F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

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

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 22:09

loke wrote:Define "minor"...

The issue is that "minor" can be a slippery thing on a logarithmic scale.

For example, would halving the RCS be good enough? Would a reduction of one order of magnitude be good enough?

"Ten times as good as the original!" might sound more than enough for the generic population, in reality however it will be lacking as a LO platform.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 22:53

You could claim an RCS reduction by going from 0.1 to 0.09. Since it takes a 16x reduction in RCS to halve the detection range, this reduction would be meaningless.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 23:27

loke wrote:
nutshell wrote:I guess he means it would be useless to require just a minor RCS reduction.

Define "minor"...

Joking apart, it would not make sense to make it a contractual obligation to make an RCS reduction that is so small that it makes no difference (or, as I phrased it "useless").

The Rafale and SH have significant RCS reductions compared to Mirage 2000 and Hornet. Seems Gripen E will also have significant RCS reductions compared to Gripen C, turning it into a true 4.5 gen a/c.



You care to compare the physical differences between a mirage 2000 and Rafale along with a legacy bug vs a super?

I can't wait to see the stealthified Gripen! It will be entirely different, which is exactly what SAAB is trying to avoid i thought.

Besides didn't saab president say that stealth is obsolete a few years back? Or was that before it was a requirement and suddenly worth having again?

*Adding features that make the aircraft LO to a worthwhile degree

*keeping it as close to the old Gripen to save development costs


Pick one
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 23:35

botsing wrote:
loke wrote:Define "minor"...

The issue is that "minor" can be a slippery thing on a logarithmic scale.

For example, would halving the RCS be good enough? Would a reduction of one order of magnitude be good enough?

"Ten times as good as the original!" might sound more than enough for the generic population, in reality however it will be lacking as a LO platform.


Yep

This could get really interesting. Because by requiring this it could change a lot. Or do you just make the exhaust spikey and call it reduced?

Hey look it's this again::

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=268776
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1196
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 00:06

XanderCrews wrote:I can't wait to see the stealthified Gripen! It will be entirely different, which is exactly what SAAB is trying to avoid i thought.

Besides didn't saab president say that stealth is obsolete a few years back? Or was that before it was a requirement and suddenly worth having again?


LOL.
And more even, Loke seems to have recently learned a couple of new worlds which can be put in the following sentence:
"You cannot eyeball RCS"

Yet and at the same time, he seems to believe that Stealth (or low RCS) is something you can simply add (like an "add-on") to an existing aircraft (probably like a LEGO piece can be added to a larger LEGO construction :roll: )

(and then he calls other people's arguments "inconsistent", LoL...)
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 04:09

ricnunes wrote:
LOL.
And more even, Loke seems to have recently learned a couple of new worlds which can be put in the following sentence:
"You cannot eyeball RCS"

Yet and at the same time, he seems to believe that Stealth (or low RCS) is something you can simply add (like an "add-on") to an existing aircraft (probably like a LEGO piece can be added to a larger LEGO construction :roll: )

(and then he calls other people's arguments "inconsistent", LoL...)


My RCS eyeball is broken but unlike in 2014 there, we've seen the Gripen E prototype.

Image


And I don't see a whole helluva a lot of difference there. When you saw the super hornet prototype in 1995 that stood out. You could see it immediately.

Image

That's not an RCS eye so much as it's being minimally observant
Choose Crews
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 09:31

Man outta all the aircraft I hate the misinformation around the Gripen the most. At least for the typhoon and Rafale there is some logical argument. The gripen is basically, derp light weight cheap, lowest maint cost blah blah swedes integration geniuses, GAN radar.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 15:30

sunstersun wrote:Man outta all the aircraft I hate the misinformation around the Gripen the most. At least for the typhoon and Rafale there is some logical argument. The gripen is basically, derp light weight cheap, lowest maint cost blah blah swedes integration geniuses, GAN radar.



Yep! Glad I'm not the only one who sees it.

#swedishborg
Choose Crews
Offline

swiss

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 15:36

XanderCrews wrote:
sunstersun wrote:Man outta all the aircraft I hate the misinformation around the Gripen the most. At least for the typhoon and Rafale there is some logical argument. The gripen is basically, derp light weight cheap, lowest maint cost blah blah swedes integration geniuses, GAN radar.



Yep! Glad I'm not the only one who sees it.

#swedishborg


Absolutely not. Its proved by a real evaluation.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 15:49

swiss wrote:
Absolutely not. Its proved by a real evaluation.



Tell us more
Choose Crews
Offline

swiss

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 16:06

XanderCrews wrote:
swiss wrote:
Absolutely not. Its proved by a real evaluation.



Tell us more


Nothing new. I posted the results of the swiss AF evaluation a view months a go. Maybe you remember Crews. :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53203&start=30
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 16:25

swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
swiss wrote:
Absolutely not. Its proved by a real evaluation.



Tell us more


Nothing new. I posted the results of the swiss AF evaluation a view months a go. Maybe you remember Crews. :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53203&start=30



I can't tell if your agreeing with me or not...
Choose Crews
Offline

aprichelieu

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 19:32

loke wrote:Gripen M in brief:

https://saab.com/globalassets/commercia ... tsheet.pdf

Of course not in the same class as SH and Rafale.

Nevertheless, probably preferrable to Mig-29k and the Tejas.

More on Gripen M:
First revealed by Saab in 2010, the Gripen M concept features a number of navalised enhancements to the baseline Gripen E fighter to make it suitable for carrier operations. These include a strengthened undercarriage, bigger brakes, and a beefed-up tail hook. The standard Gripen already has a large number of the attributes for carrier operations, such as a high precision landing capability, a high pitch and roll rate authority and precision glide slope control, a reinforced airframe, and enhanced anti-corrosion protection. Its undercarriage and airframe is already capable of a sink rate of 15 ft/s, although this would need to be increased to about 25 ft/s for carrier operations.


http://www.janes.com/article/68734/saab ... l-to-india

Seems it will be heavier than the Gripen E....

I doubt the Indian Navy will go for Gripen, most likely Rafale or SH. Rafale may have an advantage in that it has already been ordered by the IAF and perhaps they could get some synergies? In addition of the Rafale is more capable than the SH in particular in the EW department (unless the SH is supplemented with Growlers, but I have not heard anything about that for India?)


Except of course that the Rafale does not fit onto the elevators of the Indian Carriers.
The proposed removable wingtips, to allow them to fit, will cause 15 minutes delays after the aircraft
has been raised to the fight deck.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5498
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 20:51

aprichelieu wrote:Except of course that the Rafale does not fit onto the elevators of the Indian Carriers.
The proposed removable wingtips, to allow them to fit, will cause 15 minutes delays after the aircraft
has been raised to the fight deck.



That's hilarious if true.
Choose Crews
Offline

swiss

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 22:33

swiss wrote:Nothing new. I posted the results of the swiss AF evaluation a view months a go. Maybe you remember Crews. :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53203&start=30



XanderCrews wrote:I can't tell if your agreeing with me or not...


Sorry for misunderstanding XanderCrews. I fully agree with your opinion about the Grippen. As you can see in the posted link, the Grippen E was inferior in all major categories to the Hornet C/D.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: juretrn and 5 guests