HotshotNot really ‘long’ range.
In the picture posted above ( post 103 ), the aircraft is above the targets, so it is close, and the definition is very low.
HotshotF-35 has more IR reduction measures in my opinion, but F-22 can carry more missiles internally
Like not needing its afterburner to maintain supersonic speed?
HotshotFighter radar would be pretty much irrelevance if you were to face off against target with radar cross section of that size. Especially when F-35 has jamming as well.
But why do the F-35 fans always point to the LPI modes of the radar then? The F-22 has EA capability, and could have whatever capability the F-35 has with proper funding.
TBH , until now , no one can provide any figure to prove that a “pure” IRST ( such as OLS-35 , FSO ..etc ) would offer advantage in detection range over FLIR/IRST ( such as EOTS ) . And if F-22 was to have an IRST , it would likely be variation of EOTS
Dedicated IRST work in precise wavelength for maximum performance. They are also optimized for fast scanning. The Advanced EOTS may approach the capabilities of a pure IRST, but probably not equate them. The regular EOTS is probably significantly inferior.
Why would F-35 use afterburner if the fight is likely to be short range ( VLO vs VLO assets ) ?. Moreover, if we go with reality then there isn’t any plan to put IRST on F-22 in near future either.
The F-35 can stay subsonic, but that gives the F-22 a better ability to escape if it flies in supersonic. I don’t think it would need to fly at mach 1.7 either. Launching in supersonic would also give its AIM-9Xs a better BVR range.
Sticking with reality is accepting the fact that the F-35 has cost 20 billion more than it should have, thus severly reducing the funding that could have been allocated to upgrading other aircraft, right?
HotshotIn BVR the F-22 is likely to detect the F-35 first thanks to its larger radar and the fact that the F-35 carries external WVR missiles.
Also, the F-22’s IRST ( assuming a small part of the F-35’s cost overrun had been spent on F-22 upgrades ) would detect the F-35 first thanks to the fact that it is a pure IRST, and also that the F-35 has to use its reheat to maintain supersonic speed. The F-22 probably wouldn’t need to fly very fast to have the first shot with its AIM-120D, so that would reduce its IR sig. Also the F-35 won’t have the 120D before 2020-2022 or something like that, giving the F-22 a substantial advantage until then.
Also the F-35 carries more missile, so can afford double or even triple shots. Its IRST can guide the missiles to remain stealthy. The F-35’s is likely to detect the missile launch so I would guess it may be able to counter attack relatively quickly, but the F-22’s missiles are already under way when it starts shooting, and can achieve a higher speed. The F-22 being stealthy, it would be hard for the F-35’s missiles to get sufficiently close to get a lock, especially if the F-35 has been shot down first about 10 seconds before it has the opportunity to do so.
In WVR, if both have an HMS, it’s probably about even. One ihas the DAS and the other one has more maneuvrability ( assuming the F-22 is not upgraded with the DAS, but the F-22 could well have been upgraded with it, if a part of the F-35 cost overrun had been spent on that ).
HotshotF-35 fans love to ask that question because they know that the F-35 has advantages in IR sensors, helmet and such. What they will never want to aknowledge is that the F-22 could have had the same kind of upgrades, or at least some, had the F-35 not siphoned an extra 20 billion or so of development cost.
HotshotPretty sure the two tanks on the belly idea was shelved.
Pretty sure it’s a wild guess.
This being said, I am not sure a 4th tank would make a big difference, its fuel would probably be compensated by the high drag configuration at that kind of range. The way around that would be use pear shaped tanks optimized for subsonic, not that it would be impossible.
It is common for customers to ask for configuration changes, I’m sure SAAB would be willing to satisfy the customer as long as the development is relatively simple.
HotshotSAAB arent stating if its 4 or 2 AAM in the 1500 km range, lets assume 3.
is it reasonable that doubling the payload from 3 to 6 incur a 10-15% range penalty on a light weight fighter ?
as in going from 1500 km + 30 min. on station down to 1300 km + 30 min. on station ?
hmm I’d you say yeah, maybe something like 10-15%.
Continuing on what I was saying before, they could modify the wingtip pylons to be hybrid BVR/WVR missile launchers. The gripen would carry AMRAAMs for anti-bomber missions that don’t require heavy maneuvering, and AIM-9s when it is confronted with fighters.
Hotshot… because those in charge are morons !
HotshotThe gripen NG will be able to carry 450gal tanks:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
2 x 450-gal and 1 x 300-gal drop Tanks – 8,040 lb. (3,655 kg.)
Also it might be able to carry 2 450 gal tanks on the wings and 2 290 gal on the fuselage:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UL9UWY_S4rM/T6MHRqkLzHI/AAAAAAAAAHo/vrzIc3099xA/s1600/gripen+loaded.jpg
Also I question the value of being able to carry more than 4 missiles against a bomber attack, because the bombers would probably spread over large distances so it would be hard to intercept several of them. Also I would argue that WVR missiles are not needed that much against bombers, the gun can do the job just as well. Because of that, I would see if it would be possible to carry the AMRAAM on the wingtips. 2 wingtips AMRAAMs + 2 meteors + the gun + 4 tanks would be pretty much perfect for the canadian needs.
HotshotI found this report which suggests the 480 gal tank was cleared for use under the wings. I’m surpised the Canadians didn’t want to use them at home.
A small picture is shown in this nice document, page 14.
Thanks for the links.
It is interesting that the first document says that range was significantly greater than the E/F with the 480 gal tanks.
It is a bit stupid that the USN didn’t want to operate the 2 types of tanks. 15% more range is not insignificant and refueling Navy planes in the air requires more planes, which is expensive. The french Navy uses 2 types of tanks for the rafales without problem.
HotshotThe F-18L wouldn’t have had the same burn and turn capability of the F-16, but it could have been equipped with the VTAS HMS.
According to the wiki article it became an effective system:
VTAS received praise for its effectiveness in targeting off-boresight missiles, but the U.S. did not pursue fielding it except for integration into late-model Navy F-4 Phantoms equipped with the AIM-9 Sidewinder.[1]
Perhaps the AIM-9M could have been modified with a gimballed seeker with like 30 degrees off boresight angle, while keeping the same motor and aerodynamics to put it in service quickly.
HotshotI read about that, any pics or good source to confirm that? It would seem larger tanks than 330gal get in the way of the flaps.
I don’t know too well how to identify them on pictures.
I have seen one at the Quebec Air show several years ago with the 480 gal. The pilot told me it was a 480 gal. He said they were not used much anymore.
Here is the confirmation about the fact that the F/A-18 could carry 480 gal tanks.
By the late 1980s, all-composite 480-gal/1,817L external fuel tanks for the F/A-18 were in production. The first customer, the Royal Canadian Air Force, used the tanks on its fleet of CF/A-18s.
The fact that it says “the first customer” suggest that some other air forces also used them.
HotshotIt isn’t so much the missiles as it is the fuel.
It is as much about drag and consumption that it is about fuel.
That might help slightly, but it won’t solve the fundamental problem. The Gripen is a very small aircraft that isn’t suitable for long-range operations. (take a look at who built it and why… Sweden anticipated fighting a defensive war over their own territory)
Dropping tanks would help slightly, but this is something modern fighters do only in an emergency. Also, given the Gripen’s extremely limited internal fuel once it dropped its tanks it would have to return to base almost immediately. (especially if one imagines it operating at long range)
Dropping wing tangs would not help slightly, it would help enormously for supersonic drag. Also, the CF-18s are equipped with the large 480g tanks instead of the regular ones for more range, the gripen could also carry larger tanks.
If the fighter is trying to intercept a high value target like a bomber that can wipe out an entire airbase, you bet they don’t give a crap about fuel tanks.
HotshotAny BVR engagement would rely on the sensors for identification, the pilot takes the decision to launch based on that. A UCAV would do the same.
HotshotThe Gripen can fly a long way and the Gripen can fly like a fighter… but the Gripen can’t do both on the same mission.
If you load a Gripen down with enough fuel to fly anywhere near 800 miles it would be little more than a flying fuel truck, strictly subsonic and minimal maneuverability.
If you loaded a Gripen such that it could actually perform like a fighter… then it is a very short ranged plane relative to its competitors.
This is a fundamental limitation of physics and engineering.
A plane of the Gripen’s size, with its thrust, wing area, etc, can only carry a modest load a modest distance. If you load it to near its maximum load with fuel tanks then it can fly a long way, but it is in no way comparable to a fighter in that configuration.
This was demonstrated beyond question in the Swiss eval where the Gripen was unable even to intercept a simulated airliner within Swiss airspace and return to base. (the scenario required the Gripen to climb rapidly and achieve supersonic speed… something it was unable to do while carrying enough fuel to fly across Switzerland and back)
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116740-Rafale-Thread-13&p=1890004#post1890004
Note that they are comparing the Gripen to the original Hornets the Swiss operate… not particularly long-ranged aircraft themselves.
Of course the Gripen E will have better range performance than the original Gripen, but not nearly enough to make it competitive with larger aircraft.
We know from other sources that the F-35 slots in between a Eurofighter with three tanks and a Rafale with three tanks in terms of range.
The gripen NG will be able to carry 3 meteors on its fuselage stations with relatively small pylons with ejectors instead of rail launchers. So the drag will be relatively low, that would affect the performances probably less than if they were carried on the wings ( less drag and asymetry ).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249927[/ATTACH]
Also it is probably possible to build pear shaped drop tanks for the wing stations for less subsonic drag and more fuel like on the rafale. Performances with the tanks would not be very important because they would be dropped when necessary.
Sign In
