FBWSome confusion on what Switzerland evaluated. They evaluated C with knowledge of the E upgrades. But since it was under development they rated E performance lower then what was calculated.
They said specifically, if you read the report, that the MS21 had the biggest delta of any of the competitors in regards to improving it’s scores in DCA/OCA based on planned upgrades. They then go on to state that the Gripen MS21 was still the lowest scorer of the three. If you look back on the DCA/OCA sections, the report also specifically states that range is still deficient compared to the Rafale and Typhoon.
FBWsigh……only rose tinted, polarized, retardized, sun glasses,
coupled with a huge pinch of wishful thinking,
could ever transform following text taken from SAAB website1500 km, from the base of operations, with more than 30 minutes “on station”
into 1500 km out and back.
Your right of course, it is wishful thinking that the Gripen NG could actually achieve those ranges. The actual reports from Brazil and the Swiss eval have shown that the actual combat radius to be far lower than what Saab has stated.
FBW@Hotshot-hmm I’d you say yeah, maybe something like 10-15%.
No, removing 2-3 missiles is not going to improve range by anything remotely close to a 10-15% range improvement. Look at a DI chart, what is the DI for a missile like the AMRAAM and it’s launcher, compared to a EFT and pylon. Then, consider position. Where the EFT are mounted also figures into drag, more crap under the wings, more interference drag.
it still out-does F-35, since gripen E include time on station,
also, most does not specify loadout, except the 1300 km 30 min on station CAP,
those two mentioned above may well represent different loadouts
Look Obligatory, accept a few things. The Gripen NG max CAP combat radius is hypothetically what Saab says (1300 km + 30 min on station), 1500 km out and back. In reality, it probably is less for all the reasons people have stated. Why try to make it out to be what it is not? Those range figures are great for a small, single engined fighter. Also, stop trying fit this into a F-35/Gripen NG comparison. The F-35 not only equals the hypothetical range of the Gripen NG, it does it being capable of supersonic flight and full envelope. Trying to guess if the L-M figure includes time on station is stupid. What we do know is that the F-35 range estimates have included: different altitudes and speeds, combat time, what we don’t know is if they are using end of life engine assumptions still. Likely that 760 nmi figure is a ballpark.
There is this increasing trend to compare the Gripen NG as the Un-F-35. Which is fine, due to their being radically different approaches. That does not make them comparable.
The myth and Reality:
“Gripen NG has phenomenal range”- sure, for a small fighter it has excellent range on paper. But, the caveat is that loading up a small airframe with 450 gallon tanks has consequences on performance and mission flexibility. The Rafale seems to hit that sweet spot: relatively compact, twin engine, excellent payload capacity, enough power to perform fighter mission while carrying EFT.
“Gripen NG avionic system is equal to the F-35…. Because it is new”- No, as I posted in the other thread. The FMC/TMC/ video processors were flying on the Gripen C in 2010-11, the system is the same as Saab offers for commercial market. The dated databus standard limits the speed and amount of information the sensors can share with TMC and information going to pilot. It is akin to buying a smart TV and HD DVD player then connecting via A/V cable jacks, and dial up internet (more like DSL considering the research done in sending “packages” of data via MIL-STD-1553). What Saab has done right is the integrated/federated software. They’ve created a system that is easy to add new hardware and software standards.
None of this is a knock on the Gripen NG. It is what it is: A nimble, relatively cheap to acquire, cheap to operate, rugged and adaptable fighter that will have support and updates going into the 2030’s. All of which makes it attractive to nations that cannot afford F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, etc. It’s fourth gen competitors may be out of production soon.
All of the above makes the Gripen NG ideal for Brazil (especially considering industrial participation). But I doubt very much that the F-35 and Gripen NG will compete for many of the same markets.
FBWin this range figure, 6 AAM is not mentioned, so i’m taking a wild guess its less than 6 AAM
1500 km ~ 810 nm
Oblig, use common sense for once. Taking off a couple of missiles is not going to add 500 km to CAP radius with the same time on station. Their own literature states emphatically: 1300 km with 30 min time on station; 1500 km max combat radius. Holding onto one quote from their website, opposed to their own presentations is plain stupid.
FBWknots or IAS.. it doesn’t matter much.
.
While I will apologize for the tone ahead of time (I can be rude to certain posters), and I do appreciate opposite points of view when they come from intelligently formed arguements.
However, a trend is apparent. Those most vociferous in their criticism of the F-22/35 tend to be those who author posts like the above that show they have no idea what the h*ll they are talking about.
FBWin case you missed it: its SAAB stating 800 nm +30 min on station A2A combat patrol, & 800 nm A2G.
@Vanshilar is on the right track, a company representative wont flat out lie, -cause he will be caught in time,
there will always be a disclaimer, or unmentioned facts.
Except no Saab rep ever claimed that. Every Saab presentation has the same numbers 1300 km with 30 minutes on station. The 800 nmi statement is on a website (and could easily be an error, as in 800 statute miles= 1300 kilometers). The disclaimer is that this is an unrealistic figure as the aircraft would have only a few thousand pounds of pylons and weapons to spare on MTOW. Most likely why the figures presented in Brazil were 1230 kilometers with 2 450 gallon tanks is a more realistic representation of the Gripen NG CAP radius.
another example is SAAB stating max payload, and stating max range, but both can not be achieved at the same time
i’m trusting F-35 can in fact make a two way flight 760 nm, or they wouldnt have mentioned it,
but its devoid of any on station time, or they would have mention it,
its also unclear if this is with external fuel tanks.
Really? is it unclear that the F-35 figures include EFT? No F-35 EFT exist, and the L-M slide came out after EFT were nixed. BTW, your right those numbers may be highly inaccurate as we don’t know if the SDD end of life engine restrictions were figured in. In reality, the F-35 CAP range could be 5% greater (+- 800 nmi). What we do know is that range estimates for the F-35 have been consistently on the low side, and include combat time.
FBWAs requested:
This is both from the community and official standpoint.
If they say they will hold a open competition at a later date, you should give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of smearing the Canada armed forces with nonsens. Stop being so arrogant, and butthurt about USA having seemingly very little leverage over the current Canadian Goverment. Like i said, its their decision, not US’s. Deal with it!
Haavarla, can you really not differentiate between the government ministers and the Armed Forces? There have been a half dozen articles posted from RCAF officers saying the same thing “urgent replacement not needed”, you post a single article with the procurement minister claiming that they are needed and think that supports your point?
Really, look back on argument. Read what everyone has been saying all along. Realize that you had no idea what you were talking about from the start, then pull your head gently out of your rear.
FBWYes but they have never written that they use 3 tanks on every mission, thats your conclusion. It may be the right conclusion, but its not enough facts to make that conclusion.
Every mission? Who said anything about flying with three EFT on every mission? I will break this down for you slowly….
Saab presented the MAX CAP RANGE as 1,300 km with 30 minutes on station, they’ve also stated the MAX COMBAT RADIUS at 1500 km. That will be with MAX FUEL. Why? because if you could carry more fuel to increase range, you will. These are brochure numbers, probably unrealistic in terms of load outs most operators would use because three EFT on a Gripen sized aircraft greatly reduces combat payload, speed, and available g.
FBWFull internal, not full external. Full external isnt the standard A2A config.
Wrong, read the links… Saab themselves claim a ferry range of 2500 km on internal fuel.
FBWoptimal alt for F-35 is ~27k
So you extrapolated optimal cruise altitude from that chart?
Or did you pull that from the university of Vermont undergraduate paper on the F-35 based on student analysis using an F-16 airfoil?
FBWWere do you get that it uses 3 tanks?
Have you looked through any of the links to the Saab presentations? Max combat radius quoted as 1,500 km (1,700 km in Saab presentation to Brazil) with full internal and external fuel. The max external fuel load is between 8,100-8,300 lbs (depending on source)
Now: 2 x 450 gallon tanks = 6,120 lbs
2 x 450+300 gallons= 8,160 lbs
This is excluding the weight of the pylons and EFT themselves. So, how do I know they are quoting the range with three tanks? Because, if they weren’t, it wouldn’t be the max combat radius would it?
FBWAnd you know that your “with two 450 gallon tanks the combat radius 1230 km” data comes from Dassault.
Dassault created the slide, the information came from RFI to the F-X2 tender. Not to mention it correlates well with the 1500 km max combat radius (1300 km with 30 min on station) with 2 450 gallon tanks and 1 300 gallon tank.
FBWMS21 is what Gripen C uses today.
Gripen C uses MS21 software config (as it was upgraded with the same mission computers as the E/F). At the time of the Swiss eval, the Gripen MS21 referred to the NG proposal (most likely because the original plan was to rebuild Gripen C. Now the MS21/MS22 is simply the mission software standard)
The next configuration, MS 21, is being defined, but it is clear that MS 21 is in fact the NG, with the General Electric F414G engine; modified airframe; Selex Galileo Raven ES-05 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) system; and new core avionics. Selex’s Raven 1000P radar prototype is flying on the Gripen Demo and a ground rig is testing the innovative avionics in which flight-critical functions are partitioned so mission capabilities can be added more quickly through the fighter’s life.
http://www.dailyairforce.com/175/sweden-will-buy-new-gripen/
Meanwhile, Saab is accelerating work on the next-generation MS21, known as the Gripen E in its single-seat form, and has more than 1,000 personnel allocated to the program
FBWok, so its down to carrying 50% more aam than F-35, (or using their words: 4RR + 2IR)
i think its only a centerline drop tank tho.
Then you would be wrong again, with two 450 gallon tanks the combat radius 1230 km. Don’t you hate it when pesky facts get in the way?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249976[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]249977[/ATTACH]
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
2 x 450-gal and 1 x 300-gal drop
Tanks – 8,040 lb. (3,655 kg.)
Range-Combat Air Patrol, 2 hrs. on station:
559 mi. (900km)
Of course, lest we forget the Swiss report stating that even with the upgrades proposed in Gripen MS21 (name for what became NG, E/F) would still be inferior in OCA/DCA:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249978[/ATTACH]
So much for that myth…
FBWF-35 – 760 nm back and forth with 4 aam
Gripen E – 800 nm + 30+ min. on station with 4 aam
Simply no….. you should know better. The quoted 800 nmi from the Saab website early marketing information. Since then, Saab has given presentations at Farnbourgh, presentations to Brazil, marketing PPts. Guess what? They all list the CAP mission radius at 1,300 km with 30 minutes on station. Information from Brazilian AF lists the same: 1,300 km.
And even that may be optimistic . That includes (2) 450 gallon and (1) 300 gallon EFT. The problem is, since the Gripen E/F has gained weight in development, those figures may be out of date because of MTOW limitations.
And no, the F-35 760 nmi is not a “back and forth” it acually includes combat time, unlike the Saab “time on station”.
if you want a long range fighter, look away from F-35,
of course we can give F-35 a handicap and let gripen haul 50% extra aam in tropics,
but 30 min on station still translate in way more than 50 nm, more like 150 nm
Actually, if you want a long range western fighter, there are two choices: the Rafale and the F-35. Just because the Gripen can match their range, doesn’t make it equivalent. The Gripen can fly roughly 800 nmi, or it can fight. But loaded down with 3 EFT, it cannot do both.
You were shown to be absoultly wrong, yet you persist. That is a sign of trolling or dullness on your part, I’ll let you pick which one you would like people on this forum to view you as.
Sign In
