEGIS secrets to China?
crobatopictures with tests? Your long way from
Yes, the picture is on the engine thread in the CDF.
RD-33 dont have good reputation?
Yup, it does not have a good reputation. Even the RD-93 had at least 5 rejects out of 15 delivered, an abominable 33% rejection rate.
u may be thinking of Soviet era times. RD-33 has higher TWR than AL-31 but with shorter life and it was designed for rapid interception jet to gain quick climb rates and speed.
Life is too short, with only 750 hours between major maintenance and often do not even meet these hours. These are less than a quarter of equivalent Western engines.
crobatoprove it. how 8.5tons takeoff weight is achieved. with all those AAMs and central tank.
Central tank is not considered part of normal takeoff weight. As a matter of fact, the normal takeoff weight revised on the JAS-39A is over 8700kg. Simply said 8500kg is no longer the right number.
I don’t have to prove anything. I have proven you DEAD WRONG.
so F-15E is 20tons. F-18E is 16tons and Su-24 has the same ability as Su-34.
Su-27 has 3530KM range. the same as Su-35.
unless u understand the meaning behind those numbers.
Who cares? The numbers are irrelevant. You are just technologically incompetent behind to read the numbers, failing to realize that sometimes performance numbers given by manufacturers are exaggerated or failed to give the context given.
SAAB says Gripen’s empty weight is 6800kg with JAS-39C and that’s that. You are not factory nor engineer or designer of Gripen to say anything better.
crobatoso if i go to Boeing website and show F-15E/F-18E has 20/16 tons empty weight and from Knappo website Su-24 has the same MTOW, Weoponload, Internal fuel, speed, combat radius, size of external tanks as Su-34. so what does it proves?
it hasnt been disproven. when JED experiance writers cannot find internal fuel of Gripen so there is some thing more to it.
What an idiot. The internal fuel of the Gripen is around 2270kg/
A fighter which is using lighter engine, lighter Radar, avionics than F-16A can have similar weight? I am not even going into fuel capcities and advance material construction. It takes 100 seconds for Gripen to reach 10km height and it takes 5 minutes for M2K(with stronger engine). Gripen flight performance is not worse than EF.
Really, you are getting more and more stupider all the time.
So you know more what is the actual weight of the Gripen than the factory that built it?
Want to prove against the FACTORY? Who built the jet, you or SAAB? Factory said 6800kg for the JAS-39C, and 6800kg it is.
Go ahead and embarass yourself further.
crobatoWS-13 is paper project untill this point. just like no engine for K-8/L-15.
Paper project? There is already a picture of an engine being tested that people attribute to the WS-13. Also the engine has already acquired a name “Taishan”, and Chinese engines don’t get names until they were certified.
MIG-29K/MIG-35/MIG-29OVT are all flying with 9300KG version of RD engine. and above there are decades of operational user input especially from hot countries of Africa/Middleast/Asia into improving RD engines for those climates. IAF experiance was the key. and further more there 10,500Kg test versions also flying and soon to be certified.
Unless China provide free engines with a fighter. there is no chance of WS-13 ever catching up in FC-1 life time.
Excuse me, but RD-33 series of engines don’t have a good reputation. I personally prefer they dumped the Klimov engines and go indigineous instead.
crobatoI don’t know much about the air to air modes. Is there a Starfighter out there that uses the Sparrow? If you have SARH capability, then you probably have STT modes.
I kind of think the Starfighters over all have fairly basic air to air modes. Some search mode like RWS, maybe a multiple target and prioritization tracking mode, followed by a series of dogfight modes like boresight and vertical scan to que the AIM-9L. Then a gun mode.
But no doubt the A2G modes are more sophisticated. For example, the FIAR radar on the F-104S boasts MTI or Moving Target Indicators. In other words, the radar can actually differentiate a moving target on the ground. Not a lot of radars have this in the Eighties, especially among the Soviets.
To understand why a Starfighter makes an excellent strike jet, you would come to the same reason why it had a lot of accidents earlier—high wing loading. While it does make the jet difficult to fly and unforgiving, high wing loading also means the jet has a smooth and stable ride against low altitudes and is fairly turbulent resistant. This makes it a stable bomb, rocket and gun strafing platform. Combine that with a fast rate of roll thanks to the short wingspan, you got something that is hard to catch at the deck even by more modern fighters.
During the Cold War, air superiority wasn’t supposed to be achieved by air to air combat, but by bombing the other air force before it even leaves the ground. Hence NATO/Warsaw Pact simulations got a lot of fighters and strike jets pretty much wasting every air base in the Continent within reach of each other. Many of the missions are near suicidal; after doing strikes themselves, they will often find themselves returning only to find their bases having destroyed by another strike.
crobatoso what maximum weight tells?
why its wrong. why u put JAS-39C as same as JAS-39A.
this from JED online.i havent seen air to air weopon on centerline in place of fuel tank. Fuel is meausred in percentages. It shows 100% with full internal fuel and 140% with centre line tank.
and think about the above. Gripen uses engine which is lighter by 500 to 700 relative to F-16A/M2K. But i doubt ur logic can extend that far. Gripen cannot be build in China.
