uss noviceI suppose you mean single engined, as both fighters are available in two seat versions.
Yup, thats exactly what i meant – single engined.
The APG 80 is a proven platform, and when will the Gripen’s AESA be ready ?
Sure sure, but so what? how long do you think its going to be before the ROW starts fielding AESAs ? Btw, Thales (which is what SAAB’s working with) already has an AESA on the RBE@. Actually the size of the nose is a very important factor, the blk 60 iirc had major problems because of the heat produced by the AESA. Also, it is not for certain that the IN will get the apg-80, considering UAE’s rights on it PAF’s possible access to the same. The new one that the IAF might get may not be something else just as unproven as the one Thales is working on for the GripenNG.
True but its unlikely to fly clean.
Fair enough. But point is that it reflects the newer design advantages available to the Gripen, which the F-16 simply does not have unless heavily (expensively) redesigned.
Under what load ? Super cruise Mach 1.2 etc is quite ineffective, this has been discussed to death in the supercruising thread.
Again fair enough. But then the fact that it has the capability proves its low drag design and adequate twr, which all contribute to a2a performance, however marginally, which in turn means that it has something that the F-16 simply does not. Like i said, it is a reflection of the better design.
from that article ‘Enhanced High Thrust Engine
The F-16IN offers the highest thrust engine in the competition, the General Electric F110-132A. It has 32,000 pounds of thrust with an unprecedented record of safety, reliability, maintainability and durability.The F110 incorporates the latest technology, including full authority digital engine control, for maximum fuel efficiency and performance.’
when you consider F 16INs internal fuel and range, consider the CFTs as well, as they are going to be flying with them most of the time. It says the AC can fly from Bangalore to Leh without IFR.
Brochures and company sponsored articles can say a LOT of things, you should see what the Saab guys are saying too. I’d expect you to be able to differentiate between the hype and facts (at least to some extent).
The F-16IN might have the highest thrust engine in the competition, but fact remains that as an aircraft, it has one of the poorest TWRs, sort of defeats the purpose of such a high powered engine, doesn’t it? In fact, we can’t be sure that the engine itself offers the best TWR. And no matter what the fuel efficiency, a modern 14kn engine is hardly going to give you the mpg that a modern 10 ton engine is. Furthermore, lets not forget that the TWR for the 414 is better than that of the 132s.
Disagree because CFTs are going to do the job, pylons are going to be for weapons, max weight including CFTs.
IF CFTs are used, irrespective of hps available, payload is going to reduce considerably. Plus the adverse effect on TWR and drag. Not good. The fact that the Gripen NG is supposed to ferry 2800km with internal fuel is mindblowing. Frankly, nothing comes close to that kind of fuel:mile ratio, with EFTs, you have about 4000km). Think about it, its the lightest bird (7100kg) and has just 10KN engines.
True, but Lockheed states in an article i posted before that the aircraft retains its agility. And I believe them, they are going to get thing here for testing so won’t make sense to make such claims if they cannot back it up
Talk about bowling one over! Lockheed says so, therefore it is true. Come on man, a little more discrimination here! Like your own sig says, “you are what you believe”. So make sure you don’t believe in BS. Despite so many posters (and very knowledgeable ones at that) explaining in numerous different ways that the blk 60 has the worst agility in all falcon models, (say nothing of superfulcrums/flankers and eurocanards), you still believe in that which goes against common sense and physics. Simply put, despite the marginally better TWR (in case of other falcon models and most other MRCA contenders are probly ahead of the older falcons), the blk60 sucks when it comes to draggy airframe and wingloading, factors that are serious drawbacks to performance.
Just take this example:
Each of these contenders have full internal fuel + 4 MRAAMs (120 types) + 2 SRAAMS:
F-16blk60:
TWR = 0.96, Wingloading = 514 kgmsq
GripenNG = 0.92, Wingloading = 350kgmsq (approximate)
Rafale = 0.96, Wingloading = 345msq
MiG-35 = 0.98, Wingloading = 430msq
EF-2000 = 1.04, WIngloading = 346msq
Now as you can see, while, the TWRs are all very close, the wingloading is seriously different. It’ll only get worse with CFTs. Yet, you believe that its going to play ball with the others? With a smaller nose to boot?
You blow me over with that one. Excellent Data Link ? All NATO jets use Link 16 i guess so how is one excellent and the other note. The IAF has its own Datalink and that will be the one integrated into F16 IN.
I agree, although gripen does tend to emphasize this point quite a bit. I believe gripens in Alaska did wonderfully well with these in a box formation. Others might have more infor.
Block 60 has excellent situational awareness and sensor fusion.
No denying that.
USS
uss noviceWell, if it has to be a single seater, the Gripen seems better:
1) Most probly a bigger radar because of a bigger nose. Even the P5 radar was suposed to detect a/c targets @ 150 odd km iirc.
2) Most probly a smaller RCS clean
3) Supercruise
4) Lower thrust and weight + same internal fuel = better range than f-16
5) Better range internally means greater options and possibilities for payloads
6) much better wing loading.
