eagle[ATTACH=CONFIG]245943[/ATTACH]
The bump after the intake is present in the Gripen C as well, but it looks like it is longer. The intakes have the same shape as well (don’t really look much bigger from that angle).
The most noticeable changes are the IRST, the APU inlet at the base of the tail, and two sensors where the canard meets the inlet on the side. Wider aft fuselage- less noticeable area ruling (could be angle).
I don’t think they changed the APU from the C: http://s37.photobucket.com/user/cancze/media/Namest%20Airshow%202006/J39-CZE-003.jpg.html
So that intake must be for something else.
could not see with the swedish fog covering the wheels lol.
question is why do they still have a pitot tube? I thought most aesa radars do not have a pitot tube on the radome
I thought so too but F-16V with AESA also kept the pitot tube: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/21/lockheeds-new-f-16v-flies-advanced-aesa-radar/74319238/
eaglethats your opinion and you are welcome to it. but according to Michel III the USAF expanded the wing size from the YF-16 right off the bat with the idea that it was going to be a multi role airplane, “less than envisioned”
Sure but that has nothing to do with Block 30 capability.
Maybe you should check into it. How much money do you think everyone is making right now compared to then? keeping in mind errors are being paid for by LM and other contractors as opposed to the good old days when they shoved airplanes out the door and flashed a contract that said “as is” . definitely product quality was not the same. There was a much larger acceptance of wrecks. The USN was fine with Tomcat engines they knew were no good.
It’s not that simple to find data from the 70s/80s. For shareholders of LM, things might have improved, but that is only my guess. I’m aware the industry as a whole has changed a lot. For the better or the worse, I don’t know.
…Definitive F-16? today that would be the Block 60 but clearly it was mature “enough” at block 5/10 if you consider the different environments and the requirement for combat.
Most interesting post, thanks!
eagleYou mean like the advanced Air defenses over Syria?
Do you think if the Russians could track and shoot F-22s they would be quiet about it?
I’m not really sure how advanced the air defences are over Syria, but the F-22 most likely is more survivable there than the F-15, or anything else… so I don’t see the point.
Or you can have up to four 600 US gal drop tanks, that you drop before the fighting begins. Plus you can maintain high supersonic without reheat.
Only 2 tanks, 4 tanks are not cleared. I believe there were structural problems when they ground tested the 4 tank configuration so it was never tested in flight.
eaglebased on your comments and a few other observations I did
these are the areas that are different from the older gripen. at least based only on the unveiling video
Not to forget the new landing gear and most importantly the new LED landing light :very_drunk:
Better images available here: http://cumulus.gothia.se/gripen2016/?epslanguage=en#/sorts
I don’t like the looks of the intake mounted sensor and the camo is boring. But what can you do.
eagleSome aircraft options considered for acquisition for the AAF include 2nd an 3rd tier western aircrafts (ie Kfir, F1, F5…)
Argentina interested in F-5s as a stop-gap fighter
I don’t see how that’s supposed to work considering the USN just recently got those new old Swiss examples to replenish their aggressor fleet. Might have to look elsewhere (Singapore?).
eagleSwiss was a non starter because it couldn’t fit into their bunker. Super Hornets are big.
Boeing actually was invited to make an offer but chose not to participate. The caverns could have been enlarged just as they were enlarged to fit the legacy Hornets. EF and Rafale are even taller than SH btw. and probably wouldn’t have fit also. (Not sure if I remember that correctly).
eagleyes, the “lawn dart” had some issues.
Such as?
And no, lawn darting isn’t an issue here. Because concurrency wouldn’t have saved those F-16s from lawn darting and it wouldn’t save the F-35 if its engine were ****.
there were 291 F-16 Block 1 and 5 deliveries before the first ‘nominally’ useful Block 10 was built. To keep perspective, the YF-16’s first flight (official) was Feb 74, and the first definitive and fully capable Block 30/32 F-16s for the US first flew Feb 87. Counting all partner nation deliveries, approximately 1800 F-16s were delivered before the fully capable Block 30/32s. Until the Block 30/32, all the capabilities of the F-16 were less than what was envisioned by the planners (just not the so-called ‘Reformers’). The Block 30/32s were the first F-16s with full Beyond Visual Range-engagement and night/precision ground/maritime attack capabilities. They were the first with full AIM-7/AMRAAM/AGM-65D/HARM capabilities. They were also the first with Seek Talk secure voice communications. Until Block 30/32, the F-16 was mostly a hot rod for knife fighting on blue-sky days. At Block 30/32 and beyond, it was what the users wanted in the first place. An ‘all-weather combat aircraft’
not my words^
Again, it is you or whoever that quote is from who insists pre Block 30 aircraft were less than what was envisioned. BVR would have been possible even with the A model, but was rejected. No one was talking about night/precision ground attack capabilites at the beginning. Besides being a “hot rod for knife fighting on blue-sky days”, it was also a very capable A/G asset, the main asset (A/A and A/G) for EPAF countries including special weapons delivery.
Regarding knife fighting, yes, that was all the F-16 was originally designed for. The blue skies part not so much, more often than not, the skies aren’t blue over Europe. As to the missing BVR capability, succesful employment of BVR missiles was problematic at best over Europe in the 80s…
I disagree that it is a bad example. I think its a really good example especially considering how many block 1 and 5 aircraft didn’t even meet the expectations of the F-16A. I 100 percent agree with what you say about it having the demand of being an F-16C right from the start. well said.
A good example would be an aircraft that didn’t take up many more roles than originally planned. Like everything else but the F-16.
The 1970s and 80s were a lot more friendly to defence contractors. Which is one of the reasons we changed things. Changed for the better? well that is up for debate isn’t it?
Would be really interesting to compare profit margins of LM now and back then… Somehow I doubt it was a lot more in the 70s and 80s.
eagleThere are hundreds of low hour F-16As in the boneyard at Davis Monthan AFB which have cracks in the lower wing skins and wing load-carrying fuselage bulkheads.
It seems the original design spec said F-16A would fly 9G A2A profiles as 5% of its missions. In reality, the pilots liked a hot jet and would practice 9G maneuvers after A2G training ordnance was expended on the return to base. The percentage of 9G sorties was >50% and airframes fatigued quickly. Those areas prone to fatigue cracking were beefed up in the C model.
Well that was more a flaw on the user side, no? And some of those early A models are still flying I think.
Then there was the awful APG-66 and its pitiful A2G performance. A failure prone SMS. I’m sure there were other issues corrected in the C, but its been 34 years since I was in the thick of it and my memory fails me.
But the question is has the radar performed as requested? Regarding A/G performance, I have read accounts of how the Viper outperformed pretty much anything when it first took part in bombing competitions. Obviously besides dropping dumb conventional/nuclear stores, there wasn’t much, but again, more wasn’t asked of it, at least iirc. I have no idea about SMS tbh though.
eaglePost originally from Marcellogo:
However, also with such an effort, original mission turned out to be impossible against updated, stealth conscious, air defense systems and so F-22 production was interrupted prematurely at 185 and so F-15C Eagle will be retained in service until the 2030…
Impossible, says who? Also, the idea of keeping air superiority Eagles because the F-22 is unfit for its mission is absurd. If the F-22 can’t do it, the F-15 can’t either.
eagleThe F-15C A/G role in USAF service was dropped very quickly, and the F-22 was never intended as an F-15E replacement. Designating the Raptor F/A-22 came up much later after the design had been finished , in an attempt to sell it to politicians as multirole to get some more airframes. That didn’t work out so it was reverted to F-22 when it entered service.
I don’t know however if some sort of A/G capability was part of the initial requirements.
eagleThen they start working out the bugs and a couple years later they send out the “C” model and that was the one that finally worked. it took 13 years and 1800 aircraft produced before the Block 30 F-16C was put into service in 1987.
Did the F-16A have bugs? Why do you pick the Block 30 as the definitive Viper, why not Block 25 or 50?
Point is, the F-16 is a bad example, because what later models offered in capability was never a requirement for the basic A models. Requirements grew along the way. Today, a WVR/dumb bomb only jet is not wanted, so the F-35 is actually required to be something of an F-16C equivalent right from the start. Even though that starting point has slipped some years to the right…
eagleWhats so hard to understand. The timelines are completely different.
Gripen: Decision to reduce the SwAF fighter fleet below the 204 ordered aircraft was made after all 204 had been ordered. Before that, cold war draw down had effects on the Viggen fleet only.
Rafale and Eurofighter: Numbers were reduced before orders (France), or other aircraft were retired without replacement, allowing for the purchase of all EF Typhoons. Except T3b of course. F.e. the Tornado fleets have been cut considerably.
In a way, the retired A/B models might fly into the 30s aswell. Most of them were rebuilt into C/D models, and there’s a good chance someone will use them after the Swedes retire them. If they want to sell or lease them that is.
eagleTrouble with that idea is – most of the production contracts for the Gripen were signed well after the end of the Cold War. The deliveries of the A/B started in 1997 and were retired by 2012. The Rafale F1s and EF T1s delivered just a few years later (from 2000 and 2002 respectively), will both serve to 2030.
Check the timelines. According to swedish wiki, if I understand that correctly, 30 aircraft with an option for another 110 were ordered in 1982. In 1992, the option changed to 110 firm orders. In 1997, the last batch of 64 was ordered. In 2004, it was decided to reduce the numbers to 140 Gripen. 2006 that was reduced further to 100 Gripen.
Meanwhile, the last Drakens retired in 1991, various Viggen variants from 1993-2004. So actually, the draw-down after the cold war reached well into the 00s. And it’s not over yet, only 60 Gripen E ordered so far.
The situation is completey different for the other Eurocanards.
eagleThat was the case. I suggest you research how other european Air Forces were cut in the 90ies. Had the cold war not ended, Swedish AF probably would have ordered more than 204 Gripen.
Ending production would have been an option if you wanted to break contracts and kill off the swedish aircraft industry.
eagleF-15C carrying 8 AAMs – on one side. Never seen a C model with type 4 CFTs and those new racks. The photo doesn’t seem to be a fake.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245101[/ATTACH]
Sign In
