F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 20:43

XanderCrews wrote:
F414:
13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner

Yeah, I know 22k is the oft quoted number but the SHornet NATOPS says 20k uninstalled.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2244
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 21:50

garrya wrote:Because F-16V Block 70/72 is a modular upgrade for legacy F-16 A/B/C/D to create a new baseline ( similar to MLU program). But it is inferior to block 60
_ F-16V have to use SABR because legacy F-16 lack cooling system for AESA radar, by contrast, block 60 has an extra cooling vent, AESA radar perfomance is affected by cooling.


You're right that the F-16V is a modular upgrade but like skyward and SpudmanWP already mentioned there's absolutely no evidence that the AN/APG-80 radar is better than the SABR radar. Actually I would say that the (scarce) info that we have about both radars may point out that the SABR is likely the best of both radars:
1- SABR is newer than the APG-80
2- SABR is actually the APG-81 (the same radar used in the F-35) adapted to fit in the F-16. And as far as I know the APG-81 and the APG-77 (from which the APG-81 and SABR are derived from) are probably the best fighter aircraft radars in existence today.


What you pointed in the image below:

Image

Is not a Targeting FLIR! That's a NAV FLIR, the Targeting FLIR component of the IFTS must still be carried in an external Pod as it can clearly be seen below:
Image

In the image above:
1- Is the NAV FLIR component of the IFTS (which again is what you pointed in your post)
2- Is the Targeting FLIR component of the IFTS (which is an external pod just like the Sniper Pod)

So again and in terms of Targeting FLIR I can't see any real advantage of the F-16 Block 60 over a F-16V (Block 70) equipped with a SNIPER ATP Pod.

Source here:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... rt-falcon/

And I doubt that the AAQ-32 targeting FLIR is better than the Sniper ATP pod (since the later is newer).


garrya wrote:_ F-16 block 60 is equipped with the new F-110 GE-132 with higher thrust than F-110 GE-129 or F-100 PW229 whereas F-16V upgrade doesn't include engine change.
F-110 family.PNG

F-110 engine version.PNG



Like you said, the F-16V is a modular upgrade so I can't see any reason which would prevent a client to equip a F-16V with the F-110 GE-132 engines (instead of F-100 PW229 for example). Anyway is this engine (which while being a bit more powerful) worth the certain extra cost?
Anyway, I grant that there's a potential engine advantage on the Block 60 side but this by itself doesn't mean that the Block 60 is more advanced than the -V/Block 70.



garrya wrote:_ F-16 block 60 use MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus which is 1000 times faster than MIL-STD-1553 data bus on legacy F-16 (F-16V still uses the same data bus)


Also as others have said, even if the F-16V is equipped with MIL-STD-1553 data bus while the F-16 Block 60 use MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus this doesn't "translate" in an advantage or significant advantage by the Block 60.

Moreover and like in the case of the engine, I cannot see any reason which would prevent a F-16V/Block 70 client to equip their F-16V aircraft with the MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus instead of the MIL-STD-1553.


garrya wrote:_ F-16V uses AIDEWS as its internal jamming system, that is the same jamming used on some F-16 block 50/52, whereas, F-16 block 60 internal jamming system (Falcon edge) is designed for it only, likely with better capability.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... ities.html
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4621.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ks-153414/


Perhaps the Block 60 EW suite is better than the Block 70 suite. I can concede this.

So lets see:
- The F-16V (Block 70) potentially has a better radar
- The F-16V (Block 70) potentially has a better Targeting FLIR/TGP
- The F-16V (Block 70) is cheaper with a more scalable/modular upgrade path. The Block 60 is certainly more expensive than the Block 70 since and because like you correctly said, the Block 60 is subjected to "royalties" to be paid to UAE.
- The F-16 Block 60 potentially has a EW suite.
- The F-16 Block 60 has a better engine.

So by looking at the resumed part above, I can't see how anyone can outright consider that the Block 60 is more advanced than the Block 70.
Moreover saying that the Block 60 is more advanced than the Block 70 also contradict with what Lockheed Martin says about the F-16 (which is their product afterall) here:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/ ... F-16V.html

The Lockheed Martin F-16V is the latest and most advanced F-16 on the market today.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 23:35

Thanks for the engine help. I remembered 30 percent, but then couldn't remember where I had calculated it and how
Choose Crews
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 00:24

ricnunes wrote:Perhaps the Block 60 EW suite is better than the Block 70 suite. I can concede this.

