Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Online

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1193
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post20 Feb 2020, 21:56

XanderCrews wrote:

If you don't like it,

MAYBE GRIPEN.NET ISN'T FOR YOU


That link didn't work. This one does, because everyone needs a home

https://gripen.boards.net/
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6239
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Feb 2020, 22:07

optimist wrote:
That link didn't work. This one does, because everyone needs a home https://gripen.boards.net/


Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post20 Feb 2020, 22:09

This obsession with Gripen E weight is pretty immaterial to its effectiveness. It always had the worst power/weight ratio of the western 4.5 gens so maintaining that only counts to its critics. It gains its ITR maneuverability from its closely coupled canard delta layout not P/W or wing loading although its P/W ratio is still around unity at combat weight which is not shabby. If Saab cared as much as you did about it they would have commissioned and bought the 26,000lbf F414 EPE for it. Its sensors and electronics and missiles have been considerably improved, that's what counts to its future effectiveness and low cost of purchase and maintenance will count to its users. Really I have only been comparing it to F-16 and other similar sized single engined fighters below that like Tejas/Thunder to rate it so highly, I have not been part of this decade long Gripen vs F-35 debate which you all are veterans of and seems to have scarred rational debate about it certainly here.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6239
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Feb 2020, 22:32

marsavian wrote:This obsession with Gripen's weight is pretty immaterial to its effectiveness. It always had the worst power/weight ratio of the western 4.5 gens so maintaining that only counts to its critics. It gains its ITR maneuverability from its closely coupled canard delta layout not P/W or wing loading although its P/W ratio is still around unity at combat weight which is not shabby.


the double standard is what bothers me.

I'm absolutely astounded that the exact weight of an F-35 pilot regarding the ejection seat is a massive concern for the F-35, but a "lightfighter" gaining 2200 pounds is no big deal really. The Massive amounts of concern trolling for the JSF program fall by the wayside for some strange reason.

Gripen was known to be underpowered. Gripen NG was supposed to fix that. It won't. Thats fine for some reason

If Saab cared as much as you did about it they would have commissioned and bought the 26,000lbf F414 EPE for it.


I cant stress enough that saab created their own expectations and then blew their own expectations. if you tell me a Gripen NG will weigh 200 kg more than the orignial Gripen and be 7000 kilos i'd say "great" and move on. If you told me it was 8000 kilos from the start Id think that was heavier but whatever. when you say 7000, and then its 8000. I'm wondering what went wrong. especially when that was a part of the sales brochure.

What happened was Saab flooded the internet with numbers that were completely from the imagination. this persisted for years. this was then picked up by the fanbase and other aviation nuts and writers and then further circulated all over the web. the internet being the internet camps formed, lines were drawn, arguments were had about the superiority of an airplane that would never exist in that configuration. its now become a part of public consciousness and the repeated lies then morph into "fact". and these things are "taken for granted" when they were never true in the first place and a lot of these fake numbers are still in circulation. after 13 YEARS, when they were never even true. This means that we now to sort through gobs of false information in the hopes of extracting small nuggets of truth which Saab to this day DELIBRATELY and actively falsifies and muddies the waters on to further cause disinformation. For some reason they are given a pass on this, when others would be laughed off the stage.

So what results? well we basically hordes of people who don't know better stinking up any conversation with Gripen mentions. derailing threads, and pig headedly and stubbornly clinging to things they've read that have never been true in the first place "but they've seen everywhere"

"Now I'd like to briefly outline our pricing and key cost data for you. These figures are approximate and are based on in-year Canadian dollars. The acquisition price of one Gripen, the fly-away price, is about $55 million. That depends on configuration, but that's a real number....

... If you take round figures, in terms of acquisition and in-service costs, a fleet of 65 Gripen NG will cost you just under $6 billion Canadian. That's about $3.75 billion Canadian to acquire the aircraft, and $2 billion to operate them over 40 years, or just under $6 billion for the whole package for life." --Anthony Oglivy Saab in Canadian parliament 2010.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewe ... 8/evidence

Actual flyaway cost of the Gripen in 2016 according to saab? $85 million.

And wouldn't you know it? I have a really hard time taking saab at their word especially as the hype has had to become reality and things are "shockingly" not as good as the brochures --which is what I was saying all the way back in 2010. They were lying the whole time. They've taken a number. Theyre lying theyre repeating that lie early and often, and there is no oversight or other neutral body thats calling them out on it and delivering real numbers. We had the Swiss give us an estimates that was nearly 6 times higher than what Saab was claiming.

I don't think they want to add any more expenses, nor contradict the messages they've been sending regarding its current effectiveness regarding the engine. yes, if saab wanted to fix it they'd just create an entirely new variant that takes years of development. they like that.

Its sensors and electronics and missiles have been considerably improved, that's what counts to its future effectiveness and low cost of purchase and maintenance will count to its users.


I think its expensive

Really I have only been comparing it to F-16 and other similar sized fighters below that like Tejas/Thunder to rate it so highly, I have not been part of this decade long Gripen vs F-35 debate which you all are veterans of and seems to have scarred rational debate about it.


I don't count you among that group.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post21 Feb 2020, 10:44

ricnunes wrote:
lukfi wrote:What's your point, exactly? Is it that the T/W improvement stated on this old slide is no longer true because the increased empty weight "ate" it? Let's do a back of the envelope calculation:

Empty weight + "fueled as 39C" + 1000 kg payload
39C 6800 + 2400 + 1000 = 10200 kg
39E 8000 + 2400 + 1000 = 11400 kg = 11,7% higher, but thrust is ~20% higher (+18,5% dry, +22% AB)
On dry thrust only (54 vs 64 kN) that's +6% T/W. Not 20%, but not worse.


It's unlikely that the F414 engine dry thrust is 64 kN (or around 14387 lb) since the F414 engine is the afterburning version of the General Electric F412-GE-D5F2 engine (initially planned for the A-12) which has a reported thrust (dry only) of 13000 lb (and not 14300+ lb).


lukfi wrote:Of course the number will vary based on payload and how much fuel you take, but when comparing the same payload, 39E is always better than 39C because it has more internal fuel and its dry thrust went up a little bit more than its empty weight. It's not a sales tagline but debunking your false claim.


Even if your calculations above are to be close to correct, the problem with your exercise above is that the Gripen E has basically a similar performance and range compared with the Gripen C given the same weapons loadout and fuel. A bigger and full fuel load on the Gripen E will give it a much worse performance compared to the Gripen C which by its turn means that the gains in range will likely be smaller (and much so) then initially planned and as such compared to the Gripen C which again brings me to the point that the Gripen E will likely be (IMO) a failed concept!


40% more internal fuel buys 25-30% more range* which is consistent with a heavier airframe and is hardly a failed concept. CFTs on Falcon/Hornet also substantially increase range despite having to carry the extra weight of the CFTs which is akin to the extra weight of the Gripen E over Gripen C plus the more powerful engine can be run on a lower power setting as fuel is burnt off.

*
https://youtu.be/xAPq4xyypFE
Online

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1193
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post21 Feb 2020, 10:54

marsavian wrote:
40% more internal fuel buys 25-30% more range* which is consistent with a heavier airframe and is hardly a failed concept. CFTs on Falcon/Hornet also substantially increase range despite having to carry the extra weight of the CFTs which is akin to the extra weight of the Gripen E over Gripen C plus the more powerful engine can be run on a lower power setting as fuel is burnt off.

*
https://youtu.be/xAPq4xyypFE

I saw that video early today, over on the Gripen forum. It is staying up to date with the info..
https://gripen.boards.net/board/1/gripe ... e-aviation
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Feb 2020, 13:33

marsavian wrote:40% more internal fuel buys 25-30% more range* which is consistent with a heavier airframe and is hardly a failed concept.


Well, a 25% increase in range (and assuming that this value is correct and that it isn't another "overstatement" by Saab) compared to an aircraft where one of its biggest weak points is having a short-range is nothing to "write home about".
So summing up ( :wink: ), a version of a short-range aircraft which became much more expensive, took all these years (and money) to develop and gained much weight but in return only had an increase of 25% over an already meager/small range then I would definitely say that such project is hardly a successful concept.


marsavian wrote: CFTs on Falcon/Hornet also substantially increase range despite having to carry the extra weight of the CFTs which is akin to the extra weight of the Gripen E over Gripen C plus the more powerful engine can be run on a lower power setting as fuel is burnt off.

