FBWThe maximum combat radius for
Gripen NG on an air-to-surface
configuration is approximately 800 nm
(1,500 km). This is defined as flying to a
target, releasing air-to-surface weapons,
and then returning to home base.
http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-ng/technical-brochure-gripen-ng-english-ver.2-jan-2015_low.pdfCombat Range and Radius
Thanks to its increased fuel capacity, the Gripen NG in the Combat Air Patrol configuration achieves a combat radius of 800 nm (nautical miles), or 1.500 km, from the base of operations, with more than 30 minutes “on station”.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/Proud-to-be-brazilian/the-fighter/
So, now revisiting this topic for the 100th and hopefully last time. The Gripen NG has been quoted in Brazil with a 1300 km combat radius (807 miles, or 701 nmi) with 3 eft and 6 missiles (30 min time on station). The Saab document quotes a CAP radius of 500nmi (no mention of load out) with 100 min on station. Conclusions: given the combat radius with 3 eft and time on station compared to the Saab document air to ground mission radius (defined as flying to target and releasing weapons and returning) as 800 mmi, you have a good indication of Gripen NG combat radius.
if i remember well, L.M response to Norway on binding request for range with drop tanks was ~760 nm,
which corresponds with Israel stated intention to build drop tanks for F-35.the pic from brazil refer to 50% more A2A missiles than F-35, and include 30+ min on station,
possibly range drops slightly in amazons heat, or its down to 6 AAM
You remember that incorrectly, the Norway briefing was on a surveillance mission (with altitudes varying from 5,000 to 25,000 feet) of 728 nmi with two eft (which the F-35 does not currently have).
Lockheed has released the F-35 combat radius on an AtA mission as 760nmi (very close to the 751 nmi combat radius mentioned in the 2009 document which included 1 minute of combat. That was including the 5% fuel degradation and 2% thrust reduction of an end of life engine that was modeled in all F-35 combat radius figures until recently). The USAF profile AtG mission radius (previously modeled to be 584-590 nmi), current estimates from last report list 625 nmi combat radius on the same USAF profile.
Conclusions? Both have a CAP mission combat radius in excess of 750 nmi. The difference is that the Gripen NG is carrying three eft. So, revisiting your original claim “L.M is referring to gripen C since F-35 cant compete with gripen E on range” would show this to be grossly inaccurate. One aircraft is combat capable (with 9g available), one is a flying tanker, and the ranges are comparable.
FBWonce again L.M is referring to gripen C since F-35 cant compete with gripen E on range,
save for heavy A2G loads.
r
Instead of making your usual unsupported claims; here is a good exercise for you:
Post the Gripen E/F combat radius (CAP, or AtA mission however they state it), from the Brazil competition, and recent power points.
Then, get the F-35 range on a similar mission profile and post that as well.
I know the figures for both (estimated numbers from released data). Let’s see what the stated manufacter claims you can come up with show, and if it supports your above statement.
FBWTimes of Israel article on the first F-35A arriving:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/like-a-kid-in-a-candy-store-idf-salivates-over-new-f-35-fighter-jets/
FBWAgain Haavarla, the one ignoring the advice of the defense department and Air Force is the Trudeau gov…..and you (who apparently cannot read links),
The sad part is that your trying to frame this as some sort of F-35 zealots ignoring the “true” needs of Canada. Reality, the Trudeau government is ignoring what the military is saying, and your defending it because your some sort of odd anti-F-35 zealot. Please spare us any more self-righteous, uninformed rants until you have some clue what you are talking about.
FBWI have no real (self)interest in this debate. Guess that makes me miles more objective vs other in here.
Haavarla, you claimed that others commenting on the internal decisions was “bugging you”. But have not grasped the overall point of the discussion. Yet again, you failed to actually read the news coming out of Canada, failed to understand the arguements being made on why the Liberal decision could be viewed as hypocritical and based on politics, not sound military reason. You claimed a quote from the head of the RCAF somehow was L-M propaganda.
When presented with more articles from a range of Canadian news sources, you ignore them to pick one that suits your opinion. You are correct, the lack of objectivity being displayed is embarassing. Perhaps it is time you read the links, understand the history of the CF-18 replacement so as to not come off as uninformed and bias.
FBWWhat is bugging me is that certain community of self interest is constantly complaining(whining) about matters that is solely none of their business.
Wouldn’t that summarize your participation in this debate? Have you vested interest in Canada’s defense posture? The political decisions that impact NORAD would be in the interests of every US-Canadian citizen, No?
FBWSo the words of the RCAF chief are anti-Boeing propaganda? That is an odd twist of the reality.
Here are your more “objective” sources saying Hood’s words again:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-cf-18-fighter-jets-can-all-fly-past-2025-rcaf-commander-says/article33053734/
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/national/liberals-to-explore-acquisition-of-interim-super-hornet-fighter-jets/article_bcd0b1ca-4078-50ee-992e-8552eb378b75.html
Air force officials were reportedly dead-set against the plan to purchase Super Hornets, which they consider outdated technology compared with the state-of-the-art — albeit largely unproven — F-35
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/rcafs-lt-gen-hood-throws-a-monkey-wrench-into-liberal-claims-about-cf-18s
Again, Haavarla. Who is claiming there is a “gap” and who is not. Wouldn’t you say that the RCAF chief is probably a more informed player than a politician?
Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood told the Senate defence committee the Liberals recently changed the number of jet fighters he is required to have ready at any given time for NATO missions and to defend North America.
The change was made after he testified in April that he was “comfortable” with the air force’s current fleet of CF-18s, Hood said
FBWUrgent need?
If Someone with the stick in Canada say they are in urgent need, then let us believe there are.. or perhaps you would know what is best for Canada?(that was a retorical Q)
As it turns out, the commander of the RCAF claims otherwise:
When Lt. Gen. Michael Hood, the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, testified in April before the Commons defence committee, he didn’t mention a capability gap. Instead he told lawmakers the CF-18s could continue operating until 2025 or beyond.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/critics-question-canadas-new-super-hornet-plans
Seems that the experts in Canada agree that the CF-18’s don’t need urgent replacement. The Liberal party does.
So, who exactly would you say know what is best for Canada there Haavarla?
FBW[ATTACH=CONFIG]249958[/ATTACH]
Looking at that mixed group of F-16s and F-35s why at low speeds does the F-35 seem to pitch-up at a relatively high angle?
Different wing profiles and control laws. Adding to what djcross said:
F-16 flies at low speed with leading edge flaps/ trailing edge flaps down. Leading edge flaps increase camber, wing AoA increases with leading/trailing edge flaps lowered.
Look at the leading and trailing edge flaps horizontal stab positions on the F-35 flying at slow speed compared to the f-16. F-35 flies decidedly nose up, trailing and leading edge flaps at a lower angle. Horizontal stab providing lift.
FBWPot/kettle.. When I think about it, this is EXACTLY what we have been observing in the US of A since ~2001.
…
Step five, impose overwhelming and all-embracing state surveillance of media, telephone calls, text messages and social networks.
Wouldn’t disagree in principle, 9/11, patriot act so on.
Yet, Bush is happily sitting on his couch watching college football. Many of the NSA initiatives were challenged in court.
Democracy balancing freedom and security is an ongoing theme: Alien and Sedition acts, Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, Schenek v. U.S, NYT v. U.S. Thing is, eventually balance is restored in democracy.
FBWGood to see that Russian state media propaganda roubles not going to waste. Neo-nazi existential threat….. hey if it ain’t broke.
Step one, convince population that they are besieged by enemies.
Step two, crack down on media/free speech.
Step three, restore “greatness” through militarization and expansion.
Step four, pass laws limiting freedoms and opposition citing said threats to homeland.
FBWDont forget the Mig-31 and i wouldnt discount the latest Flanker iteration.
OP was speaking in generalizations, the F-15 is one of the best in transonic acceleration. I would suspect the Typhoon, Su-35, F-22 have superior transonic acceleration similarly equipped.
I doubt that the Mig-31 is in the same league, different design drivers.
FBWALIS dispersed???
Why not? The aircraft does not need to be on the ALIS network continuously. Unless your thinking a system like the Swedes’ BAS 90 (of which the manpower costs make such a sytem impractical in any current European budget), the F-35 would be just as capable operating from auxiliary air bases short term.
fact, the overall F-35 fleet should be able to operate without connection for up to 30 days with maintainers tracking the work off-line, the Pentagon told GAO
FBWVietnamese boats made from American drop tanks:
Long gone are the days that EFT were simple aluminum cylinders. As Djcross stated, EFT are expensive, need maintenance (entire depot and maintenance units at Ogden, Luke afb- http://www.luke.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/3070/Article/359987/afso21-changes-lukes-external-fuel-tank-roles.aspx ,
The newest EFT are composite, some incorporate RAM. To reinforce the point that EFT being called “drop tanks” is increasingly a misnomer, we have:
the USN incorporating the IRST 21 in the FPU-13 external fuel tank http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-navy-approves-production-for-super-hornet-irst/
Considering the space premium on legacy fighters, it will be interesting to see if other nations start incorporating EFT mounted sensors/countermeasures.
FBWI don’t think obligatory has any solid grasp of fluid dynamics. Ideal shape is that of a water drop? What? Oh, and I’ve seen obligatory rave on and on about the Sear-Haack body without even fully understanding what it means. .
He is impervious to learning and will post the same tired charts and discredited theories of his ad nauseam.
Forget the fact that each successive generation of U.S. fighter development has departed further and further from the ideal sears-haak shape (and each with a higher Cd in the transonic). The F-15 having a considerably higher drag coeffecient than the F-104, F-4, etc. In spite of this, the F-15 has exceptional acceleration through the transonic.
Sign In