So lets see:
- The F-16V (Block 70) potentially has a better radar
- The F-16V (Block 70) potentially has a better Targeting FLIR/TGP
- The F-16V (Block 70) is cheaper with a more scalable/modular upgrade path. The Block 60 is certainly more expensive than the Block 70 since and because like you correctly said, the Block 60 is subjected to "royalties" to be paid to UAE.
- The F-16 Block 60 potentially has a EW suite.
- The F-16 Block 60 has a better engine.

So by looking at the resumed part above, I can't see how anyone can outright consider that the Block 60 is more advanced than the Block 70.



The Block 60s were delivered from 2004 so from a tech point of view they shouldn't by rights be on the same level on computer tech as a new upgrade you would hope as a customer. The APG-83 is advertised with having 95% of its Mode suite directly from the APG-81 so some of the software is common at least.

The UAE Block 60s have been seen with AAQ-33 Sniper pods in recent years and were supposed to be doing some kind of major Block61 upgrade to the Block 60s but funnily enough the UAE are not sending me info on that :D

Block 70/72 has not as yet been advertised with the GE-132 as an option (unlike the F-16IN super Viper was) - however if someone has enough money anything is possible I suppose.

I think what Gary means is that Block 60 had a better overall list of capabilities on the face of it and the Block 70/72 upgrade doesn't appear as full.

The nose mounted FLIR if that does just replicate the AAQ-13 pod then perhaps you might be able to get away with integrated NVGs instead considering the TFR functions should be built in to the radar (?) - dont know.

Falcon Edge in the Block 60 was supposed to be very advanced - even replicating (internalising the HTS pod) - and being integrated with the rest of the systems to provide a degree of sensor fusion - and that snazzy Block 60 cockpit still looks good.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 00:49

blindpilot wrote:
Himm.. I thought that from 1997 onwards the 220 was the 220E and was in the 25-28,000 lb thrust class(25,735 lbf without the Modular Common Inlet Duct). That was plug and play twenty years ago. And 28,000+ lbs is a lot more than 22K class. So we are comparing an engine that was replaced starting in 1997 with a demo engine (F414G) tested in 2008 ... an installation with twenty years of service compared with an engine installation that really hasn't even flown yet in 2018?

???? F-16 guys here will know more than me though,
BP


The PW-220/E are given a thrust rating of around 25000 lbs in flight manuals - they put out more thrust (In flight) than the older PW-200 in flight due to having digital controls - the Block 32 had a PW-220 engine and the Bigmouth Block 30 with the GE-100 had the 28,000 lbs class engine.

From a kinematic point of view from someone that flew both (jbgator) it appears the difference in performance was quite large in favour of the Block 30 - 3000 lbs extra static thrust is often significant. The Block 50/52 are a bit heavier but have even more thrust.

Will just add for a really exciting fact - less than 160 Block 32s were built compared to around 480 Block 30s.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2238
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 01:35

garrya wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Is the F110-GE-132 motor physically compatible with the F110-GE-129? Could a customer purchasing new F-16V's opt for the -132 motor?

F-110 GE132 can fit in the same hollow as GE129, but AFAIK, it is not included in standard F-16V upgrade offer


I wasn't thinking so much in terms of a current F-16 user upgrading to the F-16V, I was thinking of a country buying brand spanking new F-16V's from Fort Worth. In that case, since they don't have a used motor to continue using, I was wondering why not buy the F110-GE-132 motor with the more giddyup, since the Viper has gained weight with age. That would seem to restore some lost kinematic performance and put the F-16V (-132) at less of a disadvantage compared to a Typhoon or Rafale, if not even up the performance.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 14:29

loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:Ideally the Gripen E/F should have had the F414 EPE, that would have helped I think.

Anyway let's wait and see how much impact the increased weight and size will have on performance.


Ime betting a lot. It weighs as much as an F-16 but with 30 percent of the thrust.


Not entirely... Gripen E empty weight is 8,000 kg. That compares quite well to an F-16 block 32 at 8,272 kg; however the block 32 had a P&W F100-PW-220 with 23,770 thrust.

Compare that to the F414 which is a "22,000 lbs class" engine.

F-16 block 32 weighs 3.4% more than Gripen E and has 8% more thrust.

Block 32 F-16 was probably not known for having great acceleration (just guessing, based on the above numbers), on the other hand, was it considered to be very poor from a kinematic POV?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article6.html


Your figure is incorrect, according to LM test report.

Block 30 weights 17900 lbs (8121 kg)
Block 32 weight 17000 lbs (7713 kg)

Generally, Block 32 weights less than Gripen NG, and has more thrust than Gripen NG.
block 30 32.jpg
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 14:35

Am I the only one who remember this? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
16 vs jas39.jpg
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Feb 2018, 15:59

Looks like STR beating ITR there. You got the complete article link ? Gripens have said to have beaten F-16/Typhoon and also to have lost to them on separate distinct encounters. They are all roughly in the same ballpark that ROE and pilot skill and tactics probably make the difference.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 00:08

gta4 wrote:
Your figure is incorrect, according to LM test report.

Block 30 weights 17900 lbs (8121 kg)
Block 32 weight 17000 lbs (7713 kg)

Generally, Block 32 weights less than Gripen NG, and has more thrust than Gripen NG.





Yes Block 30 & 32 had lighter structures than the 40/42

How did the Block 32 Vs Gripen E / NG come up again?

All 142 Block 32s were delivered 1986-92 to South Korea (40), Egypt (40) and the USAF (62).

111 are left - and AFAIK the USAF only use them in Reserve/Guard units now whereas Korea & Egypt have had upgrade programs mentioned but still with the PW-220 engine.

Should add the PW-220E designation above was supposed to denote a modernised & upgraded PW-200.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 05:39

basher54321 wrote:
gta4 wrote:
Your figure is incorrect, according to LM test report.

Block 30 weights 17900 lbs (8121 kg)
Block 32 weight 17000 lbs (7713 kg)

Generally, Block 32 weights less than Gripen NG, and has more thrust than Gripen NG.





Yes Block 30 & 32 had lighter structures than the 40/42

How did the Block 32 Vs Gripen E / NG come up again?

All 142 Block 32s were delivered 1986-92 to South Korea (40), Egypt (40) and the USAF (62).

111 are left - and AFAIK the USAF only use them in Reserve/Guard units now whereas Korea & Egypt have had upgrade programs mentioned but still with the PW-220 engine.

Should add the PW-220E designation above was supposed to denote a modernised & upgraded PW-200.


No need to compare kinematic performance.
In fact, it is very difficult to find a worse performer than Gripen NG.
Gripen NG has the weight of F-16C and the thrust lower than F-16A. Besides, its wing loading has significantly increased, even higher than super hornet and F-16C Block50.
Energy-wise, and angular-wise, Gripen NG are both sluggish.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 08:57

skyward wrote:There is still no poof that SABA have a performance impact like you have suggest.

For classified systems like APG-80 and SABR (or pretty much all modern radar), you most likely never get an absolute answer, at least not until they become obsolete. I only speculate based on little public information we have, and for me if APG-80 requires more cooling and it isn't constrained to work with older F-16 then it is likely that it has better performance.
Moreover, you can put SABR on F-16E/F but not APG-80 on F-16V, so i still see block 60 airframe as having better growth potential technically (bar the political aspect)
skyward wrote:Sure fiber optic is better copper wire. However for a point to point distance for a plane to send data. It is really nitpicking. I mean if you talk about hundreds or thousands of miles that make more sense.

Transmission time (Wire delay) is a factor that limit computing clock rate. You may noiticed that even in normal home computer, fast memory like L1, L2 cache are within the chip to shorten the distance.
Furthermore, fiber optic improve signal quality.
ricnunes wrote:
.Actually I would say that the (scarce) info that we have about both radars may point out that the SABR is likely the best of both radars:
1- SABR is newer than the APG-80
2- SABR is actually the APG-81 (the same radar used in the F-35) adapted to fit in the F-16. And as far as I know the APG-81 and the APG-77 (from which the APG-81 and SABR are derived from) are probably the best fighter aircraft radars in existence today.

