Page 2 of 19

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2004, 15:12
by Ola
Lajes wrote:HI,

I'm an insider from the Hungarian Gripen program, and I can tell you that most of the public infos on the Gripen are fuelled by the agressive marketing of Gripen International. A great deal of lunches and dinners can influence the press, mainly the English one! Someone above for example pasted sentences from Gripen News, the official newletter of GI. My God...

If you have questions, just go ahead!

Sincerely,

Lajes


I believe you are referring to me as the one who posted Gripen PR-material. The reason for that is the distinct lack of credible third party sources for Gripen info.

What i'd like to ask you, though, is how the Gripen fits in a NATO-enviroment. Do you feel that a an F-16 would have been better suited with respect to communications with other NATO-units (target data etc etc) or is the Gripen fully adequate?

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2004, 06:57
by DerLoos
Hey, what about Gripen's capability to cruise supersonically. I've taken a look into my books and found the following ifo there: Gripen is capable to fly M=1.05 WITHOUT any external armament and WITHOUT pylons attached.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2004, 09:12
by phil
Four F-16s from the 349 sqn BAF flew against Gripens in october during a 3-day exercise. The purpose was to compare both fighter's air-to-air capabilities. Does anyone know the results this training?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2005, 01:33
by marsu
DerLoos wrote:Hey, what about Gripen's capability to cruise supersonically. I've taken a look into my books and found the following ifo there: Gripen is capable to fly M=1.05 WITHOUT any external armament and WITHOUT pylons attached.


Seems like one hell of a fast taxi... seriously, supercruise capability in a clean configuration is a pretty useless trick in combat. Sure, you'll get there really fast, but what are you gonna do once you get there ? ;-)

g.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2005, 17:08
by CheckSix
Some time ago it was mentioned that the Gripen may be re-engined. Doeas anybody know something about it? I also heared they were considering thrust vectoring nozzles.

Wouldn't i make sense to equip the Jas-39 with the EJ-220 (78KN dry, 122aug).
The dimensions would fit and it would boost ACs performance...

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 18:30
by toan

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 18:39
by toan
According to the information I know, the SAAB has given up the plans of TVC and CFT for the future upgrading of JAS-39.

As for re-engine, I think it will be more reasonable for SAAB to keep adopting F-404/F-414 series. The F-414-GE-400 has the thrust of 22,000 Ib class, which can be increased 20~25% in the future according to the declaration of the GE's engineer.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2005, 22:00
by agilefalcon16
I thought that only the F/A-22 could supercruise, but the Jas-39 can too! I guess that it would make sense, considering its high thrust to weight ratio.
Man, I wish the viper could do that also.

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 18:48
by Hookturn
1.05M is not supersonic. It's transsonic. So no supercruise for Gripen, only "transcruise".

A true nolife comment :)

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 20:54
by agilefalcon16
Oops, my bad. Okay, so that means that the F/-22 is still the only current aircraft with the super cruise ability.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 05:36
by toan
The T/W ratio of Gripen is significantly less than Viper when they have the same payload.

Empty weight:
*F-16C: 8,272 kg
*JAS-39C: 6,800 kg

Internal fuel:
*F-16C: 3,160 kg
*JAS-39C: 2,270 kg

Standard weight for air-combat (50% internal fuel, AIM-120*4, AIM-9*2)
*F-16C: 10,900 kg
*JAS-39C: 8,950 kg

Engine and thrust:
*F-16C: F-110-GE-129, 28,984 Ib / 17,155 Ib *1 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)
*JAS-39C: RM-12, 18,100 Ib / 12,140 Ib *1 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)

# T/W ratio at sea-level, low speed condition:
*F-16C: 1.206 / 0.714 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)
*JAS-39C: 0.917 / 0.615 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)

The main reason for the Gripen's exceptional performance of its acceleration and climbing ability should be its excellent design of the low drag and high Lift/Drag performance.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 05:47
by toan
agilefalcon16 wrote:Oops, my bad. Okay, so that means that the F/-22 is still the only current aircraft with the super cruise ability.


Another fighter that has declared the capability of certain amount (although less than F/A-22) of supercruise is EF-2000.

The EADs and Eurojet said that it can supercruise with the speed of Mach 1.2~1.3 at the height of 36,000 fts (Standard air-combat configuration with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM), and may be increased to Mach 1.5 after the plan of engine's upgrade in the future (post-2010~2015 perhaps), while the F/A-22 can supercruise with the speed of Mach 1.68~1.72 at the height of 40,000 fts under the standard air-combat configuration now.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 08:31
by Thunderbird
Agree with WIldcat. We here in South Africa bought the Grippen at the end. Although the Viper was never part of the package that was considered, I personally think that the wrong plane was bought for us.

How beautifull would have a Viper looked with the Castle and Springbok on it, but that was also changed in the meantime. We got a nine point star with an Eagle (Fish Eagle, SAAF Badge) on it now, but still a Viper down here would have been very nice.

A better deal for us (for our situation) would have been the Mirage 2000 (9). We are old Mirage customers, our aerospace industry was geared up for Mirage etc.

Viper Regards.

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2005, 04:28
by kacman
So what's wrong with the Gripen after all Thunder? Not many people heard about how it performs in the air against real aircraft say.. Viper or Hornet.

Heard so many good things about her but just a rumours. Mind to share with us Thunder?

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2005, 09:04
by Thunderbird
Nothing wrong with it. Think it an excellent plane but for what we need down here South, I personally think we are over killing. For the price what we are paying I'm sure we could have bought more Mirage 2000's and if we do not need more we could have spend the rest of the money on fine tuning the 2000's or spend more on the rest of the Air Force. And as I mentioned before our industry (aerospace) was geared for Mirage's and the Cheetah C's got Mirage 2000 parts.