7) Excellent data link
8) Prolly cheaper too (in terms of upfront as well as lifecycle)
The only advantage with the blk60 that i can see is a better TWR. But in practical terms, there is hardly any difference in TWR. A fractionally smaller TWR makes no difference in this case as the Gripen compensates beautifully with v.less drag + low wingloading which means better a2a performance, no wonder its supposed to supercruise at mach 1.2.
The block 60 despite all the gizmos continues to be an old design.
Only real problem might be similarity to Tejas (not necessarily but possibly)
USS.
uss noviceIIRC, IN plans not for 3 operational carriers but 5. I doubt they are simply going to stop after producing 2 IACs. So, by 2025, you may have about 4 in service. 2 in various stages of refit/rehaul/remanning and two on station. JMT
USS.
uss novicefor a strike role F 18 E/F will have just as much chance as the Rafale. It can carry more variety of A2G weapons and is a proven strike platform.
The problem with the F-18e/f in a strike role imho:
1) V.heavy + huge engines = gas guzzling
2) Draggy airframe + huge engines = lower range
3) I am not sure about its ability to do the fast and low thing ala jags/mig-27s.
4) No long range fire and forget A2S missile ala Scalp/AASM.
otherwise a decent bird imho.
USS.
uss noviceOkay, its pretty well established that the blk 60 is no agile fulcrum or typhoon. But here is a question that bothers the old lemon a bit –
Which of the 6 MRCA candidates could perform a low and fast ground hugging flight ala the Jaguar? The IAF still puts stock in this type of flying and I think since the MRCA is increasingly looked at a replacement for the floggers (23/27s) and perhaps the jags in the near future, what mrca bird would best be able to do this? The blk 60 is perhaps appealing for this reason for the IAF. My take is that the Rafale can do best in this role for the foll reasons:
1) twin engine security
2) obnoxiously high range (esp. with CFTs+EFTs)
3) obnoxiously high payload on 14 hps
4) Hi sweep/delta canard design
5) Despite the extra engine, should provide same fuel economy than the single engined blk 60 considering the lower empty weight and slightly higher thrust.
JMT
USS.
uss noviceBut what he said is speculation based on certain general principles, now the block 60s are one of the most elusive birds, not much is known about their performance in joint exercises etc. May be the evaluation report of MRCA (if its ever published) will give us a better understanding about its handling.
I believe that IAF mkis as well as French Rafales might have DACT’d with blk 60s.
Can the Mig 35 carry more payload than the F 16 IN.
Dunno, must be v. similar. the 35 can carry about 6500kg warload. 5500kg internal fuel. The blk 60 weighs 10tons empty and 21 tons mtow. So payload plus fuel options have to be within this range (11 tons). My guess is about 3.5 tons internal fuel and about 7 tons ordinance.
What about maintenance, single engined aircraft are easier to maintain and have high sortie rates.
Non necessarily. The superhornet, rafale etc are supposed to be excellent in this regard too. as far as the fulcrum is concerned, they seem to have made distinct improvements over the earlier versions. Also remember IAF familiarity , upgrading ability and existing logistics for the birds should help in a BIG way. Plus two engines mean greater safety and normally better TWR.
The IAF folks will tell you their western Jets especially Mirage require less maintenance.
So far no complaints have been heard about the MKIs either and from red flag, its clear that the IAF flankers have top notch uptimes.
I would personally like the F 16 or Gripen win the MRCA because of this. Less operating cost, more flight hours, better training, better readiness 🙂
Less operating costs because of single engines – yes. more flight hours – no proof (the MKI is an indication to the contrary), better training – no proof, considering the iaf will be training the crew irrespective of the aircraft (russki, US or euro), better readiness – no proof and debatable (again the mki is an indication to the contrary).
USS.
uss noviceif it ever came down to a one-on-one with a nimble dogfighter, unless the piloting skills were special, they’d be downed.
Does any late model F-16 have to be a premier yank & bank airplane since it has AIM-120 for mid-range targets and AIM-9X/JHMCS for short range targets? Being a couple degrees faster around the “circle of death” doesn’t matter much with the truly excellent dogfight missiles and HMSs on today’s Gen3/4 airplanes. Everybody dies in a furball. (This assumes you survive the BVR barrage long enough to get to the merge).
Life doesn’t work like that. So far, this has been a one-way process. If you want anyone here to take you seriously, you have to put something into it. Now, come on – why do you think that the F-16E is the equal as a dogfighter (which, BTW, I think is a comparison of limited value nowadays) to earlier F-16s, the Eurocanards, & other current fighters?
MOst comments above lead one to feel as though manouvering/turning is only restricted to WVR dogfighting and is hardly relevant for BVR. But based on pilots comments in Indradhanush (tiffies and mkis), a lot “cat and mouse” lockbreaking and manouvering goes on in BVR as well. This would esp. be the case with fighters with equal EW. A great TWR, low wingloading, turning ability, endurance and such are useful here too.
To that extent the F-16blk60 would suffer in BVR as well esp. against opponents with decent EW/radars. Further, the tiny nose would again hamper the size of the radar in the viper no matter the version. In this sense, I’d rather be in a Shornet (bigger radar), a eurocanard or even a mig-35. JMT.
