JSRNo, Ericsson increased its global market share from 32% in 2010 to 36% (reported in november this year) in its key area, mobile infrastructure and communications. I have no idea where you get your information..
And dude, I’m Swedish and I understand that Sweden is a small country. However, for its size it does have a lot of global companies and is very technologically advanced.
And seriously, show me a source that claim the NG will be “way more expensive” or will cost “twice that of the C/D”. Otherwise, I’ll take your statement as purely speculative.
Sweden is high tech in area which are under threat. Most of expansion has come from acquisitions, alliances, outside employees etc. The rest of firms are sold. It would have been better If Sweden was advanced UAV/Satelites/aeroengines/aerocomposite/avionics/missiles. There is no chance of Boeing/EADS/ putting Swedish avionics in airlines on large scale.
When you look at Sukhoi they put Joint team with Thales for SuperJet avionics development. Now the same experiance is migrating to newer airlines and fighter aircrafts on large scale. so there will bigger developer teams developing even more advance products in much bigger quantities.so better economies of scale that in turn lead to even more product selling.
All i am saying is Sweden competitive advantage that made products in Coldwar time advanced is very quickly evaporating. It only survives by shedding firms to foreign control and buying even more off the shelf solutions for defence. You need stable ownership of firms for long term R&D.
The amount of S-300 sold by Russia to China without offsets is much more in value than Gripen Sold with Swedish content. Russia capabilities are increasing both interms of hard currency, experiance and sophistication.
Sweden is going on the opposite way. Gripen will lose out to latest S-300 upgrades.
JSRWhy would it be cheaper to buy an engine from Volvo Aero than from GE? After all, GE have something called “economy of scale” which brings prices down. Why do you think “off the shelf” has become so popular in the military? To bring costs down! If one supplyier jacks up the price you choose another one.
Volvo good have become Tier-1 supplier to GE like Avio of Italy or some Japanese.
Btw, Ericsson isn’t declining. What you probably have in mind is the cell phone market, but that is just a small part of Ericsson. Ericsson is actually a global leader in many other things.
Ericsson is in serious decline. and i am not talking about consumer Cell phone but the infrastructure behind it.
SAAB Group is doing OK financially. Some believe SAAB Group and SAAB cars is the same, but they’re completely different companies and all they share is the name.
Where are the sources for your claim that the NG would be twice as expensive as the C/D?
You have to understand one thing. Sweden is not big country that has to divide business giants. there is alot of things that can be shared. from Joint IT teams to common purchase of industrial materials to creating common subcontractors.
See Mitsubishi/Samsung. they are very diversified business from semiconductors to Ship building to motors and now aerospace.
There is no doubt about it Gripen NG is way more expensive than Gripe C.
JSRSweden is “giving up”? ROFL
You expect that Sweden won’t be able to afford 10 Gripen NG in the next ten years? Please explain..
Sweden’s “liberal experiment” has run its course like the EU? Please explain..
You sir must be a troll.
Gripen NG will have alot reduce Swedish content.so it is already pretty expensive for Sweden to buy. Thats why you dont see that many prototypes flying around. This talk of NG/Aesa is for long time.
By liberal experiment means selling Blue chip firms to outsiders like Volvo/Saab (what is next Saab product after Saab-2000)to fund current unsustainable standards. Relative decline of Ericsson compared to Asian telecom firms. Sweden will lose that R&D environment & profits that enable it to make great nich products in past.
JSRWell in spite of the high price and lousy TWR so far it seems to sell better than the others 😉 Perhaps the price is less than what you think and pehaps the TWR is higher than what you think?
SH: Only one export customer (Australia which bought it only as a stop-gap while waiting for the F-35.)Typhoon: Two export customers
Rafale: Zero export customers
What is a bit hilarious is that Dassault has highlighted the Swiss choice as a “paper plane”. I suspect that can backfire and I wonder why we have not yet seen the following headline in Flight Global or Aviation Week (large font colored red to honor Eagle1).
:diablo:
Your confusing Gripen NG with present Gripen sales.
F-16 also sold very well in 1970s. but when it reached F-16E ordered dried up. (It was still very cheap. You wont find 80 AESA fighters for $8B anywhere in the world)
Gripen NG is way expensive for the capability it offer.
JSRNow Aerodynamic efficiency of Gripen bad?! Stop trolling! Its probably the best out there.
TWR of F-15C is still good isnt it? how old is it? 1974 right..
F-15C first flight is 1978. 10 years before JAS-39. but F-15C is not multirole fighter. so no point in comparision.
I didnt say 2500km range on internal fuel was extremly good, only that it isnt “limited” as you put it…
it is limited because of lower TWR than it contempories. when you have low TWR. slight weopon loads need use of afterburner for acceleration and climbrates. see that Gripen demo episide.
6AAM will not have the same impact on Rafale/EF as it is on Gripen. Heavier weopons further increase the capabilities difference. It is good interceptor but not a multirole fighter.
More over the way Gripen NG is put together make it expensive. Almost twice the price of JAS-39C.
No such doubling price is expected any other update of fighters.
JSRIndeed it does. For my part as I said earlier I expect PAK DA will more closely resemble the Tu-22M in gross characteristics (size/ range/speed) than Tu-160 or B-2/NGB.
The range will be closer to Tu-160. and will use 4 engines derived from PAK-FA. development started in 2007.
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/503271
Tu-22/B737 are too short range & lack power for dedicated bombers.
you need bombers for places/weopons where you cannot reach by conventional fighters even with refuelling. I dont expect Su-30 type fighter to carry 10 tons cave busting bombs or saturated missile attack.
JSRYou are hilerious. were du you get all your big knowlege?
A Demo/test A/C based on D version aircraft have special solutions that will not inherited into E/F versions.
Internal fuel is small due to single engine, but still works fine for 2500km ferry range before it drops. So “limited” isnt the word.
TWR is better than SH and F-16 bk 60. But less than Rafale and EF. So is it so bad?
There is no reason to believe that Demo weight increased from 6800kg to surpass even 7500kg weight of Gripen NG.
F-18E/F-16E are in service for 10 years. Gripen NG is expected to be 2020 fighter. so it is 20 year gap. so you cannot compare the aerodynamic efficiency or TWR (advance materials) to be similar.
I was looking at JF-17 slides in other threads. It has 1800km ferry range with 2300kg fuel.
so what so special about Gripen NG having 2500km range on 3400kg fuel.
JSRWhat he meant with “.. Remember also that the NG prototype is overweight somewhat and this was the twin seater ..”
is that this demo NG, – a modified D, is overweight compared to a production NG
why would be modified D overweight compared to real NG. did they make modified G to lift 6 tons of weopon load.
Gripen has limited internal fuel and poor TWR. if afterburner was turned on at mach 0.85. it will be interesting to see how much time it took for acceleration to mach 1.3. if it takes way more time to reach there. it is likely to lose alot more fuel and hence its supercruise is of limited utility.
JSRQuantity, not just quality. Russia has a huge area to defend. There are gaps. I know it was a long time ago, but do you remember Matthias Rust? They kept losing him, then re-acquiring him, losing him again, mistaking him for a friendly aircraft . . . & finally he landed near Red Square.
Area stay the same but capability & coverage of airdefence systems have increased manifold. while the number of fighters that can realistically penterate is down. so i will think they are better position than in 1980s.
That was a bloke with 50 hours of flying experience, in a Cessna F-172. Now imagine that there are missiles punching holes in the defences, homing in on operating radars, radar antennae that are still warm after being switched off, etc., & a lot more going on.
It is more reflection of dysfunctional cammand system, poor wages, moral, training and not use of professionals. 1980s was not wonderful time.
Yes, any attacker will take losses, but assuming that Russia’s GBAD system is invulnerable is more like religious belief than rational analysis. Its effectiveness will depend on its readiness, & the strength & sophistication of the attacker.
The problem is that Sweden built most of its products with industrial cooperation with much bigger countries since than most of its blue chip firms are in foreign hands and its liberal experiment has run its course just like EU.
so i dont expect Sweden can even afford even 10 Gripen NG in next 10 years. as more and more of Gripen subsystems will need to to imported. Just look at giving up Volvo Aero. so why take more responsiblityof whole Baltic when you are already giving up.
JSRRussia publicly blocked the sale of S-300 to Iran, they would look really bad if this large system was somehow spotted on satellite. I don’t think Iran is getting S-300 from Russia anytime soon. Curious that they did not just get the supposedly compatible system from China.
Russia publicly supplied Yakhont to Syria despite all the Arab league and the rest. and have publicly told Qatar it is in violation of Libya arms embargo by supplying to Libyan rebels thats why Russian ambassdor was slapped at Doha airport. If things dont sort out with Arab league pretty soon expect violation of arms embargo although they may not admit publicly.
This syria thing is pretty dangerous as to rest of arab world this thing is shown as minority is suppressing majority.
JSRAlso the journalist clearly said that at Mach 0.85 was turned on to pass the Mach# and later turned off so aircraft can supercruise. It is not supercruiser intrue sense.
Aircraft has clearly gained weight compare to JAS-39A.
http://www.gripenindia.com/2011/01/indian-journalists-gripen-ng-flight.html
Indian Journalist’s Gripen NG Flight
JSRI thought graphs didn’t require any source :confused:
Anyway here is
http://business-standard.com/india/news/combat-aircraft-contest-not-over/457582/
On internal fuel alone, it flies 2,500 kilometres. That exceeds the range of much bigger aircraft like the Typhoon.
They say it would be one-third the cost of the Typhoon and the Rafale, calculated on a “through-life” basis.
You have to be skeptical about this claims. 6AAM at most add 1000kg. so it has 2600 range with 6AAM plus 30 minute loiter time. If your using ur best fuel economic cruise of Mach 0.8 for loitering. so at most ur 30minute is consuming 400km range worth of fuel.
so with 6AAM, 2 450 Gallon ET. Gripen NG has range of about 3000km. This is about 6200kg worth of fuel consumed.
even if you take the other extreme Su-35. It uses 11,500kg fuel for 3600km range with 4AAM.
Gripen NG is not so efficient. as it is not producing the range of Su-35 at half fuel mark. Gripen NG is very underpowered for such mission. slighlty better than 1980s era M2K. which has much more non-afterburning thrust and can lift much bigger ET.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/10/spotted-gripen-ng-with-new-fue.html
One of the Gripen NG’s key sales points is range. Saab says the fighter can fly 1,300km with six air to air missiles, loiter 30min and return to base. It’s hard to make a direct comparison to the F-35 since performance specifications with external stores are not publicly listed. Using only internal fuel and weapons, the F-35A is designed to fly 1,093km with up to four air-to-air missiles and return to base.
Massive fuel tanks allow Saab to achieve the range goal for the Gripen NG. Saab has now tested the 50% larger, 450gal fuel tanks in flight, as the video above clearly shows.
JSRI would say it will still be more stealthy than Rafale & F-18E. some where between F117 & B2.
but why coalation didnot destroyed it or they dont have idea where it went.
JSRhypersonic missiles will be heavier than supersonic. so no UCAV is going to lift them underwings and still have decent range.
I think India will need its reach all the way upto Africa where the resource war is going to happen.
I would say it will be need 15000km range. 7000km is too short to be effective. as 4 engine bomber. somthing in in size between Tu-160 & Tu-22 but with more advance construction and aerodynamic profile to be able to supercruise for long ranges and high altitude high speed dash with 5G engines. that give energy to stand off missiles and followed by glide bombs.
it will be much faster respons time to crises than slow moving aircraft carrier.
JSRWell India can join PAK-DA as it is in design stage.
will there be supercruise tanker similar to bomber that will ensure quick long range strike.
This from UAC report. I would expect to be full of composite construction (JSC aerkomposite at KAPO) with stealth, supercruise and all electronic gizmos.
Military aircraft
Long-range aviation
Modernization and overhauling of Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 aircraft will be ensured for the medium-term perspective. In the long-term perspective the main projects will be creation of an advanced fighter aircraft for long-range aviation (PAK DA) and advanced tanker aircraft (PSZ).
Sign In