LOL where is your nonsense that the Gripen has the TWR of the EF? You already got the official information right in front of you, from the Gripen official site. If -39C is 6800kg, then 6620kg for -39A should be correct.
Even with your optimistic, and formally disproven figures, 8500 normal takeoff weight against 8100kg thrust engine means a TWR ratio below 1.0, whereas the Typhoon starts from 1.13 then goes higher.
I am not slighting the Gripen at all here. The fact that it can sustain 20 deg/sec with a TWR lower than an F-16 (22 deg/sec, over 1.0 TWR) is pretty good.
crobatoFor the enhanced thrust.
Pakistan will still prefer the WS-13. But the next gen versions are likely to be tasked with greater weapons loads and performance and hence require additional thrust.
Having said that, if the WS-13 thrust already matches the “enhanced” RD-93 thrust, WS-13 will get the contract and the “enhanced” RD-93 isnt going anywhere fast. Anyone got the WS-13 thrust info yet?
It is 8600kg maximum thrust, 300kg higher than the current RD-93. The RD-93 however has a more visible upgrade program.
crobatoWhy? When the WS-13 is ready?
The WS-13 might get shoved (temporarily) aside due to politics. China may be obliged to reward the Russians for that decision. Lets not forget that Putin has been panning on Hu Jin Tao lately to correct the trade imbalance between Russia and China on finished goods.
crobatoI don’t really recall any of the ATF being delta. As Lockheed is head over heels over the properties of trapezoidal wings (one of Kelly Johnson’s bright ideas that went into the Starfighter), a design based on such would be have been the first thing to come in mind.
I spaced out the text to make it easier to read.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/oct_98/oct2a_98.html
The concentrated configuration search began with a slew of possible designs. The search complicates the numbering scheme considerably, as diamond wings, twin tails (two tails instead of four), various inlet shapes, and various forebody shapes were all considered and reconsidered simultaneously in the summer of 1987.
Configuration 595-7, with trapezoidal wings and four tails, was the starting point for these studies.
Configuration 608A, labeled the baseline equivalent, represented a similar shape with six instead of eight missiles in the main weapon bay (all the design alternatives assumed this loading).
Configuration 608 had a trapezoidal wing and twin tails.
Configuration 607-0 introduced the diamond-shaped wing similar to the General Dynamics proposed ATF, but with four tails instead of one. Configuration 607-11A had a diamond wing and twin tails.
Configuration 611A had a diamond wing, twin tails, and the large chine reminiscent of 090P.
Configuration 609A looked a lot like the Boeing proposed ATF with its trapezoidal wing, twin tails, and single chin inlet.
Configuration 610A was a Boeing/Lockheed hybrid with trapezoidal wings, twin tails, and twin side inlets.
crobatoOfficial Gripen-C empty weight. 6.8 metric tons (6800kg)
crobatomaxiumum takeoff weight gives indication of internal fuel capacity and empty weights.
how much is range of JAS-39 on internal fuel?
I have only mentioned JAS-39A which should be lighter than JAS-39C just as JAS-39C is lighter than JAS-39E. Fighter configuration includes AAMs weight.
Totally wrong. Maximum weight does not tell you what is the internal fuel capacity and empty weight.
Your data of the empty weight of 5700kg is wrong.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/gripen/
Empty (JAS 39A) 14,600 lb (6,620 kg)
(JAS 39B) 17,635 lb (8,000 kg)
Typical Load 18,740 lb (8,500 kg)
Max Takeoff (JAS 39A) 27,560 lb (12,500 kg)
(JAS 39C) 30,865 lb (14,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity internal: 5,000 lb (2,270 kg)
external: unknown
Max Payload 14,330 lb (6,500 kg)
Typical load is what is important being the standard load of the plane with internal fuel and basic set of AAMs. That is 8500kg.
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/gripen/gripen_specs.htm
Technical Specifications JAS 39A
Powerplant: one 80.5 kN (18,100 lb st) General Electric/Volvo Flygmotor RM12 (F404-GE-400) afterburning turbofan
Dimensions: length 14.10m (46 ft 3 in); height 4.50m (14 ft 9 in); wing span 8.40m (27ft 6¼ in)
Weights: empty 6622 kg (14,600 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 12.500 kg (27,560 lb)
Performance: extimated max level speed at 10975m (36,000 ft) Mach 2.0 or 2126 km/h (1321 mph)
Armament: one Mauser MK27 27mm cannon; up to 6500 kg (14,330 lb) of Air-to-Surface Missiles, munitions dispensers, rockets, free-fall bombs, Air-to-Air Missiles including AIM-120 AMRAAM, recce/sensor pods, auxiliary fuel tanks
Sign In