1- However, it has constraint of fitting (operable) with older F-16
2- SABR is not a small APG-81, not by a long shot. I know they said 95% radar modes from APG-81 came into SABR but I think we all know how the other 5% (be it cyber attacks, high speed datalink.. etc) can make a world difference between them. Moreover, having the same operating mode doesn't mean they have the same capability in that mode. For example: APG-66 and APG-80 both have Track While Scan, but we both know the later will easily out perform the former

ricnunes wrote:
So again and in terms of Targeting FLIR I can't see any real advantage of the F-16 Block 60 over a F-16V (Block 70) equipped with a SNIPER ATP Pod.
And I doubt that the AAQ-32 targeting FLIR is better than the Sniper ATP pod (since the later is newer).

I know the nose mounted FLIR on F-16 block 60 is only for navigating, but that mean it doesn't need AAQ-13 for night flying and Falcon Edge eliminate the need for ASQ-218. So F-16E/F only need 1 targeting pod whereas, F-16V will need 2 pod for night penetration or SEAD/DEAD. There is nothing stop you from putting Sniper-XR ATP or Litening V on block 60 either because the external pod isn't really a part of the aircraft so i can't see F-16V as having superior targeting FLIR.
Here is a photo of F-16E with sniper-XR pod
_20180225_155107.JPG

ricnunes wrote:Like you said, the F-16V is a modular upgrade so I can't see any reason which would prevent a client to equip a F-16V with the F-110 GE-132 engines (instead of F-100 PW229 for example). Anyway is this engine (which while being a bit more powerful) worth the certain extra cost?
Anyway, I grant that there's a potential engine advantage on the Block 60 side but this by itself doesn't mean that the Block 60 is more advanced than the -V/Block 70.
Also as others have said, even if the F-16V is equipped with MIL-STD-1553 data bus while the F-16 Block 60 use MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus this doesn't "translate" in an advantage or significant advantage by the Block 60.
Moreover and like in the case of the engine, I cannot see any reason which would prevent a F-16V/Block 70 client to equip their F-16V aircraft with the MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus instead of the MIL-STD-1553.

AFAIK, current F-16V block 70 offer doesn't include F-110 GE-132 or MIL-STD-1773 so while it is technically possible to replace current engine and data bus on F-16V, the cost will go up and it shouldn't be considered the F-16V block 70. Do you see my point?.
In other words, technically you can also put TVC , EOTS, 1394B databus, ASQ-239, Fibermat RAM.. etc on F-16 block 60, but then it will be called with different name.
We are referring to specific F-16 block.



ricnunes wrote:
So lets see:
- The F-16V (Block 70) potentially has a better radar
- The F-16V (Block 70) potentially has a better Targeting FLIR/TGP
- The F-16V (Block 70) is cheaper with a more scalable/modular upgrade path. The Block 60 is certainly more expensive than the Block 70 since and because like you correctly said, the Block 60 is subjected to "royalties" to be paid to UAE.
- The F-16 Block 60 potentially has a EW suite.
- The F-16 Block 60 has a better engine

So by looking at the resumed part above, I can't see how anyone can outright consider that the Block 60 is more advanced than the Block 70.

_ External Targeting pod and weapons are interchangeable so they are the same in that aspect.
TBH, while SABR may be better than APG-80. But for databus, engine, EW suite, navigate FLIR, i find block 60 to be more complete.
Last edited by garrya on 25 Feb 2018, 12:35, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 11:27

APG-77 (from which the APG-81 and SABR are derived from) are probably the best fighter aircraft radars in existence toda


Probably due to advanced beam forming capabilities. Otherwise i'm not sure that in pure terms of detection APG 79 is far behind, if not ahead (for a similar gain wise)
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post26 Feb 2018, 08:10

Moreover, you can put SABR on F-16E/F but not APG-80 on F-16V, so i still see block 60 airframe as having better growth potential technically (bar the political aspect)


The F-16E/F is an one off. Any potential technically growth will cost R&D money outside the F-16 general upgrade. We know UAE have money but it still cost a lot to do anything to an one off.

Transmission time (Wire delay) is a factor that limit computing clock rate. You may noiticed that even in normal home computer, fast memory like L1, L2 cache are within the chip to shorten the distance.
Furthermore, fiber optic improve signal quality.


We are talking about the wire in the same plane. The copper wire that replace by fiber optic is the same length. there is not shorten distance like a L1, L2 cache. Also fiber optic slow the down the speed of light by 30%. At a short distance the latency different is trivial.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post26 Feb 2018, 09:29

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
F414:
13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner

Yeah, I know 22k is the oft quoted number but the SHornet NATOPS says 20k uninstalled.

GE Aviation says 22,000...
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests