F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 638
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post05 May 2019, 14:36

bumtish wrote:
That 0.1 number is not a qualified estimate per se but a number picked arbitrarily for use in that report.


The translation is partial - the last part says "RCS target".
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 791
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post05 May 2019, 15:10

The Gripen E RCS value:

άγνωστος m2

:wink:

Can we please stop this now?


Edit: Gripen was recently mentioned in this thread :shock: :

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=55460

;)
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 May 2019, 15:42

madrat wrote:
marsavian wrote:F-16 has not had any major airframe composition/RAM change and Super Hornet had partial change from Hornet. Also the additional RAM in Block III SH shows the RCS reduction was/is still a WIP. The way you should be looking at this is in terms of levers, yes the Shape modification gets you the biggest lever and can get your RCS dBsm very negative straight away but there are these two other levers, RAS/RAM, that can be used if shape modification is not possible or to augment it.

The core RCS of the F-35 on its shape alone based on all the optics studies I have seen is around 0.01 sq m. How do you think in practice it is said to get to 0.0001 sq m or even lower ? RAS/RAM intelligently applied gets it there. As for Su-57 frankly the Russians just have not done a good job with supposedly a clean slate design with the advantages of F-117/F-22 designs to learn from and also considering their scientists actually pioneered optic stealth science. They have crudely modified a super maneuverable Flanker and not really moved the RCS needle in doing so. It's more a poor attempt then anything else.


Source? Because it is untrue.


Here's an example of a theoretical metallic F-35 with NO RAS or RAM. From the front and back the value is oscillating around 0.01 sq m or -20 dBsm.

Image
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2439
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 May 2019, 17:10

I'm looking for your unsubstantiated claims that Gripen has no RCS reduction. This is a Gripen thread.

I'm not concerned about your opinions that F-16 and F-18 had no RCS reductions which is false. Your claim about Gripen is outlandish and flies in the face of reality.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 May 2019, 18:35

I think you must have me confused with someone else, I'm agreeing that Gripen has RCS reduced to around the 0.1-0.2 sq m level primarily using RAS and RAM. I'm also agreeing both F-16/F-18 have had RCS reduction measures but not to the extent of full RCS reduction as that would mean expensive new build aircraft. My post was in reply to what Ricnunes said two posts earlier in reply to an earlier post of mine, I did not want to re-quote it as it was a long post but I assumed others would get the context of my reply following the thread in its entirety. However I have now edited that reply to include the quote I was replying to for clarity and context sake.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 May 2019, 21:08

marsavian wrote:I don't think the Gripen NG is being sold on its kinematics. Primarily it's being sold on its wide AESA radar, GaN spherical EW, IRST, Meteor missiles, LO and supposedly cheap running costs.


Its the rabid fanboys that are most hurt by the kinematics revelation, surely you must be confused *snorts* it is the F-35 that is overweight and under powered *chuckles*


Avionics and the supposedly cheap running costs are all it has going for it, besides "we let you make factory in country! many job! much bribe! wow."


(before anyone jumps down my throat. Its not that SAAB is prone to bribes. Its that they win contracts in a lot of countries that literally work on bribes. I know I know, this is probably the first anything in Brazilian history with no bribery)

Kinematics is probably secondary to the overall sensor suite and most customers who are concerned about that feature are still buying F-16s because at the very top end you can pick up a 32klb engine which has about 50% more thrust than the F414. Gripen NG engine wise is where the F-16A began 40 years ago.


Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 May 2019, 21:14

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator

optimist wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:Indeed but why pick an unrealistic number to do a detailed study for the Swedish Armed Forces ? What purpose would it serve them if it was not in that ballpark ?

https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--0338--SE


I don't know and you're actually posting a good question.

My guess would be a similar reason as that 7,000 kg empty weight value for the Gripen E. :wink:

let's not forget the few dollars it is, for CPFH


Muh 4700

Did you ever see that fellow Kurt Plummers take on the gripens low cost vs its performance?? its "interesting"

marsavian wrote: Super Hornet had partial change from Hornet.



Ths Super Hornet had drastic RCS reductions. they reshaped nearly every aspect of it. Even the tailhook housing has RAM on it.

I'm not going to get bogged down in the details, but the Super Hornet has a helluva makeover that visible in nearly every respect. The tailfins planform with the intakes for example. even the pitot tubes and other sensors have little diamond shaped protectors and the reargear doors are serrated. If the Gripen NG rolled out looking like the changes we saw incorporated on the super Hornet we could have some real speculation on hand, but it didn't. The intakes were enlarged to get the most of the F414s need for airflow. I can't see any drastic redesign compared to say SH vs Legacy Hornet.

Image

Saab didn't even bother with little things like that.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2414
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 May 2019, 22:10

XanderCrews wrote:
marsavian wrote: Super Hornet had partial change from Hornet.



Ths Super Hornet had drastic RCS reductions. they reshaped nearly every aspect of it. Even the tailhook housing has RAM on it.

I'm not going to get bogged down in the details, but the Super Hornet has a helluva makeover that visible in nearly every respect. The tailfins planform with the intakes for example. even the pitot tubes and other sensors have little diamond shaped protectors and the reargear doors are serrated. If the Gripen NG rolled out looking like the changes we saw incorporated on the super Hornet we could have some real speculation on hand, but it didn't. The intakes were enlarged to get the most of the F414s need for airflow. I can't see any drastic redesign compared to say SH vs Legacy Hornet.

Saab didn't even bother with little things like that.


Ditto XanderCrews!

I was actually going to reply marsavian that same point but I noticed that you already replied it and very well so.

The Super Hornet was designed from the outset to have a low RCS.

Another example to complement what you previously said are the some of the surfaces in the aircraft like the landing gear doors which have a sawtooth/serrated shape - something we always find on all and every pure stealth aircraft like the F-22, F-35 or B-2 - and of course the most distinctive shape change of all which is the engine intake which in legacy Hornet was rounded D-shaped and with the Super Hornet it is "squarish". Of course that the squarish air intakes on the Super Hornet are also meant for having a bigger air inflow but they are also meant for lower RCS.

And as you said, the Gripen E doesn't seem to have nothing like this at all!

Here's a picture that I posted here at F-16.net some time ago and which I'll re-post showing all the above:
Image

So if one has to say something like marsavian previously said, like:
"X plane" had partial change from "Y plane".

Then this applies to the Gripen E over the "legacy" Gripen and definitely not to the Super Hornet over the legacy Hornet.

Resuming, there's a snowball chance in hell that the Gripen E has a lower RCS than the Super Hornet!
There's simply nothing that can convince me otherwise!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post05 May 2019, 22:49

XanderCrews wrote:Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator


Bill Sweetman and his followers are humanoids then ? :twisted:

For me, it's not 6th gen, but a pigeon obviously : https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/is-this-a-pigeon

Anyway, the 0.01m2 RCS doesn't hold water. Ask toveri hornetfinn, and he can produce you the Brazilian PDF estimating the RCS of various munitions, and IIRC, it was already around that value. I think it's that paper, but let him chime in if it's not : http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n3/J ... x_band.pdf

From the front, an AIM-9B-like missile has around 0.1m2 in the X band...

Makes perfect sense to apply massive RCS reduction measures on a 6th gen aircraft that will carry a few missiles externally for the lightest payloads...
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 May 2019, 14:25

marsavian wrote:The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C.


Is this anymore "real" than any other stuff we have heard the last 10 years like how they were going to incorporate legacy gripen parts into the NGs to save money?


I'm not picking on you, just pointing out this is one more claim in the massive swirl of claims I've grown accustomed to hearing.

One of the SAAB Big wigs outright said "stealth is obsolete" at a presser for example.

Add it to the list of contradictions


5 years ago, when Bill Sweetman was enjoying his complementary journo breakfast did some Saab guy say "you know Bill, the contract says we actually have to add LO..."

viper12 wrote:
Bill Sweetman and his followers are humanoids then ? :twisted:

For me, it's not 6th gen, but a pigeon obviously : https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/is-this-a-pigeon



The Dark art of Memetic warfare.


Anyway, the 0.01m2 RCS doesn't hold water. Ask toveri hornetfinn, and he can produce you the Brazilian PDF estimating the RCS of various munitions, and IIRC, it was already around that value. I think it's that paper, but let him chime in if it's not : http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n3/J ... x_band.pdf

From the front, an AIM-9B-like missile has around 0.1m2 in the X band...

Makes perfect sense to apply massive RCS reduction measures on a 6th gen aircraft that will carry a few missiles externally for the lightest payloads...
[/quote]

Whoa hold on there bucko! If your implying that the Gripen E isn't loaded and covered with the same stuff its fans say add cost weight and maintenance to the F-35, you've got another thing coming!

(Gripen fans have an "odd relationship" with LO-- theyve never really been able to decide on what narrative they want for that one. )
Choose Crews
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post06 May 2019, 18:15

@ XanderCrews and Ric: I fully agree with your opinions.

@ marsavian: its the same as we talk in an other thread about RSC of the Su-27/30 vs Su-35. Again, It's very unlikely to put on a thin layer of (Ram) paint, without changing the airframe, to reduce the RCS by one order of magnitude.

Boeing/McDonnell Douglas did this with the SH compere to the F-18 C/D

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=12648&start=285

Image

This is from the SH flight manual. As you can see, they did a lot more, then only a "paint job", to reduce the RCS of the F-18E 10 times.

Image

download/file.php?id=16580
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post06 May 2019, 19:15

The work done to reduce RCS on F-18E was all aspect driven which is why there is so much detail to it which of course helps the Growler in its EW work. RAM was used here and there but it's not as if the whole airplane was coated like F-117. As to the work on Su-35 the RAM was just said to reduce the engine contribution by an order of magnitude not the whole frontal area. Work was also done on the canopy and antennas to get the whole frontal area down. I stand by my statements, if you can build your structure completely out of composites and you have the weight allowance to coat your airframe liberally with RAM at RCS hotspots you can reduce RCS by orders of magnitude as shown by many studies. Remember that the F-18E front fuselage is still aluminium unlike say the Typhoon with its CFC. I know people currently think the F-22/F-35 are out there in RCS reduction but I believe with modern computer design/technology/hardware for shaping and modern composite construction materials the PCA can be even better say -50/60 dBsm.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 May 2019, 20:06

marsavian wrote:The work done to reduce RCS on F-18E was all aspect driven which is why there is so much detail to it which of course helps the Growler in its EW work.


Of course the Growler wasn't a thing when it was designed, they took radar reduction seriously and there were very few parts that were not redesigned and reshaped, as shape is critical whether its covered in RAM or not. they also included things like Radar Blockers for example. The point is they took it seriously within the constraints given.

The point was very simple, if you want big reductions, you have to make big changes. Put simply, "stealthy airplanes" look "stealthy."

The Gripen looks like a Gripen. The same one we saw debuted in concept art in the 80s. Moreover the same aircraft meant to be used as a point interceptor defensively by a neutral country. Its not some penetrating strike fighter (thats what NG is supposed to be addressing) . In fact the first Gripens didn't even have AR probes, and why? its not like you're going anywhere far right? :doh:



RAM was used here and there but it's not as if the whole airplane was coated like F-117.



and?


As to the work on Su-35 the RAM was just said to reduce the engine contribution by an order of magnitude not the whole frontal area. Work was also done on the canopy and antennas to get the whole frontal area down. I stand by my statements, if you can build your structure completely out of composites and you have the weight allowance to coat your airframe liberally with RAM at RCS hotspots you can reduce RCS by orders of magnitude as shown by many studies. Remember that the F-18E front fuselage is still aluminium unlike say the Typhoon with its CFC. I know people currently think the F-22/F-35 are out there in RCS reduction but I believe with modern computer design/technology/hardware for shaping and modern composite construction materials the PCA can be even better say -50/60 dBsm.



Youre still ignoring shape. And Shape is still king. I tire of LO/Stealth threads where we throw a new coat of paint onto a flanker and its now stealth but a Super Hornet, which actually did a major redesign to reduced signature is hand waived.
(no I'm not saying thats what youre doing here, its just something I see all over the internet constantly)

This whole thing is irrelevant anyway the Gripen isn't stealth. Its not going to be Stealth. They havn't bothered with any major shaping, Its a matter of if the same design is going to have RAM in places. Again I'm assured by this things fan base that stealth and LO and RAM only add costs and maintenance.

Its never going to be anywhere near where it needs to be in order to make the reduction worth it, which is why I'm going to go out on limb here and say it essentially doesn't exist. I leave myself some latitude by saying there may be some RCS redcutions via RAM as you point out, but even then-- it won't even be equivalent to a super hornet. Which did much more, and compared to the F-35 is still deeply wanting in RCS.

I've learned not to trust anything out of this program, I trust the F-35 program more. Think about that. I trust the F-35 more. Thats ridiculous. So Bill Sweetman reported that the Gripen NG would have an RCS reduction requirement 5 years ago. That really doesn't mean a damn thing to me.

We can keep talking about it and turn this horse into glue, but I would think RCS discussions belong where reduced RCS airplanes are. hardly appropriate in this thread...

The Gripen isn't LO, it isn't stealthy and jury is out on if there will be any reductions at all, other than the talk that its contractually required to be, which like so many other things with this airplane has been seized by its fans, declared reality, and then exaggerated about 100 times beyond its size.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 06 May 2019, 20:22, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post06 May 2019, 20:18

marsavian wrote:The work done to reduce RCS on F-18E was all aspect driven which is why there is so much detail to it which of course helps the Growler in its EW work. RAM was used here and there but it's not as if the whole airplane was coated like F-117. As to the work on Su-35 the RAM was just said to reduce the engine contribution by an order of magnitude not the whole frontal area. Work was also done on the canopy and antennas to get the whole frontal area down.


Agreed. But why you still claim the whole frontal RCS of the Su-35 is reduced by one order of magnitude? Especially when the engines faces are not covered, and the structure is not made out of composites.


marsavian wrote: I stand by my statements, if you can build your structure completely out of composites and you have the weight allowance to coat your airframe liberally with RAM at RCS hotspots you can reduce RCS by orders of magnitude as shown by many studies.


Yes that could be. But this is neither the case by the Su-35 or the Grippen-E
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 791
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post06 May 2019, 20:28

The aircraft will have a reduced radar surface (radar section, RCS) reduced and will be equipped with effective active and passive electromagnetic countermeasures aimed at prevent the discovery, detection, tracking and combat by opposing systems.


The operational effectiveness of Gripen has been evaluated from "sufficient" to "good".
to the three types of use "air-air", "reconnaissance" and "air-to-ground".
The technical development potential of the Gripen after delivery is assessed as "good".

https://www.admin.ch/opc/it/federal-gaz ... 2/8145.pdf

Reduced radar cross-section (RCS) —
included as a contractual obligation.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 2o5WhJBwP3
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests