Page 156 of 157

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 08:35
by nathan77
white_lightning35 wrote:I always enjoy seeing pictures of how the gripen's engine sticks out like a sore thumb, yet the fanboys will claim it has a tiny infrared signature.


To be fair given how ridiculously under-powered it is, it probably does help the thermal aspect somewhat.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 13:00
by element1loop
nathan77 wrote:
white_lightning35 wrote:I always enjoy seeing pictures of how the gripen's engine sticks out like a sore thumb, yet the fanboys will claim it has a tiny infrared signature.


To be fair given how ridiculously under-powered it is, it probably does help the thermal aspect somewhat.


If it's under powered it will need to run the engine harder and probably hotter more often.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 13:20
by Tiger05
Saab sure likes the digital camo pattern... They were already using it on the Gripen NG mockup and Sea Gripen concept arts from years ago and now this. I guess this is a somewhat vain attempt from the Saab marketing team to make the Gripen E looks modern and trendy but personally i find that a bit cheesy.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 13:58
by XanderCrews
element1loop wrote:
If it's under powered it will need to run the engine harder and probably hotter more often.


This is what I've been screaming. Fuel Economy is not going to be pretty.


charlielima223 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Looking positively 90's ish... Visually, looks stuck in that decade.

I understand under the hood it has some impressive avionics, but with no clear cut advantage in stealth, maneuverability, weapons (once Meteor's "newness" rubs off), it's going to find it tough going in the world of 21st century air combat.


I think one thing people forget to look at is who is being marketed for this aircraft and who will be flying it. Brazil isnt exactly a major player on the international stage in terms of politics and military. Why would they need an F-35? (Though I'm sure if given the chance they would jump on board) Not every airforce in the world requires a 5th gen multirole aircraft. Brazil and South Africa do not have that many regional threats if any.



Don't tell the fanboys, they're convinced this thing is good for tier 1 world air forces.

Tiger05 wrote:Saab sure likes the digital camo pattern... They were already using it on the Gripen NG mockup and Sea Gripen concept arts from years ago and now this. I guess this is a somewhat vain attempt from the Saab marketing team to make the Gripen E looks modern and trendy but personally i find that a bit cheesy.


Are you kidding me? its perfect. The Gripen NG concept premiered in the mid-2000s when digital Camo was modern and trendy, its really fits here as its "meh" in 2019, like theyre over a decade late to the party.... I can't think of a better camo for the "Next Generation" Gripen-- new and exciting for 15 years ago.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2019, 14:07
by linkomart
white_lightning35 wrote:
I always enjoy seeing pictures of how the gripen's engine sticks out like a sore thumb, yet the fanboys will claim it has a tiny infrared signature.

OTOH, without their rantings we wouldn't get to make fun of them so much.


:offtopic:
Well, the chemtrail ejector isn't that hot...

https://youtu.be/FWAyPWAUfMU


:ontopic:

Seriously, in a head on, the small cross section area of Grpen helps compared to a F-35. Not saying that the IR signature is more or less, just saying that the detection distance is a function of temperature difference and area.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 04:56
by element1loop
XanderCrews wrote:
element1loop wrote:
If it's under powered it will need to run the engine harder and probably hotter more often.


This is what I've been screaming. Fuel Economy is not going to be pretty. ...


Yup, load it up and AoA rises, parasitic drag of stores increases, burn-rate goes up to maintain a useful stable speed, resulting specific-consumption kills its range. You'd need to be carrying JASSM-ER to make that work so it's not surprising they're interested.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2019, 16:17
by XanderCrews
element1loop wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
element1loop wrote:
If it's under powered it will need to run the engine harder and probably hotter more often.


This is what I've been screaming. Fuel Economy is not going to be pretty. ...


Yup, load it up and AoA rises, parasitic drag of stores increases, burn-rate goes up to maintain a useful stable speed, resulting specific-consumption kills its range. You'd need to be carrying JASSM-ER to make that work so it's not surprising they're interested.



I actually exposed this to one of the Canadian Fanboys, and to his credit he looked at the numbers "had a few stiff drinks" and realized I was right and was kind enought to actual post about it (it seems to have been forgotten since, but hey small victories)

It's MTOW is 16,500kg, it weighs 8,000kg empty* and the next 3,400kg is fuel. So that leaves 5,100kg of external load but since it has a fuel fraction less than 30%, half of that will be fuel, leaving room for ~2,500kg of weapons, minus 200kg for a targeting pod. Overall leaving it no better than an F-16 as regards load bearing.

*Page 4 -http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents and Images/Air/Gripen/Technical brochure, Gripen NG, English.pdf

Typhoon carries 7,500kg externally* and has a much bigger internal fuel fraction and lower SFC and is less affected by external load because it's a bigger aircraft with more powerful engines.

*Eurofighter Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eurofighter Typhoon – Wikipedia

Typhoon / Gripen NG
Empty Weight - 10,500kg / 8,000kg (Typhoon is 31.25% heavier)
Loaded Weight - 15,500kg / 11,400kg (Typhoon 36% heavier)
Fuel Fraction - 32.25% / 29.8% (Typhoon 10% better)
SFC - 0.74lb/lbf.hr / 0.78lb/lbf.hr (F414 has 3-4% improvement over F404)
TWR - 1.2 / 0.88 (Typhoon 36% higher)
Wing loading - 61.9lb/ft^2 / 77.7lb/ft^2

Gripen NG is a terrible, terrible aircraft. Worse than the JAS-39C variant kinematically. When it claims supercruise, I can't see it supercruising whilst carrying anything with that TWR.

Typhoon / F-16C / Gripen NG
Dry Thrust - 27,000lbf / 17,155lbf / 13,000lbf

Fuel Fraction
Typhoon (5000/ (10500 +5000)): 0.323
Rafale (4700/ (10000 +4700)): 0.320 (using 10t from Dassault link or 0.331 using 9,500kg)
F-22 (18,000/61,340): 0.293
Gripen NG(3400/ (8000 +3400)): 0.298

With 6 Meteor and 2 SRAAMs each

MICA - 112kg
ASRAAM - 88kg
IRIS-T - 88kg
Meteor - 188kg
AMRAAM - 356lbs
AIM-9 - 200lb
Cannon ammo for F-22 = 584lb on basic empty weight, already included in empty weight on other fighters.

Fuel Fraction+AAMs
Typhoon (5000/ (10500 +5000+ 176 + 1128 )): 0.30
Rafale (4700/ (10000 +4700+ 224 + 1128)): 0.29 (using 10t from Dassault link or 0.30 using 9,500kg)
F-22 (18,000/64,460): 0.28
Gripen NG(3400/ (8000 +3400+ 176 + 1128)): 0.27

TWR+AAMs
Typhoon (40500/2.2)/(10500 + 176 + 1128 + 5000): 1.10
F-22 70,000/(61340 + 400 + 2136 + 576): 1.09
Rafale (34000/2.2)/(10000 + 224 + 1128 + 4700): 0.96 (0.99 using 9500kg)
Gripen NG (22000/2.2)/(8000 + 176 + 1128 + 3400): 0.79 :rofl: 6th gen Saab

Clearly only two platforms make and exceed TWR parity with a full AAM loadout.

Wing Loading+AAMs
Typhoon (10500 + 176 + 1128 + 5000)*2.2/551: 67.1lb/ft^2
Rafale (10000 + 224 + 1128 + 4700)*2.2/: 71.8lb/ft^2 (69.5lb/ft^2 using 9500kg)
F-22 (61340 + 400 + 2136 + 576)/: 76.7lb/ft^2
Gripen NG (8000 + 176 + 1128 + 3400)*2.2/: 86.5lb/ft^2 :rofl: 6th gen Saab

Radar
F-22: 1,956 T/R Modules
Typhoon: 1,500 T/R Modues***
Rafale: 1,000 T/R Modules
Gripen NG: 1,000? T/R Modules***

***Swashplate mounted.

Avionics (HMD/IRST/RF attack/360deg LOAL)
F-22: NO/NO/YES/NO/YES
Typhoon: YES/YES/YES/YES
Rafale: NO/YES/YES/YES
Gripen: YES/YES/YES/YES

Top Speed/Supercruise/6+g turn at Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft
F-22: Mach 2+/Mach 1.6+/YES
Typhoon: Mach 2.35/Mach1.5/YES
Rafale: Mach 1.8/Mach 1.3/NO
Gripen: Mach 2.0/Not Really/HELL NO!


more

Gripen E:

Empty Weight - 8,000kg (17,600lb)
Internal Fuel - 3,400kg (7,500lb)
Loaded Weight - 11,400kg (25,100lb)
Thrust - 98kN (22,000lb)
TWR - 0.876
TWR 50% fuel - 1.03
TWR (100% fuel + 6 Meteors) - 0.8
TWR (50% fuel + 6 Meteors) - 0.926
Fuel Fraction - 0.299

F-35B - Targeting pod and internal weapons bays included
Empty Weight - 32,300lb
Internal Fuel - 13,500lb
Loaded Weight - 45,800lb
Thrust - 43,000lb
TWR - 0.94
TWR 50% fuel - 1.10
TWR (100% fuel + 6 Meteors) - 0.892
TWR (50% fuel + 6 Meteors) - 1.04
Fuel Fraction - 0.295

No one had a problem when people were saying things like "hey the Gripen {legacy} is like 80 percent of an F-36, but with about half the cost." Ok cool, I get it, I'm not going to sweat the details, thats a good value which is the whole idea "F-16 lite"

But now the problem is that the Gripen NG/Gripen E has suddenly Catapulted past not only the F-16, but its replacement the F-35. That seems rather ludicrous, Fanboys. And "grown ups" understand that and even some Gripen fans, but there is a subgroup that is absolutely diluted and fanatical. They also think Saab is the only honest airplane manufacturer in the world which is hilarious for anyone who has any kind of actual knowledge beyond the well disguised propaganda.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2019, 15:21
by gta4
1. Why are you using the B vaiant?

2. Wing loading is not comparable, because wing loading alone does not have anything to do with maneuverability. Wings with higher weep requires less wing loading to guarantee the same level of maneuverability, due to its smaller lift curve slope.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2019, 21:25
by XanderCrews
gta4 wrote:1. Why are you using the B vaiant?

2. Wing loading is not comparable, because wing loading alone does not have anything to do with maneuverability. Wings with higher weep requires less wing loading to guarantee the same level of maneuverability, due to its smaller lift curve slope.



1. its my favorite, and people hate it. Its often considered the weakest/worst variant by a lot of people, including some here.

2. I don't care about wing loading either but they do know your audience and all.

"sometimes you gotta speak retard, even be fluent in it"

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 03:31
by firebase99
XanderCrews wrote:
gta4 wrote:1. Why are you using the B vaiant?

2. Wing loading is not comparable, because wing loading alone does not have anything to do with maneuverability. Wings with higher weep requires less wing loading to guarantee the same level of maneuverability, due to its smaller lift curve slope.



1. its my favorite, and people hate it. Its often considered the weakest/worst variant by a lot of people, including some here.

2. I don't care about wing loading either but they do know your audience and all.

"sometimes you gotta speak retard, even be fluent in it"


Love this post so much!! LOL. I like the B too (see what I did there? Anyway....) I think most people look at the B as they did the Harrier. This aint no Harrier....its just as capable as all other variants but can land in your damn driveway.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 09:17
by element1loop
Given the weight limit and weight of JASSM-ER it looks like one might need to down-grade to a "kiddie" VLO cruise-missile, like JSM, and hope a JAS-39E/F can survive at the available standoff, to attack a well-defended target or three.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2019, 13:09
by hornetfinn
element1loop wrote:Given the weight limit and weight of JASSM-ER it looks like one might need to down-grade to a "kiddie" VLO cruise-missile, like JSM, and hope a JAS-39E/F can survive at the available standoff, to attack a well-defended target or three.


Gripen C/D has already been flown with Taurus KEPD 350 which is about similar size or even slightly larger than JASSM-ER.
Image

Of course Gripen will be very heavy with two of those and one EFT and couple of air-to-air missiles. But given the long range of such a cruise missile it might not be that much of a problem depending on situation. Naturally larger competitors will have easier time hauling such large missiles.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2019, 17:41
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:
element1loop wrote:Given the weight limit and weight of JASSM-ER it looks like one might need to down-grade to a "kiddie" VLO cruise-missile, like JSM, and hope a JAS-39E/F can survive at the available standoff, to attack a well-defended target or three.


Gripen C/D has already been flown with Taurus KEPD 350 which is about similar size or even slightly larger than JASSM-ER.

Of course Gripen will be very heavy with two of those and one EFT and couple of air-to-air missiles. But given the long range of such a cruise missile it might not be that much of a problem depending on situation. Naturally larger competitors will have easier time hauling such large missiles.


That helps but non-VLO Taurus max-range is still only ~500 km as opposed to >925 km for VLO JASSM-ER, while 2 x Taurus is 1,000 lb heavier. Prefer SH with 2xJASSM-ER and three external bags with a stack of range, for similar money - then integrate Meteor.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 13:13
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
element1loop wrote:Given the weight limit and weight of JASSM-ER it looks like one might need to down-grade to a "kiddie" VLO cruise-missile, like JSM, and hope a JAS-39E/F can survive at the available standoff, to attack a well-defended target or three.


Gripen C/D has already been flown with Taurus KEPD 350 which is about similar size or even slightly larger than JASSM-ER.

Of course Gripen will be very heavy with two of those and one EFT and couple of air-to-air missiles. But given the long range of such a cruise missile it might not be that much of a problem depending on situation. Naturally larger competitors will have easier time hauling such large missiles.


That helps but non-VLO Taurus max-range is still only ~500 km as opposed to >925 km for VLO JASSM-ER, while 2 x Taurus is 1,000 lb heavier. Prefer SH with 2xJASSM-ER and three external bags with a stack of range, for similar money - then integrate Meteor.


Don't need it. Getting AIM-260. :wink:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 14:44
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:That helps but non-VLO Taurus max-range is still only ~500 km as opposed to >925 km for VLO JASSM-ER, while 2 x Taurus is 1,000 lb heavier. Prefer SH with 2xJASSM-ER and three external bags with a stack of range, for similar money - then integrate Meteor.


Don't need it. Getting AIM-260. :wink:


Doh! :doh: :thumb: