wellerockshttp://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
In Russian. Line 83 and 84
I have a very hard time imagining the MiG-29 would have a smaller signature than the Gripen in clean configuration. The 39A Gripen had an RCS in clean config. of 0.1m2. Since the introduction of the Gripen 39A&B, a lot has happened and even further measures of reducing the signature has been made.
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2390/gripenrcsfoilqwx1.jpg
And the difference between the F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F Hornet is tiny compared to what Boeing has claimed they’ve done to minimize the RCS of the Hornet.
wellerocksI’m just afraid that the EPE and thrust vectoring will have some negative effects regarding the two main advantages with the Gripen E/F, range (for a single engine fighter) and operational costs.
But sure would be cool nontheless 🙂
wellerocksDon’t really get the point in all of that and still keep the fuel probe external..? But a really nice impression nontheless!
wellerocksSupreme Commander opens for a Nordic Air Force
Flights collaboration with Denmark for Air Force forces in the Nordic countries a step closer. Supreme Commander does not rule out a joint air defense.Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland cooperate closer military, including on material purchases and long-term planning.
…
And now joins Denmark to a transnational system of regular joint exercises between the fighters from all the Nordic countries.
…
Then it’s tempting for defense managers to become more effective by combining their air forces with their neighbors. A coordinated Nordic air defense is a possibility.
original source in Swedish:
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/sverige/ob-oppnar-for-ett-nordiskt-flygvapen/
Sounds like this might be big advantage with the Gripen? I see a lot of advantages with a joint air force sharing the same planes, costs, spare-parts, training etc.
wellerocksSo if I’ve understood this article right, it’s either a unmanned, manned or optionally manned/unmanned long strike aircraft made by either Lockheed, Boeing or Northrop Grumman that would be fitted with either one, two or even more engines?
Well that narrows the selection down 😀
wellerocksWith regard to (the rhomboid) intakes, for example, its the pronounced use of edge alignment (in addition to angling) to minimise the likelihood of reflecting radar waves back to the transmitting aircraft/radar.
Pointy nose???????
Well, the the Super Hornet has its inlet geometry shaping, inlet tunnel S-bendsall, canopy coatings, special materials and treatment for leading edges which reduces its forward sector signature to some extent. But then again, the F/A-18E/F had a LOT to make up for. Like for instance, it’s diverging weapon pylons, which most probably highlights any external weaponry from a frontal and rear aspect, that the new inlets do not mask some parts of its engine fan blades, and barely anything has been done to reduce the airplane’s considerable infrared signature. It doesn’t help that the Super Bug was based on original designs that didn’t put very big emphasis on RCS reduction measures [YF-17 -> F/A-18A/B -> F/A-18C/D -> F/A-18E/F].
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68420382@N06/7226968966/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fa-18f-super-hornet_2.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/fa-18-ef-superhornet9.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/FA-18E_Super_Hornet_landing_on_USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV-63)_-_080423-N-7883G-107.jpg
http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Super-Hornet.jpg
As previously mentioned. I don’t believe the F/A-18E/F SH is a bad fighter in any way. It’s a superb multi-roll strike-platform, just as it was intended to be, but I don’t see where it would exceed the Gripen in LO other than in Boeing brochures. The Gripen too has stealth enhancing coatings, angled shapes, inlet geometry shaping and an S inlet tunnel. So I don’t see where the F/A-18E/F brings anything new to the table compared to the Gripen C/D in terms of stealthy features.
Oh and the pointy nose reference was sarcasm if it was hard to tell.
wellerocksDoesn’t the B-2 discount the theory that small size is required for a low RCS?
Well, size does have a saying in RCS. Great examples of this is the B-2 and the B-1B. The B-2 having put heavy emphasis on the RCS-reduction, but which have compromised a whole lot of other abilities in the process. The B-1B has 1/50th that of the B-52 regarding RCS even though it isn’t that much smaller in mass. It wasn’t really until the ATF that the biggest compromises linked with advanced stealth could be removed. The F-117 had severe problems with drag and maneuverability causing it to become slow and highly unstable in certain positions. But I’d go as far as saying the B-52 arguably has a larger RCS than a Cessna 172.
True, but Gripen’s airframe lacks most of the “classic” RCS reduction measures that are apparent on SH.
What measures did you have in mind? Canted vertical stabilizers? Squared intakes? Pointy nose?
wellerocksJust FYI you aren’t looking at the engine fan blades on a Super Hornet, you are looking at Radar blockers. Not knowing that shows that you don’t realize that lower RCS was also designed into the SH from day one. Without providing any kinda of facts or source I would be cautious on claiming that the Gripen is more “stealthy” than a SH.
Well apart from the fact that the Gripen is just much smaller than the Super Bug (that is relevant to the RCS in certain aspects) the Gripen has taken some serious steps along the way with reducing its signature. The Gripen was always intended to stay alive in a high-threat environment faced with an enemy capable of deploying relatively modern jets in large numbers. So apart from a RCS-reduced design from the beginning it would utilize tactical data links within fighter groups, passive radar etc.
The Gripen 39A had a [clean] RCS of about 0.1m2 according to this document from a Swedish Defense Organisation called FOI.http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2471/gripenrcsfoilq.jpg
So whilst comparing the first evolutions of the Hornet versus the first evolutions of the Gripen, I don’t think there’s much doubt on that the Gripen had more focus on LO whilst the Hornet was a far more capable strike aircraft. So the F/A-18E/F would have had a much longer way to go than the Gripen C/D on bringing down the total RCS.
Here’s a document showing the focus on RCS-reducing measures with the first evolution of the Gripen.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5739/gripen2rcs1985.jpg
While converting the A/B into the international NATO Gripen, further RCS-reducing measures was made. There aren’t any documents available of the specifications for obvious reasons, but the fact that further “stealth”-enhancements were made can be shown here on an official document.
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7404/gripenfatiguetestrcsmar.jpg
And Sweden aren’t exactly rookies in the stealth-research area either. Kockums naval stealth research (Smyge, Visby, Visby++, GHOST), Saabs aircraft stealth research (Neuron, K-FX, FS2020) and Volvo Aero’s various research (Radar absorbent materials & composites, stealth shapes and reduced IR-signals) are some sort of proof that Sweden is far from simply reverse-engineering existing designs, but actually rather innovative. Saab has been researching in potential future 5th generation designs if the Gripen was deemed unfit for future demands. The K-FX proposal, the Neuron (together with other partners) and the FS2020 are just a few of those “evolutions”.
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5105/flumeskorea.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8081/saabneuronwork.jpg
[http://i.imgur.com/s4hXv.jpg%5D
http://www.gknaerospaceenginesystems.com/SiteCollectionImages/VAC/new%20site/images%20other%20sizes/Stealth%20radom.jpg
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=181032&d=1338802979
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=181033&d=1338803046
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6553/volvo1jc4.jpg
As for the further evolutions, Saab has proposed several signature-reducing new features on the new E(/F) model(s). Amongst things, Saab has proposed F-15SE similar conformal weapon bays for AAMs, and discussions have been ongoing with Denmark on a possible integration with their stealthy F-35-pod. Lessons learned from other stealth projects, e.g. a stealthy nose-cone, DSI-inlets, better RCS-reducing coating and further enhanced passive radar-systems are just some things that could be featured. To be honest, I don’t think a Gripen 39E with a stealthier frontal aspect, advanced WISCOM, fewer external objects and new materials would be that unrealistic. But we’ve gotta see once it’ll get shaped in January 2013. Although “fake” (no **** you might say) artist impressions, I don’t think they’re too far fetched of what the Gripen 39E could turn out to be since they don’t seem too ambitious cost-wise or risk-wise.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7874/modifiedgripenjl8.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/GripenXMLUspecs1.jpg?t=1258333429
http://www.xplane.se/slask/grippen_engee2.png
http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/attachments/Mon_1107/27_185980_7bebd98979bc250.jpg
Non the less, I’m sure the a Super Silent Super bug will be a formidable fighter. I’m just very skeptical to the SH having a smaller signature than one of the smallest fighters with quite a lot of signature-reducing on its record.
wellerocksWhen someone is looking for a replacement it has to offer the avionic progress in the meanwhile. For Denmark the newer fighter has to be better than the F-16MLU about that and offer further avionic upgrade capability as well. A new engine offers the least gains in modern combat. The Gripen NG is an option at least, when a twin engine fighter offers some extra safety having bird-strikes, bad weather and operations over the sea in mind.
Well, I’m not sure how the dual-engine operations would be a much safer choice considering safety over water. Both Norway and Denmark has operated their F-16’s during patrols to territory in the north atlantic (Bjørnøya, Svalbard, Greenland and the Faroese Islands) so evidently, the Danes and Norwegians believe single engined fighters operational safety suffices. The Gripen uses a proven and reliable engine, and the RM12 used today hasn’t caused any engine-failure-related crashes despite various bird-strikes and incidents. The intended engine for the Gripen E/F is too proven and highly reliable.
wellerocksNevermind that they got them from NATO.
Nic
Damn those sneaky Croatians, huh?
You don’t believe it was some Sa-24s delivered to Libya in 2004 that Libyan rebels laid their hands on and might have smuggled to their fellow rebels in Syria?
wellerocksyes, not sure if the slight performance advantages of a Flanker justify the logistical headaches and dual munitions costs if you combine it with a Gripen force. the Eagle will at least be able to use most of the same weapons.
the only time I think a two weapon system AF would be justifiable is if the country wanted to keep secure an emergency source of weapons and spares in case one country cuts off support. Something the Malaysians and I guess Greeks are doing and will gladly accept the higher and more complex logistics.
if you’re using Vietnam as an example, I don’t see the Russians cutting off anything anytime soon. Russians love Vietnam. But I agree, there are somethings the Russians can’t offer to Vietnam.. like a light modern fighter.
Well as I see it, the most likely nation, in which Vietnam would get into a conflict with, would probably be China. In such a dispute, it would be fair to say that it could be of great importance to use weapons from different suppliers, e.g. both Sweden, Russia and America. China also utilizes Russian arms, and it would be catastrophical to go up against an enemy with similar fighter jets, similar weapons but in greater numbers, with more support and with AWACS coverage. Regarding Russia alone as a foreign supplier could have some implications. China is still a big importer of Russian arms and technology, so a dispute, how limited to the South Chinese sea it may be, might be a dealbreaker for the time being, even if additional exporting may come at a later stage.
Vietnam is too poor to do those things.
If there’s a will, there’s a way. Escalating bad relations with China might very well pose as a good reason for a military expansion. And as you might have noticed, my list showed decreased numbers of aircraft as replacements. Merely retiring old, costly and unsafe aircraft will surely aid the funding of new aircraft. Operating and maintaining some 200 MiG-21 and Su-22 can’t be economic in any universe. Operating a group of leased Gripen C/D’s can be.
wellerockswow so many of you fantasize a Gripen Flanker hi-lo mix.
sounds good on paper but maybe not the most practical in terms of logistics. Gripen-Super Hornet works better, or to some extent, Gripen and Eagle.
I definitely concur on that a Super-Gripen/Super-Hornet mix would be far more practical, but my post was connected to a more realistic view of the VPAF. The Flanker family has already been put into service in the Vietnamese peoples air force, and thus, the benefits of continuing to use it contra to get rid of those and buy Super Hornets instead, would be nil or non-existant.
As for Brazil however, I’d definitely think say the Gripen 39E/F would be a great choice in the F-X2 to replace their F-5 Tigers and the F/A-18E/F to replace their A-4 Skyhawks. The Gripen is a cost-effective choice that carries a relatively large payload for a single-engine design, that has the possibility to do patrolling/reconnaissance/intercepting very well with an advanced AESA, IRST, Meteor and a super cruise capability. The Super Hornet could complement the Gripen with its much larger payload capability and who knows, Brazil could even convert some into Growlers for an advanced EW-capability with time like Australia.
Not sure why a Eagle/Gripen hi-lo mix would be any better than a flanker/Gripen mix though. Due to the mutual weaponry? Martin Baker chairs?
wellerocksWhy not throw in some F35s here?
The main part of the AF will be low cost already and link 16 compatible + using mostly western weapons. Adding the stealth capability and have the F35 as a ‘stand off’-platform and high end striker would probably be good. Maybe the F15SE would be interesting as well considering the speed, stealth, heavy armament etc?
Untill that time there still are a few Su30 around that can do the dirty work.
The way I see it, the F-35 has three edges which makes it somewhat unique. SEAD operations, deep penetrative strikes and BVR combat.
But for all three of those, you’re basically required to have a lot of other expensive abilities, e.g. supportive functions that only a joint NATO-force could use, electronic warfare-systems, more advanced AWACS, SEAD/HARM-weaponry etc.
Although effective (with the right tools & support), it’s expensive and requires more than just a few F-35’s. In that case, I’d look to a more cost-effective nationally-based air defense.
Regarding BVR it’s a whole different science which I, as a humble civilian, can’t really give an accurate estimation of what is the best. But this is where the Air-Superiority fighter comes in. The PAK-FA offers internal weaponry, an advanced AESA, modern IRST-equipment and a similarity to the sukhois used in the VPAF. The Gripen E/F offers a relatively low radar & IR signature although technically not stealth (upgrades of signature-reducement has been discussed for the “Super Gripen” with similar “add-on” conformal internal weapon bays like the one used on the Silent Eagle, DSI inlets, split design nose and new radar-absorbant paint) and comprises an advanced E/W-suite, swarming/clutter tactics, an advanced AESA radar combined with a IRST system aswell as advanced BVR-weapons in the form of both Meteor and AMRAAM.
Thus, I fail to see how the F-35 would stand out in that area for planes with similar abilities but at equal or lower costs.
wellerocksFor a cost-effective but capable air force for Vietnam:
Low-end cost effective multi-roll fighter: Replace the MiG-21s and Su-22s with the Gripen. Opt for some sort of mutual agreement with Sweden and Thailand to share training and spare parts in that region. Start out with leased Gripen C&Ds from Sweden to keep the integration swift and easy of an initial batch of pilots and mechanics. Vietnam could then opt for getting an asian production/assembly line of the Gripen E/F, and provide future potential operators with the Gripen E/F e.g. Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines etc.
High-end multi-roll strike fighter: Continue to use the Su-30MK2V to complement the Gripen with longer range, larger payload and to use the existing russian weapons already in use with the VPAF.
High-end air superiority fighter: Continue to use the 15 Su-27SK/UBK in service, and with time, either look for a replacement, e.g. Su-35 or PAK-FA T-50 to continue the connections with Russia, or increase the number of Gripen 39E in use.
Advanced trainer & light attack aircraft: Either follow up on more Yak-130 orders to retire the older L-39, or convert/replace the L-39 into/with the L-159 and keep them as light attack aircraft and keep the 8 Yak-130 ordered to date as advanced lead in trainers.
AEW&C and MPA: Order Saab 2000AEW&C Erieye and 2000MPA Swordfish or Saab 340AEW&C Erieye and 340MPA Swordfish. They’re probably among the cheapest AEW&C on the market, yet effective. That would be another possible connection with the Thai air force which operates the 340AEW&C. The 2000MPA could be fitted with RBS15 anti-ship missiles and be yet another way for Vietnam to uphold its sovereignty from further Chinese threats. Future Gripens and MPA’s could also be fitted with smaller (and thus more) NSM’s.
Transport aircraft: Replace the An-2 and partially the An-26 with a mix of more capable transport aircraft that could be capable of faster speeds, larger cargo load and air to air-refueling. Keep a limited number of An-26 and upgrade them with modern avionics like India is doing to their An-32 in Ukraine, let them be replaced by the IL-214 at a later stage. Complement the An-26 with a smaller number of KC-390, C-130, C-130J or A400M.
wellerocksI very much doubt you found it on SAAB’s webpage. It’s basically a university project with slight input from SAAB / FMV.
Anyhow, the URL for the project is http://www.iei.liu.se/flumes/aero/gff?l=en if you want to read more about it.
SAAB actually put this on their website before the university but then removed it almost as quickly.
Sign In
