dark light

robban

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Sea Gripen – MERGED #2417469
    robban
    Participant

    And a better question. If the manufacture of the Gripen was to go to the years of R&D and $$$$$$$ to develop a naval version of the Gripen: What nations navy would buy it??????

    Jack E. Hammond

    .

    The Gripen was designed from the start to handle high sink rate touch downs, similar to carrier landings. It’s landing characteristics are excellent, low speed with high precision. The modifications needed to make it navalised wouldn’t be too drastic. According to Saab anyway.

    robban
    Participant

    I believe it’s more like a super modified MiG-21. The wing of the JF-17 is strikingly similar to that of the MiG-21. The ailerons and flaps are pretty much identical. Like the MiG-21 the JF-17 wing lacks wing twist. The inner chord has the same angle as the wingtip.

    in reply to: A Christmas present for all the Rafale fanboys…… #2402201
    robban
    Participant

    So many HUD shots from so many AFs all over the net. Whats being French got to do with it?

    PS- I am not French.

    I’ve only seen Mirage 2000 and Rafale HUD shots(and videos) from international exercises with aircrafts of other countries caught in them. I’ve never seen(example) US, british, russian or swedish HUD shots featuring french jets, or jets of other countries in them. I’ve seen the F-22 caught in the HUD of a Super Hornet but that’s US on US.

    Any links to these HUD shots from so many AFs all over the net? I have a hard time finding any.

    http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/thk_f-16_intercepted_by_epa_m20001.jpg
    http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1247840680/1248524231/Rafale-+conquering+the+skies-+Video%2C+France+24+in+English.

    http://kovy.free.fr/temp/guns.jpg

    http://kovy.free.fr/temp/guns2.jpg
    http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1206802172/last-1245957065/Mirage+2000+vs+F-16

    http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/photos/34886.jpg
    http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/34886/

    http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale-vs-F18.jpg
    http://taiwanbbs.org/cgi/index.pl?b=mil,v=print,m=1113496349,a=2

    in reply to: A Christmas present for all the Rafale fanboys…… #2402365
    robban
    Participant

    I’m not surprised to see a Typhoon getting “killed” by a Rafale. I’m sure the Rafale has been “killed” by the Typhoon as well during exercises.

    I’m more interested in the French fetish of taking HUD shots and posting them all over the internet.

    in reply to: A Christmas present for all the Rafale fanboys…… #2402379
    robban
    Participant

    deleted

    in reply to: Finnish 'Aggressor' Hornet ? #2407628
    robban
    Participant

    Well the flight scenes are mostly CGI. And the black Hornet in the movie is definitely CGI.

    in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen Info # 2 #2409668
    robban
    Participant

    Gripen needs 2 min to 10000 m and 3 min to 14000 m.

    Gripen, from brakes off to 10000m, 1 min 40 secs(same as the JA37). 11000m 2 min, 14000m 3 min.

    in reply to: 36 Dassault Rafale for Brasil – Official #2433118
    robban
    Participant

    Not, and by a long shot.

    http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1902/gripensupercruiseld0.jpg

    in reply to: 36 Dassault Rafale for Brasil – Official #2433177
    robban
    Participant

    Several data points suggest that Rafale/Typhoon have a better lift to drag ratio:
    – Rafale’s low speed performance is slightly superior to the Gripen A/C (approach speed 120 knots vs. 125 knots, minimum speed 80knots),

    The Rafale flies a 16 deg/AoA 125 knots approach. The Gripen flies a 14 deg/AoA 125 knots approach.

    – Both Rafale & Typhoon have superior supercruise performance (despite what fans say, there is no confirmation that Gripen NG can do Mach 1.2 with a drop tank)

    The A/C version Gripen can fly supersonic in dry thrust with a full load of AMRAAM’s, Sidewinders and a drop tank. Why shouldn’t the NG manage to fly M1.2 with the same load with 20% more thrust? Test pilots have noticed that the landing gear farings have actually contributed to overall aerodynamic performance.

    some unique maintenance friendly arguments such as the canopy designed to facilitate ejection seat removal.

    As TGIF said, the Gripen has the same feature. Side ways hinging canopies doesn’t require the canopy to be removed in order to remove the ejection seat.

    robban
    Participant

    nice bits of apparently first hands reports 🙂 Do you know where I could read more of these (in English would be great :o) ? Reading the part regarding the comparison between the 2 planes performance would be awesome 🙂

    Sorry, these are words from a friend of mine who’s a Gripen technician, he goes pretty much were the Gripen goes. He praised the Rafale for it’s power and beauty. And the Gripen pilots were having a tough(but fun) time at altitude against the Rafales. They said that they couldn’t shake the Rafale at high altitude. For the Gripen to be more competitive here the F414 is needed. Fitting it into the Gripen NG Demo proved to be rather uncomplicated, so in future we’ll see.

    robban
    Participant

    The Gripen mafia is almost as bad as the Rafale mafia!

    Nice to see you Robban ^^

    Nic

    No denying that!

    Good to see you also Nicolas! 🙂

    robban
    Participant

    Rafale F2 clearly dominated the gripen a few years ago when thet came to Reims. In terms of situational awarness, sensor fusion and power (in the whole flight enveloppe an especially at high altitude) it was outclassed. The report was posted several times here.
    A rafale pilot who flew in the gripen back seat compared the gripen to a smaler Mirage 2000-5mk2. They appriciated the gripen ease of use and low maintenance nevertheless.

    There was no domination. However the Rafale proved to perform noticably better at high altitude(where the exercise was conducted) thanks to a much healthier thrust/weight ratio. The situtaion awarness of the Rafale is good but it’s not exceeding that of the Gripen. The armament for the Rafale at this time was better. No low or medium alt engagements took place between the Rafale’s and the Gripen’s at this point, so for the Gripen being outclassed is stretching it beyond breaking point.

    The Swedish ground crew found it hillarious that the software for the Rafale cockpit displays were windows based, with the classic sky and grass field background during start up! One of the Rafale pilots swore loudly that one had to go three steps back in the menu just in order to change the radio frequency, and then go the three steps forward to continue were you left off.

    Surely the Rafale is an outstanding machine, but most of the time the mouth of french aviators are much more outstanding.

    in reply to: F-10 vs Gripen NG #2438414
    robban
    Participant

    Where do you fit the internal weapons?;)

    I’ve wondered that too. I’m guessing the semi-stealth means the use of external weapons. It’s such as small aicraft, but maybe it’s possible to squeeze an METEOR or two in somewhere? 🙂

    in reply to: F-10 vs Gripen NG #2438653
    robban
    Participant

    Gripen NG XMLU. 😀

    Saabs answer to the J-10B. No, not really. It’s just for fun folks!

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/GripenXMLU-2.jpg?t=1258318712

    in reply to: F-10 vs Gripen NG #2438907
    robban
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 360 total)