F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 06 Jun 2018, 23:32

steve2267 wrote:Or has the -E gone HUDless as well?

No, I don't think that's the case. Most of what I've read seems to indicate that the Gripen -E/F will have HUDs as well.

Here's a site (which is in Portuguese) which seems to indicate this:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/gripenbrazi ... Gripen-NG/

If you translate the site above to English:
https://translate.google.pt/translate?s ... t=&act=url

You can read the following:

In February 2015, Saab announced the selection of AEL as the new supplier in Brazil. Saab and AEL also signed a technology transfer agreement. The company was selected to provide the Wide Area Display (WAD), Head-Up Display (HUD) and Helmet Mounted Display (HMD), which will be integrated into Gripen for Brazil as part of the F-X2 contract.

So besides the Wide Area Display and the Helmet Mounted Display, the new Gripen will also have/keep the HUD.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 06 Jun 2018, 23:58

Did you not read the post with three pictures at bottom of previous page?

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 07 Jun 2018, 01:25

[quote="gta4"]This figure is more convincing.
With same load out, F/A-18E has better performance and range.
P.S.: This is a 402 powered F/A-18C

: 18E18C.jpg (63.51 KiB) Viewed 97331 times

Now add the F-35C to that comparison.... :wink:

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 07 Jun 2018, 02:27

spazsinbad wrote:Did you not read the post with three pictures at bottom of previous page?

The Targo HMD may make the HUD unnecessary but the HUD will still remain even if at least as a redundancy backup. Applies to Brazil gripens as well as future production variants for the foreseeable future.

optimist · by **optimist** » 07 Jun 2018, 07:38

Corsair1963 wrote:
gta4 wrote:This figure is more convincing.
With same load out, F/A-18E has better performance and range.
P.S.: This is a 402 powered F/A-18C

18E18C.jpg

Now add the F-35C to that comparison....

the guys that fly them say that the cd out flies the ef, but the ef can have longer legs

kimjongnumbaun · by **kimjongnumbaun** » 07 Jun 2018, 07:43

The manufacturer's own promo video seems to demonstrate limited capability. There's no attitude indicator whatsoever which makes me question how useful the system is, especially without a HUD. The NVG capability also leaves a lot to be desired.

https://youtu.be/A_h7JY3rMxE?list=PLcyb ... U8MjU-evNr

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 07 Jun 2018, 08:30

Corsair1963 wrote:
gta4 wrote:Now add the F-35C to that comparison....

I'd love that. I bet that the envelope is significantly wider to all directions in similar loadout. Speed would definitely go up to Mach 1.6 in ITR and both ITR and STR are likely quite a bit higher. Maybe sprts can draw F-35C (and maybe A) into that picture?

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 07 Jun 2018, 08:36

hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
gta4 wrote:Now add the F-35C to that comparison....

I'd love that. I bet that the envelope is significantly wider to all directions in similar loadout. Speed would definitely go up to Mach 1.6 in ITR and both ITR and STR are likely quite a bit higher. Maybe sprts can draw F-35C (and maybe A) into that picture?

What shocked me was the range for both the Hornet and Super Hornet. (even with external tanks)

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 07 Jun 2018, 08:50

optimist wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
gta4 wrote:This figure is more convincing.
With same load out, F/A-18E has better performance and range.
P.S.: This is a 402 powered F/A-18C

Now add the F-35C to that comparison....

the guys that fly them say that the cd out flies the ef, but the ef can have longer legs

AFAIK, when in light loadout, especially the -402 engined C/Ds are considered slightly better but with heavier ordnance E/Fs gets better. Since that picture is with A/G loadout, it's not surprising that EF has pretty similar performance (with ITR edge) and better range.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 07 Jun 2018, 09:26

Corsair1963 wrote:What shocked me was the range for both the Hornet and Super Hornet. (even with external tanks)

I think it's not that bad for interdiction mission radius for a naval fighter. AFAIK those are fairly comparable figures to other fighter jets. Sure Strike Eagles have longer mission radius but it's a bigger jet with a lot more fuel. F-35C has great range and is currently estimated to have 640 nm combat radius but I don't know if the mission profiles are the same (or close enough).

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 07 Jun 2018, 09:28

hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:What shocked me was the range for both the Hornet and Super Hornet. (even with external tanks)

I think it's not that bad for interdiction mission radius for a naval fighter. AFAIK those are fairly comparable figures to other fighter jets. Sure Strike Eagles have longer mission radius but it's a bigger jet with a lot more fuel. F-35C has great range and is currently estimated to have 640 nm combat radius but I don't know if the mission profiles are the same (or close enough).

Clearly, the F-35C would have a marked advantage over either..... :wink:

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 07 Jun 2018, 10:39

Corsair1963 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:What shocked me was the range for both the Hornet and Super Hornet. (even with external tanks)

I think it's not that bad for interdiction mission radius for a naval fighter. AFAIK those are fairly comparable figures to other fighter jets. Sure Strike Eagles have longer mission radius but it's a bigger jet with a lot more fuel. F-35C has great range and is currently estimated to have 640 nm combat radius but I don't know if the mission profiles are the same (or close enough).

Clearly, the F-35C would have a marked advantage over either.....

Definitely so and I bet that 640 nm estimated combat radius is conservative number. Even 640 nm is almost 40 percent longer distance than 462 nm. Going nearly 200 nm extra is going to change a lot of things especially when accompanied with stealth, EW and SA advantages.

Btw, Swiss evaluation pointed out that Gripen C and even the proposed NG/MS21-variant had inferior range, weapon load and performances to -402 engined F/A-18C. I'd really like to see similar graph how Gripen performs in similar loadout.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 07 Jun 2018, 13:56

spazsinbad wrote:Did you not read the post with three pictures at bottom of previous page?

Yes, I did "read" (watched the images) of your post.

Basically with my latest post I was reinforcing what you posted, the fact that the Gripen NG/E/F/Whatever will have a HUD (despite having a HMD).

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 07 Jun 2018, 14:06

kimjongnumbaun wrote:The manufacturer's own promo video seems to demonstrate limited capability. There's no attitude indicator whatsoever which makes me question how useful the system is, especially without a HUD. The NVG capability also leaves a lot to be desired.

https://youtu.be/A_h7JY3rMxE?list=PLcyb ... U8MjU-evNr

Yes, that's my impression as well.
IMO (but I could be wrong thou) is that the Gripen E/F HMD (Targo) is basically "an equivalent" to the JHMCS (currently used in a variety of fighter aircraft such as the F-16, F/A-18, A-10C, etc...) and "not an equivalent" to the F-35's HMDS or resuming, the Targo HMD in the Gripen is basically a targeting information system coupled with some basic flight data information (such as airspeed and altitude) and as such not as comprehensive as the F-35's HMDS, hence why the Gripen E/F will still have/need a HUD.

loke · by **loke** » 07 Jun 2018, 15:06

ricnunes wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The manufacturer's own promo video seems to demonstrate limited capability. There's no attitude indicator whatsoever which makes me question how useful the system is, especially without a HUD. The NVG capability also leaves a lot to be desired.

https://youtu.be/A_h7JY3rMxE?list=PLcyb ... U8MjU-evNr

Yes, that's my impression as well.
IMO (but I could be wrong thou) is that the Gripen E/F HMD (Targo) is basically "an equivalent" to the JHMCS (currently used in a variety of fighter aircraft such as the F-16, F/A-18, A-10C, etc...) and "not an equivalent" to the F-35's HMDS or resuming, the Targo HMD in the Gripen is basically a targeting information system coupled with some basic flight data information (such as airspeed and altitude) and as such not as comprehensive as the F-35's HMDS, hence why the Gripen E/F will still have/need a HUD.

This should not come as a surprise, the F-35 HMDS is currently unique, and was very expensive to develop. I believe BAE UK is the one having something that is "closest" to the F-35 HMDS, this is simply because they were hired to develop a back-up solution...

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/s ... ed-display

I was somewhat surprised that Saab decided to go with Targo not Striker II since Cobra (developed from Striker I) was already integrated on Gripen C/D. Most likely a cost/effectivness analysis was done and Targo was chosen as giving the most "bang for the bucks". For sure Targo is much cheaper than Striker II (not sure if Striker II even got a launch customer yet??)