TonnycI may be wrong, but isn’t there also a thrust issue?
from memory, the F414 is around 11t in max thrust, EJ200 about 9 or a bit more and the M88 only recently proposed in a 9t version with enlarged front…
You are probably remembering the F414 Enhanced engine, which is a 116 KN engine. Sintra is right too though because Saab chose to use the F-414-GE-39E to keep cost down.
TonnycSome of you posting here about ToT of the F414 would do well by reading the new ITAR laws. There are certain parts of domestic fighter turbofans that are absolutely restricted from ToT agreements as S. Korea is finding out the hard way on the T-50. GE cannot transfer; Saab cannot transfer this technology as it is restricted.
It is this simple:
This isn’t for FBW in particular.
There are two things I want to address in relation with the F414 engine in Gripen NG.
One is the idea that the USG will block the sale of F414 engines to Brazil for some reason. This is not going to happen barring some major political event in either Brazil or the U.S. that makes Brazil somehow a pariah state to the U.S. No, the reduction of U.S.-made components in the Gripen NG is not sufficient reason. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a profitable action.
Two is the idea that Brazil is getting the F414 technology. A few individuals insist that Saab swindled Brazil by promising Brazil things that Saab can’t possibly accomplish, such as giving Brazil F414 technology. This is delusional. Saab is not some two-bit swindler out to make a quick buck. Brazil is not some stupid hick easily tricked by outlandish promises. Both Saab and Brazil know exactly what is and what is not in the deal. And the technology to make F414 is not in the deal. Brazil knows that, Saab knows that. And if some individuals chose to be deluded, well, that’s their choice. Brazil and Saab will proceed with what’s in the contract, not with what’s on their delusional minds.
TonnycIf Brazil was responsible for the equipment sourcing choices then a dual message should be sent to both Saab and Brazil by blocking Gripen exports.
GE can go to hell as well by the way they’re not really an american company anymore.
Hahaha. Send a message to Saab and Brazil indeed. Yeah, you go ahead and try that. Good luck trying to outlobby General Electric.
I am not saying that it’s impossible for the U.S. to embargo Brazil, but it will be for something like a coup d’état over there, or Brazil aligning with Russia or China. Not for some piddly little stuff like component sourcing changes on Gripen.
TonnycYou know who’s going to scream the loudest if the US government prohibits the export of GE F-414 to Brazil? General Electric. Because then the US government would have denied them an order worth hundreds of millions of dollars plus who knows how many billions in follow-up contracts. There had better be a damn good reason and some sweet sweet bribe to make up for it. Removal of US components from Gripen? GE doesn’t give a damn about that, the parts removed aren’t what they’re selling, and they will lobby the hell out of the US government if some two-bit fuel valve manufacturer tried to kill their hundred million dollars engine order to “protect US interests”.
TonnycWhat is sanjo trying to do in this forum anyway? He’s been starting this nonsensical X vs. Y thing several times already.
TonnycIndonesia needs a lot of things (in the military-industrial realm) more than it needs a handful of 5th gen hanger queens.
Buy Gripen, stick with KF-X, build a modern and professional air force whilst encouraging local industry involvement and development to the greatest extent practicable. A decade from now Indonesia can look at the state of the market (and progress with KF-X) and consider T-50, F-35, and whatever else is on the market and fits operational and politico-strategic objectives.
+2
I don’t usually post stuff like that, but sanjo’s question is just odd. Maybe in 2025 the question would be relevant, but today it’s about as relevant as asking Star Wars Imperial Destroyer or Star Trek Enterprise, which one should Indonesia and Egypt get.
TonnycThat’s something that is possible in theory but is really hard to pull in practice. I don’t have the technical background, so what I write below is my layman understanding.
So called “spy satellites” typically sits in low earth orbit, approximately 400 km above the surface of the earth. Sometimes the satellite owner chose a higher orbit, sometimes they chose a lower orbit, but let’s use 400 km as a typical height. The lower you go, the closer you get to what you want to photograph, and thus you get better resolution. But orbital mechanics dictates that the lower you go the faster you must move to maintain orbit. But the lower the orbit, the higher the atmospheric friction. Small as it is, they cause the orbit to decay. Satellites usually have small thrusters to correct their orbits, but sooner or later they run out of propellant and the decay becomes unstoppable and the satellite falls and burns in atmosphere. For small satellites, the expected lifetime is usually 2-3 years, depending on the amount of propellant they carry.
Satellite in lower orbits also have a smaller field of vision at any given time. They also move really fast compared to the rotation of the earth. At 400 km the orbital speed necessary to maintain height is 7.66 km/s and it will revolve around the earth 15.54 times per day. Assuming a 120 degree cone of vision, you have a field of vision that’s about 1384 km across. It basically turns outs that if you want to cover any particular area for 24 hours/day, you need several satellites. And if you are a superpower wanting to scan the whole earth, you need a whole lot more. And you need to keep launching replacements.
The speed of the satellite also hampers motion recognition. Basically, it’s easier to tell if something is moving if you are relatively still than if you are moving really fast. I believe this is solvable now given advances in computing, but it’s not simple. I don’t know much about this area though.
You can get mitigate this by going higher and higher in orbit. In fact, at geosynchronous orbit, about 36000 km above the earth, the orbital velocity matches the the rotation of the earth and the satellites is fixed in respect to a single point on earth. And you get full view of earth. Meaning you only need one satellite to cover the whole hemisphere. Plus you don’t have to worry much about atmospheric friction, meaning it will decades before you need to replace your satellite. But our optical technology today is not very good at 36000 km distance. At that height the resolution we get is about 1 km2 per pixel. Great for terrain mapping and meteorology, but not good enough for look at aircrafts. So one pretty much has to go with low earth orbit satellites.
To sum up, at this point, to use satellites to detect stealth aircraft you need the lots and lots of money. Right now I think the only country with the money to pull it off in real time is the USA. But the only country with stealth aircraft today is the USA. So they don’t need to. And even the US doesn’t have global real time coverage. That may change in the future. There’s also the possibility that digital camouflage pattern can defeat the optical recognition software.
Re: radar satellites. Possible, but you’ll still need a constellation of satellites, meaning lots of money. You also run into power supply problem.
TonnycThat infograph was created June 2014 and thus won’t reflect recent events.
The infograph only covers Swedish Air Force order. South Africa isn’t in there because South Africa’s Gripens were bought straight from Saab. Thai’s Gripens are new, but is in there because they were bought via a Swedish FMS scheme. Thus technically the aircrafts were bought by Sweden. That is Thailand’s contract was with Sweden, not Saab. Sweden then buys the aircrafts on Thailand’s behalf and then turns them over to Thailand.
I believe Hungarian Gripens were new. Hungary was supposed to get converted Gripens, but their parliament raised a stink and rather than fight a political battle their defense ministry negotiated a change and the lease was adjusted. Or so the story went back in 2003/2004. Or at least that’s how I recall it.
Tonnycif the landing gear failed to retract then it wouldn’t have been an issue..the issue was that the nose gear failed to come down and the pilot chose to do a belly landing, lost control and ejected.
Here’s the relevant portion from IHS Jane’s 360.
The single-seat Gripen C crashed at Kecskemet Air Base after the aircraft’s nose gear failed to retract properly following take off. With the nose gear stuck in an intermediate position, after 2 hours flight time and short on fuel, the pilot decided to crash land the aircraft without the main gear. The aircraft skidded uncontrollably off the runway, with the pilot ejecting and being injured in the process.
TonnycAh thanks. Looks like they could in fact repair the jet and put it back into service. Damage doesn’t seem to be catastrophic. Did the landing gear collapse or just not extend?
Landing gear failed to retract on takeoff. Pilot chose to abort mission and land. Plane becomes uncontrollable during landing. Pilot ejected.
Source. Scroll down to the very last page.
TonnycThey ejected AFTER landing?
From what I gather from software translated Czech sites, yes. They landed, but failed to brake. Once they saw they were running out of runway, they ejected. Plane continued onto uneven field at high speed and crashed.
TonnycIndia is the only ‘3rd world’ country operating the C-17 and with the Indian Rupee having the lowest purchasing power among all the operators of C-17s. it would be interesting to see what percentage of IAF budget these costly aircraft’s will be having in 10-15 years from now.
Edit: rephrasing since I was too harsh
Exchange rates have nothing to do with ability to purchase something and operate it. Purchasing power per unit of currency is irrelevant in this context and comparing the exchange rates of various countries is meaningless. Consider the South Korean won. The Indian rupee has a higher exchange rate than the won. One rupee is equal to seventeen won. But so what?
I am not sure what your point is, but whatever it is, the dollar-rupee exchange rate is not relevant to it.
TonnycInstead of two 1,700 l (underwing) + two 1,000 l (central pylons), it is possible two 1,700 l (underwing) + one 1,000 l (central pylons).
Ah, sorry. The way the sentence was constructed earlier was not as clear. Glad that this has been straightened. Moving on.
TonnycGripen E has also increased empty mass since midi 2014 Saab press release, coming from 7.1 tonnes to 8.0 tonnes. So the maximum external load is limited to approx. 5,0 tonnes, making 2 underwing 1,700 l tanks and 2 1,000 l central tanks impossible, so it is only 1 1,000 center tank.
Can you show how a 900 kg mass increase results in 4400 liter external fuel decrease, please? I mean, why is the choice either 4 drop tanks vs. 1 drop tank. Why do you not consider three drop tanks or two drop tanks?
TonnycCan F-35B fit their tunnels? Technical evaluation should pit F-35B versus Rafale. Monetary evaluation will boil down to Gripen. Funny, they could probably buy twice as many MiG-29K, send three times as many pilots to Russia for training, and buy westernization into them compared to Gripen NG. Probably couldn’t afford to fly them any more than the F/A-18’s, but they would add considerable airframe numbers…
The MiG-29K comment is weird. What use are MiG-29K airframes that one can’t afford to fly? That would be a bunch of expensive paperweights. One might as well use the same amount of money to increase the current fleet’s readiness so that it can be ready 24/7.
I got no dog in this fight, but suggesting MiG-29K is just nonsense. If Switzerland doesn’t want to or can’t spend the money to maintain a fast jet fleet, then Switzerland should not buy anything at all. Adding more airframes will not solve the issue. If anything, it will make the maintenance burden worse.
Sign In
