Castor“Should the French just went with the dam F-18!?”
– No. Otherwise the french wouldn’t have given us the most beautiful aircraft right now – the Dassaul Rafale.
CastorThis is bs.
I’ve said it a thousand times before, and I am going to say it a thousand more times if necessery:
Swedish government will not allow any new arms deals with Pakistan or India until things cool down considerably down there.
And to those guys who mentioned the Bofors sale to India;
that sale is regarded as a follow on order for an old sale of Bofors guns. That’s the only reason to why they can sell ’em. I can assure you that the swedish government isn’t especially glad over that deal, because the whole deal is refered to as the “Bofors scandal” here in Sweden.
regards,
castor
CastorCzech Republic leases Gripen
From FMV (Swedish Defence Material Administation) homepage http://www.fmv.se/press.asp?K=006001&L=UK&nr=9/04
“Press release
Czech Republic leases Gripen
DEFENCE MATERIEL ADMINISTRATION 2004-06-14 Nr 9/04
Director Communications & Public Affairs
Sweden and the Czech Republic has today signed a leasing agreement for 14 Gripen fighter aircraft for 10 years
FMV (The Swedish Defence Material Administration), representing the Swedish Government, signed an agreement with its equivalent department at the Czech Ministry of Defense, at a ceremony today in Prague. Czech Republic will lease 14 Gripen fighter aircraft (12 single seat and 2 two seat) of the latest version JAS 39 C/D Gripen for a period of ten years (2005-2015) according to the agreement.
The agreement follows the offer submitted by FMV in October 2003, which resulted in the Czech Governments decision to start negotiations with the Swedish government in December 2003. The negotiations have been ongoing since January 2004 and have now been successfully concluded by today’s agreement.
The Czech Republic will be the first NATO-country to operate the fourth generation Gripen, to meet the country’s national and NATO defense needs.
The Czech Republic will receive the latest C and D versions of the Gripen aircraft. These aircraft are the latest standard of the Gripen and are equipped with full color cockpits, air-to-air refueling probes, and are fully NATO-interoperable. The Gripen aircraft will be delivered to the Czech Republic during April-August 2005.
Sweden will provide extensive operational and tactical training of both Czech pilots and technicians as a part of the agreement. The training will be done in Sweden with the Swedish Air Force who is responsible for the training program.
Saab AB will be responsible for certain adaptations of the Gripen aircraft to meet the Czech requirements. Saab AB will also provide technical support during the whole duration of the leasing period.
Training devices will be supplied by Sweden during the whole leasing period to provide an in-country training capability, and in addition simulator training will be provided in Sweden.
The agreement also covers the provision of the necessary maintenance equipment, a fully integrated logistics support package including spares, ground support equipment, repairs and technical and tactical support systems during the whole leasing period. The integrated logistics support package includes the transport of materiel between Sweden and the Czech Republic, publications and technical support during the whole leasing period. This support concept is the same model as used by the Swedish Air Force.
The Czech Republic is responsible for its own pilots, technicians and for normal maintenance of the Gripen aircraft in addition to consumable items such as aircraft fuel.
The total value of the contract is 19.650 billion CZK.”
– So I guess the lease is secured by now and Gripen will therefore be operated by 4 countries; Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and Czech Republic, in the near future.
regards,
Castor
Castorcompared to the weight of the aircraft ?? because thats the load on the wings.
Pulling high g’s certainly means a lot to wing loading, but the wing stiffnes must also be able to deal with the dynamic effects that occurs on a wing. These dynamic effects, or flutter effects, are highly dependent on where you put your masses – which in this case is the missiles, bombs etc – and even worse on a forward swept wing than they would have been on a conventional wing.
Normally you don’t want to put masses at the points where you’ll get displacement maximas in the wings first bending modes, but in this design they’ve actually added twice the amount of mass (two missiles that is) on a point where most of the bending modes will have a displacement maxima – namely the wing tip. This will create huge dynamic effects – and stress – on the structure and ultimately (if the speed is high enough) divergence where the wing will break into pieces.
You may want to check out this movie:
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Web/Site/QT/A6Flutter.html
regards,
Castor
Castor“Thats certainly not true, when you say flutter, again I assume you mean vorcities.”
– No. Flutter is NOT the same thing as vortices. Flutter is when the wing starts to twist and bend in different mode shapes. If you increase the speed further divergence will occur, and divergence means that the wing will bend up (or downwards) until it breaks into pieces.
“And as for the fin on the back of the plane losing lift at AoA, if that were true, it would be true for the rudder also.”
– Yes, the real rudder suffers from the same kind of problems. But this is solved by making the rudder longer (and bigger).
CastorI tend to agree with Aurel on this one; those canards will cause problems for the rudders. (Remember those problems that were caused by the small lex:es on F-18. Now that was small lex:es, this is pretty big canards…)
And when it comes to flutter – a forward swept wing means that you are getting serious flutter effects (divergence!) at lower speed than you would get with an aft swept wing. In order to dampen out flutter effects you could add point masses at the maximum displacement positions – but in this case they’ve actually added more mass (ie two missiles) to the wingtip which acts as a node. This will make flutter effects even worse!
And at last, I don’t see the point in having this fin behind the cockpit glas. When you get a few degrees of AoA, it will have zero effect on the yaw stability.
Castor
CastorAre you sure about that wachenroder?
I remember that they postponed it a year after Lula became president until january this year, and then it got delayed for another 3-4 months or so but I haven’t heard that they have cancelled it? But I Guess I’ve been out of the loop for quite a while now hmm…
In that case, I suppose the big question is – what are they going to get instead? Are they going to use these Kfir there been some talk about or what?
regards,
Castor
Castor“It is overdue that a European/NATO C-17 fleet is established. Under the command of NATO, like the AWACS.”
Dear distiller!
Do you see the differences between european and american military doctrines?
We don’t need to go around the globe to start a war – we have the balkans for playground you know? And besides, were not really in for this listen-to-what-daddy-tells-you-to-buy sort of mentality that the US shows upon their allies.
CastorSrbin wrote:
“I don’t see whats so much more offensive on the M2K than on the Gripen”
Glitter wrote:
“Better radar, better EW.”
Well Glitter, according to Airforces Monthly (amongst others) Gripen is second to none when it comes to information superiority. I can mention the datalink capability etc.
The big difference in offensive capability that I would like to point out is that Mirage has more weapons integrated. But, after a quick look at the Gripen website, you can soon realize that this might change in a couple of years.
Castor
CastorA question to the brazilian guys which I would appreciate if you could answer, what’s the latest status on the fighter tender in Brazil? (When are they going to decide which aircraft to buy, and how goes the word in Brazil that is.)
My 2 cents would be:
1. Su-35
Pro: A non-american fighter with great range and performance.
Con: Spares, offsets and quality.
2. Mirage 2000Br
Pro: A proven great fighter.
Con: Expensive, in the end of it’s lifecycle.
3. Gripen
Pro: Good performance, advanced electronics (datalink etc.)
Con: A bit short legged, especially compared to Su-35.
4. F-16
Pro: A proven fighter with lots of users all over the world.
Con: In the end of it’s lifecycle.
Gripen ought to be the darkhorse here, with a possibility to knock down the Mirage to third place. And yes, I would love to see the Gripen in Brazilian AF marks. 🙂
regards,
Castor
CastorThe phrase that I would use is “selectively neutral”.
Are we talking about Sweden now? 😀
CastorPrice isn’t that much of an issue for the USAF, compared to smaller European airforces, such as Danish AF, Hungarian AF or Austrian AF for example.
If a F-22 fighter costs six times a F-16/Gripen/Mirage it means that US will get 300 F-22 fighters instead of 1800 F-16’s (doh!). Now this isn’t an issue since no one can match 300 F-22’s.
But when it comes to smaller nations, price IS an issue. Hungary could (hypothetical speaking ofcourse) get 2 F-22 fighters or 14 Gripen fighters. What would you choose? I suppose it’s quite simple isn’t it?
Castor
Castor4e – J 35 Draken.
Saab 210 had the same kind of wingplanform as the later Draken fighters and were therefore used as a testbed, eventhough it had 30% smaller wingarea. And boy it was ugly. 😀
CastorAbout NSM;
The Norwegian armed forces has so far been paying 1.6 billion NOK to Kongsberg Defence for the development of NSM. The missile launch trials has however not been succesful, 3 out of 6 missiles failed to be launched. Therefore, the armed forces has refused to pay another 200 million NOK for development, until the problems are sorted out by Kongsberg.
Source: http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=217739 (Norwegian)
CastorI suppose Saab RBS-15 mk3 is an option.
Having a range in excess of 200 km, and an optional land attack capability should make it quite interesting. At least it was for Finland, Sweden, Germany, fomer Yugoslavia and Poland. Eventhough Germany and Poland haven’t signed any contracts yet, I know that Germany choosed the RBS-15 over the NSM for their warships.
The missile can be truck, ship or air launched.
http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/GetFile.aspx?pathtype=ProductFiles&filetype=Files&id=543
Sign In