USS.
uss noviceThat claim is pure guesswork.
Not entirely, while he admits to decent acceleration for the blk 60 (thanks to the 14 ton 100-132 engines), it does remain that other aspects suffer when weight increases so dramatically. Take wing loading for example, while mtow has increased what about wing area? what does this do for the birds nimbleness? It is one area where the eurocanards excel for a v.good reason over the legacy birds.
In this regards actually, I am more impressed with the fulcrum upgrades, they managed to dramatically increase fuel and payload capacity, while keeping the weight relatively low (11.5 – 12 ton?), increasing thrust by 2000kg and increasing wing area by 4-5sqm. All in all, nice work.
Frankly, I’d rather have seen the f-16 blk 60 airframe closer to the XL as it was originally supposed to be.
USS.
uss noviceOne thing I am not too happy about is the Rafale’s marketing dept. Sheesh, you gotta learn from them how to ruin your chances, I distinctly remember a top honcho being quoted in a recent article as to how the GOi/IAF needs to clearly indicate whether they needed a medium or heavy a/c, pointing out that they could then respond accurately. Its an opportunity not a handicap.
My response would be:
The rafale is both capable of medium type jobs (because it is amongst the smallest, lightest, least gas consuming of the 6 candidates, weighs just about as much as the F-16b60) as well as managing the heavy stuff (because it can carry just about as much as the Shornet, 24-27 tons). Now seriously that is some engineering right there – truly versatile and ahem, “omnirole”.
But no! instead they try to peddle a one off 40 a/c purchase. :confused: increasingly they seem to have given up stating political reasons. Quite prematurely one might say considering the election is right around the corner and its distinctly possible that a new govt is elected (the same one that wanted to give dassault the m2k-5 contract).
Come on guys you can do better. Hell, I’ll do the PR for them if I can get some decent $$s and a ride in raffles every now and agin. 😀
USS.
uss noviceThe point isn’t has a Russian Aircraft every shot down a American or for that matter a Western Fighter.
Then why did you say so?
Originally Posted by Scooter View Post
Well, when a Russian aircraft ever shoots down a American or Western Type we will talk……………..
USS.
uss noviceActually there are no winners/losers in DACT with allied airforces. It depends much on the roe etc. If you play to your strength you will have better results. Thats what happend in Cope India and then Redflag.
There are certainly no “overall” winners and losers, but that does not mean that certain comments can be completely negated, reading between the lines is very useful at such times. Sure, it could be said that the CI results were mainly to push the Raptor, but it does remain that packages consisting mainly or pure strike a/c with no a2a ability backed up by a few flankers/21s had excellent results or that in many cases the western birds/drivers had been seriously surprised. In Simbex too the blk 52s seemed to have been roughed up by flankers and 21s. Tornados too found the flankers out of their limits when they came to india (by admission of the RAF).
When the luftwaffe fulcrums for example used their HMS combo, they were literally invincible for the falcons, which much later started learning to get around that problem. IOWs, had it ever come to pass that during the height of the cold war, f-16s had met fulcrums, the latter might have run amuck.
As far as “playing to one’s strength” goes, I can’t see why those that came up short were not doing so, ROE did not restrict that and results were often similar when roles were reversed.
USS.
uss noviceWell, when a Russian aircraft ever shoots down a American or Western Type we will talk……………..
Oh but you have been talking and for a long while now. The difficulty posed by flankers and bisons and fulcrums was admitted by USAF folks too. Btw plenty of western types were shot down by russki types. Despite a proliferation of your posts on the forum, it is surprising that you are unaware of such things, a simple google search ought to do it or try acig.
uss.
uss noviceI was actually very critical of that fact. I do rate the Su 35 as one of the best non stealth aircraft out there.
My bad then, did not understand your context.
Anyway you are too blinded to see what i meant. You are prejudiced against me, sad.
Naah, I hardly have anything against you perse; its just that one expects some backup to statements like the one you made.
As far as Scoot’s claim regarding my statements in the previous post being without evidence, the words of IAF pilots( reported by AWST?, beaten to death on fora etc), PAF pilots (ACIG), USAF pilots (similar to above reports), VVS pilots (media reports ages ago were discussed on this forum by some old timers including BHarry, who sadly is absconding of late). On internet fora, I doubt it gets better than that.
Otoh, there is NOTHING whatsoever to backup the mythical superiority of all things western as scoot and you point out.
REgards,
USS.
USS.
uss noviceI wonder why the XL was ditched? If it has to be a viper, I’d say the XL would’ve surely been the bird to get the shornet A2A and A22 (not as a naval bird of course). Esp. if hooked up with the latest that GE-110/132 engine. It could supercruise even without that engine. You’d have one helluva F-16 right there.
I think it would be great for the indian MRCA race. Is LM listening? 🙂
USS.
uss noviceNo, he has a side-car.
I’m afraid that one was cruising at extreme altitudes for me, come again?
USS.
Sign In