*
https://youtu.be/xAPq4xyypFE


There are at least two considerable diferences between CFTs on a Falcon or Hornet and the Gripen E:
1- CFTs are much less expensive, take much less time and money to develop and implement on the aircraft compared to a new design like the Gripen E.
2- A Hornet or Falcon are much more powerful in terms of engine/power compared to the Gripen (you also admitted this above) which means that extra weight will always have a much smaller impact on a Hornet or Falcon performance compared to a Gripen.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Feb 2020, 13:43

XanderCrews wrote:
no no, the F-35 is a pig. Saab does everything better. The gripen is just so refined and elegant and Saab is just such an amazing manufacturer. from the American engine to british sub system, its sweden all the way. Blowing their own goals like that. its ok though because only diamond can cut diamond.

if Gripen was going to magnificent when they said it would 7000 kilos, then it shall be even more magnificent at 8000 kilos, swine.


LOL :mrgreen:

Look at the "bright side": If the "more magnificent at 8000 kilos" doesn't stick up (with global customers) then at least Saab can now blame the American engine and the British sub-systems for not being able to achieve the intended goals with the Gripen E... :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post21 Feb 2020, 15:23

ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:40% more internal fuel buys 25-30% more range* which is consistent with a heavier airframe and is hardly a failed concept.


Well, a 25% increase in range (and assuming that this value is correct and that it isn't another "overstatement" by Saab) compared to an aircraft where one of its biggest weak points is having a short-range is nothing to "write home about".
So summing up, a version of a short-range aircraft which became much more expensive, took all these years (and money) to develop and gained much weight but in return only had an increase of 25% over an already meager/small range then I would definitely say that such project is hardly a successful concept.


This is only on internal fuel, Gripens more than double their fuel when carrying external fuel tanks so their range is not so meager then (Gripen C carries 3 x 300gal EFT giving 11.3 klb total fuel / Gripen E would have 15.4 klb total fuel with 2 * 450gal + 1 * 300gal EFT). Also the range increase was only a small part of the development time, there were more important things to develop in that time.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post22 Feb 2020, 08:20

marsavian wrote:
This is only on internal fuel, Gripens more than double their fuel when carrying external fuel tanks so their range is not so meager then (Gripen C carries 3 x 300gal EFT giving 11.3 klb total fuel / Gripen E would have 15.4 klb total fuel with 2 * 450gal + 1 * 300gal EFT). Also the range increase was only a small part of the development time, there were more important things to develop in that time.



Sure, because parasitic drag doesn't exist. :doh:
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post22 Feb 2020, 22:42

ricnunes wrote:Even if your calculations above are to be close to correct, the problem with your exercise above is that the Gripen E has basically a similar performance and range compared with the Gripen C given the same weapons loadout and fuel. A bigger and full fuel load on the Gripen E will give it a much worse performance compared to the Gripen C which by its turn means that the gains in range will likely be smaller (and much so) then initially planned and as such compared to the Gripen C which again brings me to the point that the Gripen E will likely be (IMO) a failed concept!

My calculations are based on the assumption that the engine is going to have 64 kN of dry thrust. In most places I could find only the afterburning thrust, the 64 kN number can be found here: https://fightson.net/95/saab-jas-39-gripen/
I also found it mentioned here (in Czech): https://web.archive.org/web/20190827173 ... republiky/
(for some reason the whole website is down but Web Archive has it)

Based on this, there is never a situation where 39E would have worse performance than 39C while carrying the same payload. Empty weight increased by 1200 kg but MTOW by 2500 kg. That's +18% for MTOW and +18.5% for dry thrust.
Gripen C can carry 7700 kg of "stuff" (fuel and payload) in total, assuming it refuels in the air after takeoff because this configuration makes it 500 kg too heavy over MTOW. This is the heaviest you can possibly make it. Thrust/weight: 54 000 / 14 500 = 3.72.
Gripen E with the same load still has room to spare, so you can give it some extra fuel for takeoff and don't need to refuel from a tanker. Thrust/weight: 64 000 / 15 700 = 4.08, or almost 10 % higher than the Gripen C. In reality you might want to take a bit more fuel because consumption will probably be higher. But you're still getting either marginally better T/W for the same payload and range, or more range, or more payload. Or maybe even both if you can take off with a half-empty tank and refuel in the air, because the 39E can take 7200 kg under the pylons.

I don't know if the Gripen E will receive any upgrades that would increase its own weight but I don't think so. The F-16 has, but it is now close to 50 years old, Gripen E will not be manufactured for that long.
XanderCrews wrote:the double standard is what bothers me.

I'm absolutely astounded that the exact weight of an F-35 pilot regarding the ejection seat is a massive concern for the F-35, but a "lightfighter" gaining 2200 pounds is no big deal really. The Massive amounts of concern trolling for the JSF program fall by the wayside for some strange reason.

Gripen was known to be underpowered. Gripen NG was supposed to fix that. It won't. Thats fine for some reason

It's a pity but at least the performance is slightly better and not worse. Not all goals are always met. F-35B and F-35C were supposed to be able to do supersonic dashes but can only use afterburners for less than a minute at a time without risking damage. That's fine for some reason. I think I have already mentioned it but the weight going up from 7000 to 8000 kg may not be something "going wrong" but simply the specifications changing and Saab choosing to incorporate some other stuff that they considered more important than the weight it would add.

Similar with the price going up. 55M CAD sounds in line with what the 39C is supposed to cost. It seems to me that by that time they wanted to do just a quick refresh of the Gripen C, but later ended up making more major changes and delaying the project.
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Sure, because parasitic drag doesn't exist.

That's exactly the reason why the Gripen E carries more fuel internally. Where the 39C needed one more external tank to have the same amount of fuel, the 39E doesn't.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2020, 01:48

lukfi wrote:My calculations are based on the assumption that the engine is going to have 64 kN of dry thrust. In most places I could find only the afterburning thrust, the 64 kN number can be found here: https://fightson.net/95/saab-jas-39-gripen/
I also found it mentioned here (in Czech): https://web.archive.org/web/20190827173 ... republiky/
(for some reason the whole website is down but Web Archive has it)


I've seen your calculations and just because for example the F-35 engine or some other engine has a 'X' dry thrust and a 'Y' and you divide Y with X (Y/X) and then you come up with a ratio/value wet thrust you cannot use such ratio/value to even roughly calculate the F414 dry thrust, this for several reasons such as for example the fact that the F414 is an update from the older F404 (the legacy Hornet engine which exists since the late 1970's) and based on the F412 engine which by itself is an update of the same older F404.
For example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

GE evolved the F404 into the F412-GE-400 non-afterburning turbofan for the McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II. After the cancellation of the A-12, the research was directed toward an engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. GE successfully pitched the F414 as a low-risk derivative of the F404, rather than a riskier new engine. The F414 engine was originally envisioned as not using any materials or processes not used in the F404, and was designed to fit in the same footprint as the F404.[2]

The F414 uses the core of the F412 and its full-authority digital engine control (FADEC), alongside the low-pressure system from the YF120 engine developed for the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition. One of the major differences between the F404 and the F414 is the fan section. The fan of the F414 is larger than that of the F404, but smaller than the fan for the F412.


So the F414 does have a smaller fan compared to the F412 while being bigger than the F404. So and since we do know that the F412 engine dry thrust is 13000 lb (around 58 kn) it's hard to imagine that the F414 has a bigger dry thrust compared to the F412.

Regarding your sources above, there's plenty more that clearly state that the F414 dry thrust is 13000 lb/58 kn and not 64 kn. For example:
https://www.fighterworld.com.au/az-of-f ... per-hornet

https://warriorlodge.com/pages/boeing-f ... per-hornet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... per_Hornet


All the links above are about the Super Hornet but as you're probably aware, the Gripen E uses the exact same engine as the Super Hornet, the diference being that the former has only one engine while the later has two.

Bottom line, you cannot assume that the F414 engine has a dry thrust of 64 kn/14400 lb because as you can see above such value is likely wrong and bigger than the real value and as such overstated - which BTW is just like many other things stated about the Gripen E (overstated).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2020, 01:54

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
marsavian wrote:
This is only on internal fuel, Gripens more than double their fuel when carrying external fuel tanks so their range is not so meager then (Gripen C carries 3 x 300gal EFT giving 11.3 klb total fuel / Gripen E would have 15.4 klb total fuel with 2 * 450gal + 1 * 300gal EFT). Also the range increase was only a small part of the development time, there were more important things to develop in that time.



Sure, because parasitic drag doesn't exist. :doh:


Ditto kimjongnumbaun!

Also, bigger External Fuel Tanks means bigger weight which as stated before it makes things even worse for the Gripen E.

BTW, isn't the Gripen E fuselage fatter compared to the Gripen C this for the bigger intakes and the ability to carry two more pylons under the fuselage? I'm sure that this will "do wonders" in terms of drag as well :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2020, 02:04

lukfi wrote:It's a pity but at least the performance is slightly better and not worse. Not all goals are always met. F-35B and F-35C were supposed to be able to do supersonic dashes but can only use afterburners for less than a minute at a time without risking damage. That's fine for some reason. I think I have already mentioned it but the weight going up from 7000 to 8000 kg may not be something "going wrong" but simply the specifications changing and Saab choosing to incorporate some other stuff that they considered more important than the weight it would add.


WTF are you talking about??

That's another problem/issue that was already solved! Do you live on planet Gripen or planet Saab or what??

This "problem" that you're talking about was about the stealth coating peeling up on the edges of some surfaces (tail edges if I'm not mistaken) and has nothing to do with the inability for such aircraft to use afterburners for longer periods!
BTW, this problem was:
1- Solved by improving the coating.
2- Was never reproduced again (despite the best efforts to reproduce it).

You really need to "get out" from planet "Saab/Gripen" :roll:
“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: 6239
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Feb 2020, 15:30

It's a pity but at least the performance is slightly better and not worse. Not all goals are always met. F-35B and F-35C were supposed to be able to do supersonic dashes but can only use afterburners for less than a minute at a time without risking damage.


1. thats been fixed for years
2. that would still make the F-35 capable of supersonic dashes even if it wasn't fixed as it is a "dash" and not sustained
3. The F-35B and C didn't have the primary goals of being supersonic dashers. Thats not ehat makes them special.

However, when the company that builds the Gripen, tells me its going to perform better and be a light fighter and then it fails in these primary aims. Thats a big difference. The equivalent would be if the F-35B was no better than a Harrier or could no longer STOVL.

this was a really nice retreating over the shoulder shot, worth a try I guess but you completely missed.

That's fine for some reason. I think I have already mentioned it but the weight going up from 7000 to 8000 kg may not be something "going wrong" but simply the specifications changing and Saab choosing to incorporate some other stuff that they considered more important than the weight it would add.


But again it puts it into F-16 weights, when we know there is a direct correlation between weight and cost. low and behold saab is selling us a 7000 kilo fighter at 55 million in 2010, then a 8000 kilo fighter at 85 million dollars in 2016 the engine didn't grow to match.

in 2010 If I told people F-35 vs Gripen NG "well its going to be overweight, won't really hit its performance parameters cost nearly 50 percent more and still not be in service in 2020 and it will actually be more expensive flyaway than the other aircraft" i bet ya 99.99 percent of Gripen fans would assume I was talking about the F-35. But guess what?

This isn't even failing a KPP, this is fundamentally changing the entire concept of the Gripen. Which is why I maintain the Gripen NG made bad decisions. this is not at all the aircraft they were pitching when the internet fell in love it, although there are people who still try to desperately make excuses for its shortcomings. And these shortcomings.... They aren't even mine. Its expectations the manufacturer set. its lies they told. amazing range and performance, you know the Gripen E can't even make the alternate airfield diversion requirement in Canada?

And this is where it all gets really funny, despite me not being a total idiot, And having caught Saab in big fat (too soon , NG?) lies over the years, I'm still supposed to take some saab fanboy seriously when he starts spouting off and parroting this years hot new Saab talking points. and "saab says" and other company propaganda. Saab fans should be dealt with as harshly as possible. the faster they can be shown the lies, the better. Rip the band aid off so they can stop infecting the internet by carrying company propaganda everywhere they touch.


to sum up one what one of my friends in Australia said way back in 2012. Its a light fighter that costs more than an F-35? whats the point of it then?
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests