Saab Gripen news

[zero-one]

Interestingly, he downplays the importance or relevance of Kinematics in a hypothetical modern scenario. Or at least he never answered the question directly and instead pointed to the Gripen's other strengths.

How would you rate the Gripen in the following categories:
A. Instantaneous Turn rates
B. Sustained turn rates
C. Acceleration
D. Climb rate
E. Range

“Without mentioning specific numbers since this would be classified I would like to expand the question a bit. We have built Gripen to achieve the highest possible operational effect in a number of scenarios defined by our customers. To do this we have to balance a number of factors such as platform performance, sensor performance, weapon performance, avionics, Human Machine Interface etc. The classic metaphor stating that a chain isn’t stronger than its weakest link is relevant for fighters as well! So the answer would be; platform performance is as good as or better than what is needed to reach the high overall operational effect demand of a future fighter.”


(Though Jonas avoids answering this question directly I would like to quote from this article “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.” The answer that modern air combat has greater emphasis on fighting at a distance is not just an avoidant answer, but if the Gripen was a very energetic aircraft Saab would be keen to share this, as Eurofighter is with the Typhoon. It is however understood that Gripen has a particularly good instantaneous turn rate. )

When you hear Raptor pilots talk about it they always rave on how the combination of Speed, Stealth, Situtational awareness and supermaneuverability makes them nearly invulneable and extremely leathal.

Typhoon pilots say they are the only ones who can "hang with Raptors, high and fast"

F-16 pilots, Ow its the ultimate rate machine

I think the fact that pilots are trained to play by their aircraft's strenths and minimize their weaknesses causes them to believe in their core what they say.

So a Raptor pilot will be trained to take advantage of that enourmous envelope while a Gripen pilot will be taught to always stay away from the fight at all cost.


Thus, pilots of kinematically inferior planes will always tell you how that is not important, or that the have chosen a "balanced" approach to survivability. Just like how they downplayed the relevance of Stealth.

[vilters]

In brief :
When seeing other aircraft the Griphen pilot's checklist looks like :
- Drop stores (if any)
- Nose over to ZERO G (or call Boeing for 737 MCAS system, seems to work properly in doing so)
- Max AB
- Yell over Internal network : "Get the hell out ah here";.
- Search for Bible
- Start praying when fuel gage drops to zero when still at 100nm

Well, must admit ; GREAT Fighter spirits those Griphen pilots. LOL.

[hornetfinn]

https://hushkit.net/2019/03/18/interview-with-a-gripen-pilot/

(Though Jonas avoids answering this question directly I would like to quote from this article “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.” The answer that modern air combat has greater emphasis on fighting at a distance is not just an avoidant answer, but if the Gripen was a very energetic aircraft Saab would be keen to share this, as Eurofighter is with the Typhoon. It is however understood that Gripen has a particularly good instantaneous turn rate. )

This is pretty much confirmed with that leaked Swiss evaluation paper. Gripen was praised for good EW suite and Typhoon was said to need improvments in EW, detection and identification domains. So it's both Gripen having good EW and Typhoon having weaknesses in detection performance. Gripen weak points were endurance and performances and aircraft weapons load. All of these were clearly inferior to Rafale, Typhoon and Swiss F/A-18C. Typhoon got 9 in performance criteria and Gripen about 5.5. So there is very large difference in aircraft flight performances between the two. So Gripen would need to ambush or surprise Typhoon or it would be in serious trouble due to much lower performance and endurance.

[mixelflick]

I read this interview shortly before coming here this morning. All I can say is...

If the Gripen E can dodge radar, IRST and other sensors as well as this guy dodged performance questions, it'll be a world beater. If I was SAAB, I'd have my pilots take a different approach because this came off bad, bad, bad. Not since Mark McGwire's testimony before Congress about steroids and other PED's in baseball have I seen such a poor showing..

Congressman: "Mr. McGwire, did you use steroids or other PED's while playing for the St. Louis Cardinals" ?

McGwire: "Sir, I'm here to talk about the future, not the past..." Over and over and over...

[mixelflick]

Read that interview before coming here this morning. All I can say is..

If the Gripen E is as adept at dodging radar, IRST, enemy AAM's etc. as this pilot was in dodging kinematic questions, it'll be unstoppable...

If I was SAAB, I'd drop the "we don't make direct comparisons" line - fast. It comes off as bad, bad, bad. Not since Mark McGwire's testimony before Congress has something sounded so dodgy and incriminating..

Congressmen: "Mr. McGwire, did you use anabolic steroids or other PED's while playing for the St. Louis Cardinals"?
McGwire: "I'm not here to talk about the past, I'm here to talk about the future...". Over and over and over.

[loke]

Gripen pilot Musa Mbhokota (a.k.a. Midnite), takes us through an extensive walk-through of Gripen E, explaining in detail its features, especially its weapon systems, at Aero India 2019.

Gripen E has a wide weapon carrying capacity- up to nine missiles and 16 bombs can be carried- making it a fighter that is always ready for operating in a network-centric scenario.

More text and video here: https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2092

Some things highlighted in the video: E can carry 9 a2a missiles (7 meteor and 2 IRIS-T); it can do 9G with full internal fuel; sensor fusion and the advanced data link was highlighted; as well as the 360 degree EW system, and the MMI. Drag is lower than for Gripen C. This, together with increased thrust gives a good performance, he says.

[mixelflick]

Gripen pilot Musa Mbhokota (a.k.a. Midnite), takes us through an extensive walk-through of Gripen E, explaining in detail its features, especially its weapon systems, at Aero India 2019.

Gripen E has a wide weapon carrying capacity- up to nine missiles and 16 bombs can be carried- making it a fighter that is always ready for operating in a network-centric scenario.

More text and video here: https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2092

Some things highlighted in the video: E can carry 9 a2a missiles (7 meteor and 2 IRIS-T); it can do 9G with full internal fuel; sensor fusion and the advanced data link was highlighted; as well as the 360 degree EW system, and the MMI. Drag is lower than for Gripen C. This, together with increased thrust gives a good performance, he says.

9g with full internal fuel is impressive, but not very if it isn't carrying weapons. If that's the case, then I find this very misleading.

[johnwill]

F-16 has been 9g with full internal fuel and and four AIM-9s since 1977. Interestingly, the full internal fuel condition is not the critical g load condition. Wing fuel (the first to be burned) causes a down inertia load on the wings during a turn, relieving about 9% of total wing load. Max wing load occurs just as the wings go empty.

External stores on the wing do the same thing, reduce net wing load.

[loke]

Saab is to significantly raise the tempo of its flight-test programme for the Gripen E fighter this year, with the activity to be expanded from a current two aircraft to five.

A pair of prototypes, designated 39-8 and 39-9, are already involved in the Swedish manufacturer's campaign. A third such example (-10) will be flown before mid-year, while Saab is to also resume using its "Gripen Demo" airframe – a specially adapted two-seater – in support of the programme. Its lead production example will also support the programme from later this year, before first deliveries are made to the Swedish and Brazilian air forces by the end of 2019.

Flight activities last year included carriage trials with MBDA's Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile and separation tests with the short-range Diehl Defence IRIS-T weapon, and De La Motte says current work involves the fighter's Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array radar, infrared search and track sensor – both supplied by Leonardo – and Saab electronic warfare suite.
The first four production Gripen Es are currently in final assembly at Saab's Linkoping site, with work having commenced early this year. "We're very happy with the progress of the production programme," says De La Motte, who describes this as "on track". Once its new production system is fully established, it will be able to complete up to 24 aircraft per year, he adds.

Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-456945/

[madrat]

F-16 has been 9g with full internal fuel and and four AIM-9s since 1977. Interestingly, the full internal fuel condition is not the critical g load condition. Wing fuel (the first to be burned) causes a down inertia load on the wings during a turn, relieving about 9% of total wing load. Max wing load occurs just as the wings go empty.

External stores on the wing do the same thing, reduce net wing load.

Am I to assume the underwing stores then create lift?

[johnwill]

No, not net lift. Although the external stores do sometimes have some aerodynamic up lift, it is very small compared to the down inertia load from positive g on the stores. An exception would be an empty external fuel tank which is large for more aero lift and light for less down inertia load.

The reduced net wing load from heavy external stores is from down inertia load. So net wing load consists of up aero load on the airfoil (large) and stores (small) combined with down inertia load from wing structure, wing internal fuel, and external stores.

[linkomart]

9g with full internal fuel is impressive, but not very if it isn't carrying weapons. If that's the case, then I find this very misleading.

Generally speaking, as long as the missile or bomb is rated for 9g, Gripen can turn 9g with the load. Of course there are caveats to the statement, When at high altitude, high gross weight or the store is very heavy 9g might not apply. Can't say more than that.

No, not net lift. Although the external stores do sometimes have some aerodynamic up lift, it is very small compared to the down inertia load from positive g on the stores. An exception would be an empty external fuel tank which is large for more aero lift and light for less down inertia load.

Agree with johnwill. Another example of an exception is the RB04 on the A32 Lansen, it had positive lift when on the wing. Google and you will understand.

best regards.

[loke]

The four Gripen E that was mentioned above have entered final assembly:

Mikael Franzén, head of Saab's Gripen Brazil business unit, said on 3 April at the 2019 LAAD Defence and Security exposition that of these four Gripen Es, one is for Brazil while the other three are for Sweden.

Read more: https://www.janes.com/article/87663/laa ... l-assembly

[marsavian]

Swedish taxpayers paid for 14 JAS-39C/D unused airframes in order to keep Gripen’s production line open

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/swedish ... line-open/

Ten of those are C models while the rest are two-seaters. The government had hoped that the fighters could be exported to overseas customers but the orders never came in. These aircraft in fact were ordered to maintain the skills to manufacture fighter aircraft, as the production of Gripens for Sweden’s Air Force and other export customers, such as Thailand, South Africa and the Czech Republic, almost ceased, and a substantial break was looming. The extra Gripens were therefore ordered to keep the assembly line running before the production of JAS-39E.

One possibility is to use these extra 14 aircraft as a replacement for crashed Gripen jets. According to Sputnik News previously, parliament decided that the Swedish Air Force should have 100 Gripen C/Ds. Today, there are 95. No such decision has been made so far.

[hythelday]

Small price to pay for such a valuable thing as fighter production know-how. Besides 14 airframes can easily be absorbed by SwAF and the pending Philippine order.

You needn't be smarmy about it. US taxpayers are about to shell out for Boeing too.