Finnish DefMin interested in F-35s, not Gripens

[loke]

I highly doubt the Gripen can fly further than the F-16 if both are carrying the same payload. The Gripen has a smaller engine, carries less fuel, has a worse T:W ratio, and is a smaller plane so it is more affected by parasitic drag from carrying externals. Unless the Gripen can ignore physics, then National Interest is wrong.

Gripen E internal fuel capacity is 3400 kg.

Not sure which F-16 you are refering to but according to https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ng-falcon/ the F-16C internal fuel capacity is 3175 kg.

The empty weight of Gripen E is lower than the empty weight of F-16C (8000kg vs 8936 (according to http://www.af.mil))

My guess would be that for light configs (i.e., a2a config with 0 or 1 drop tank, and a2a missiles only) Gripen E would have a longer range than the F-16C, however for heavy loadouts the F-16C would have longer range than the Gripen E.

F-16 with CFTs would be another story...

[ricnunes]

WOW its like what I have been saying for YEARS now-- its under powered.

so not even in service and already going with engine upgrades??

...

85 million?

...

have I used up my allotment of "i told you so's" In this thread??

Just to be "naughty" and thus to rain on your parade, I would say that:
- you're stating the obvious

[magitsu]

https://corporalfrisk.com/2019/11/23/eu ... -electric/

Don't mind the title, it talks about HX broadly. Mostly focusing on EW, SEAD/DEAD this time around.

Not sure I can fully agree with this (in italics):

For Finland, the Eurofighter actually does make sense in quite a few different ways. The focus on speed and semi-recessed missiles is just what’s needed for the air policing mission, which is the key operational mission of the Air Force in peacetime. Especially after Kuopio-Rissala became the most important base for the intercepts over the Gulf of Finland, cruise speed is of the essence. For the long-range strike role, even operating solely on internal fuel the Eurofighter/Storm Shadow-combination could easily replace the JASSM equipped Hornet. The Eurofighter also has a large number of operators, all with slightly different outlooks on how to meet the need of the modern battlefield, providing several development paths to choose from.

or this

If there is a breakthrough in some “anti-stealth” technology, the F-35 might lose it’s most important unique selling point.

and this, but overall it's very good article that tries not to take too strong position on anything.

The Eurofighter consortium’s claim is that “digital stealth” is more flexible and adaptable than traditional low-observable technologies which are built into the aircraft itself, and can more easily be adapted to face new threats. This largely follows the same line of reasoning presented by Boeing, Dassault, and Saab, and on paper hold serious merit.

[kimjongnumbaun]

For Finland, the Eurofighter actually does make sense in quite a few different ways. The focus on speed and semi-recessed missiles is just what’s needed for the air policing mission, which is the key operational mission of the Air Force in peacetime. Especially after Kuopio-Rissala became the most important base for the intercepts over the Gulf of Finland, cruise speed is of the essence. For the long-range strike role, even operating solely on internal fuel the Eurofighter/Storm Shadow-combination could easily replace the JASSM equipped Hornet. The Eurofighter also has a large number of operators, all with slightly different outlooks on how to meet the need of the modern battlefield, providing several development paths to choose from.

This is pretty funny. The EF is an interceptor because it has recessed missiles for better performance because that means less drag, but the F-35 has internal weapon bays so it's chopped liver? The F-35 has more operators and a larger fleet, and countries have participated in its development for their own personal needs, but somehow that's inferior to the EF that was a joint venture between the UK and Germany.

If there is a breakthrough in some “anti-stealth” technology, the F-35 might lose it’s most important unique selling point.

Because anti-stealth technology isn't even more effective against non-VLO platforms. I think anyone who understands how radar works wouldn't never attempt to use the term "anti-stealth".

The Eurofighter consortium’s claim is that “digital stealth” is more flexible and adaptable than traditional low-observable technologies which are built into the aircraft itself, and can more easily be adapted to face new threats. This largely follows the same line of reasoning presented by Boeing, Dassault, and Saab, and on paper hold serious merit.

Digital stealth, active stealth, ECM...Again, ignorant people who want to call ECM active stealth and pretend like it's something new. The best part about this is that the US has the most comprehensive intelligence network in the world today when you factor in its SIGINT, ELINT, HUMINT, etc. So when we talk about having robust ECM software that is the most up to date, whose intelligence network are we talking about that can support it? Nevermind that the EF bailed on the Canadian fighter competition because it couldn't be 2 Eyes compatible. But now they're trying to market that it's even more in depth than the 5 eyes network?

[kimjongnumbaun]

I highly doubt the Gripen can fly further than the F-16 if both are carrying the same payload. The Gripen has a smaller engine, carries less fuel, has a worse T:W ratio, and is a smaller plane so it is more affected by parasitic drag from carrying externals. Unless the Gripen can ignore physics, then National Interest is wrong.

Gripen E internal fuel capacity is 3400 kg.

Not sure which F-16 you are refering to but according to https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ng-falcon/ the F-16C internal fuel capacity is 3175 kg.

The empty weight of Gripen E is lower than the empty weight of F-16C (8000kg vs 8936 (according to http://www.af.mil))

My guess would be that for light configs (i.e., a2a config with 0 or 1 drop tank, and a2a missiles only) Gripen E would have a longer range than the F-16C, however for heavy loadouts the F-16C would have longer range than the Gripen E.

F-16 with CFTs would be another story...

Without going into CFTs and the latest iteration of the F-16 compared to the latest iteration of the Gripen let's look at them at max fuel.

F-16

Gross weight = 26,500
Mil Power = 17,155
AB = 29,588
T:W = .64/1.11


Gripen E

Gross weight = 25132.698
Mil Power = 13,000
AB = 22,000
T:W = .51/.87


The Gripen E needs to run its engine at a higher power setting because it is heavier (by ratio) than an F-16. This gets worse when using equivalent loads to an F-16. As we know, fuel consumption is more exponential than linear in terms of power settings. It is very difficult to argue that a Gripen E will outrange an F-16 when it has to run its engine hotter. This doesn't even take into account an F-16 with CFTs, or that an F-16 would use less fuel on the climb to cruising altitude.

PS. Funny story, I tried to find the stats on the Gripen E on the wikipedia and someone deleted it and I know it was there before. I guess the fanboys at best fighter for Canada didn't like shade being thrown on their light fighter when I pointed out these problems on their facebook page

[ricnunes]

PS. Funny story, I tried to find the stats on the Gripen E on the wikipedia and someone deleted it and I know it was there before. I guess the fanboys at best fighter for Canada didn't like shade being thrown on their light fighter when I pointed out these problems on their facebook page

I know exactly what you mean!
In the Gripen wikipedia entry someone stated that the first flight of the Gripen E happened on 15 June 2017 just a few months after it was planned (I can remember how many for sure but it was either since the end of 2016 or the very beginning of 2017) which I corrected using sources (which I believe you can still read them on the page) and I posted something like this:
- "The first successful test flight of Gripen E (designation 39-8) happened on 15 June 2017,[97] an almost 2 years delay compared to what was initially planned which was during for the second half of 2015."
(the English was probably a bit different but the meaning was exactly the same)

Now for my surprise, I found the sentence that I posted was modified and it now reads the following:
- "The first successful test flight of Gripen E (designation 39-8) happened on 15 June 2017.[97] The maiden flight, planned for the second half of 2015,[98][99] was delayed as Saab decided to finalise all of the software development before conducting flight trials in order to mitigate risk."

LoL
So other aircraft have delays because something wrong happened but the Gripen is delayed because the company (Saab) simply decided it was better to delay it
It sure looks like some Gripen fan(actic) is editing and "revising" (or better yet censoring) the Gripen wikipedia page/entry.

[XanderCrews]

I highly doubt the Gripen can fly further than the F-16 if both are carrying the same payload. The Gripen has a smaller engine, carries less fuel, has a worse T:W ratio, and is a smaller plane so it is more affected by parasitic drag from carrying externals. Unless the Gripen can ignore physics, then National Interest is wrong.

Gripen E internal fuel capacity is 3400 kg.

Not sure which F-16 you are refering to but according to https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ng-falcon/ the F-16C internal fuel capacity is 3175 kg.

The empty weight of Gripen E is lower than the empty weight of F-16C (8000kg vs 8936 (according to http://www.af.mil))

My guess would be that for light configs (i.e., a2a config with 0 or 1 drop tank, and a2a missiles only) Gripen E would have a longer range than the F-16C, however for heavy loadouts the F-16C would have longer range than the Gripen E.

F-16 with CFTs would be another story...

Without going into CFTs and the latest iteration of the F-16 compared to the latest iteration of the Gripen let's look at them at max fuel.

F-16

Gross weight = 26,500
Mil Power = 17,155
AB = 29,588
T:W = .64/1.11


Gripen E

Gross weight = 25132.698
Mil Power = 13,000
AB = 22,000
T:W = .51/.87


The Gripen E needs to run its engine at a higher power setting because it is heavier (by ratio) than an F-16. This gets worse when using equivalent loads to an F-16. As we know, fuel consumption is more exponential than linear in terms of power settings. It is very difficult to argue that a Gripen E will outrange an F-16 when it has to run its engine hotter. This doesn't even take into account an F-16 with CFTs, or that an F-16 would use less fuel on the climb to cruising altitude.

PS. Funny story, I tried to find the stats on the Gripen E on the wikipedia and someone deleted it and I know it was there before. I guess the fanboys at best fighter for Canada didn't like shade being thrown on their light fighter when I pointed out these problems on their facebook page

Correct



and only 85 million?

[kimjongnumbaun]

and only 85 million?

They can pay more for less capability. Sounds very Canadian.

[playloud]

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration is listing the dry thrust at >14,388 lbf (>64,000 kN).

How they would achieve greater thrust than a standard F414 at MIL, but the same at MAX, I have no idea.

[ricnunes]

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration is listing the dry thrust at >14,388 lbf (>64,000 kN).

How they would achieve greater thrust than a standard F414 at MIL, but the same at MAX, I have no idea.

Yeap, that dry thrust value seems a bit off/"fishy".

But the funny thing here is that even with considering that dry thrust value to be correct, the thing (Gripen E) is still way under-powered!

For example and doing a quick math, the F-35 which carries much, much more fuel than the Gripen E (all internally) and being heavier manages to have a better Thrust-to-Weight Ratio.
For example consider both aircraft with full internal fuel and without weapons:
- F-35 mil thrust (kg): 12700
- F-35 Empty weight (kg): 13154
- F-35 Internal Fuel (kg): 8391
--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.59

- Gripen E mil thrust (kg): 6526
- Gripen E Empty weight (kg): 8000
- Gripen E Internal Fuel (kg): 3400
--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.57

- F-35 mil thrust (kg): 12700
- F-35 Empty weight (kg): 13154
- F-35 with 50% Internal Fuel (kg): 4195.5 (795.5 kg more than the Gripen with full internal fuel!)
--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.73

The F-35 carries almost 2.5 times the amount of internal fuel compared to the Gripen E.
With AB the TWR diference slightly increases and a F-35 with 50% fuel still carries much more fuel than the Gripen E with full internal fuel while its TWR drastically increases (0.73 with mil thrust) compared to the Gripen E with full internal fuel. This last point IMO proves even more that the Gripen E is way under-powered!

[kimjongnumbaun]

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration is listing the dry thrust at >14,388 lbf (>64,000 kN).

How they would achieve greater thrust than a standard F414 at MIL, but the same at MAX, I have no idea.

Yeap, that dry thrust value seems a bit off/"fishy".

But the funny thing here is that even with considering that dry thrust value to be correct, the thing (Gripen E) is still way under-powered!

For example and doing a quick math, the F-35 which carries much, much more fuel than the Gripen E (all internally) and being heavier manages to have a better Thrust-to-Weight Ratio.
For example consider both aircraft with full internal fuel and without weapons:
- F-35 mil thrust (kg): 12700
- F-35 Empty weight (kg): 13154
- F-35 Internal Fuel (kg): 8391
--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.59

- Gripen E mil thrust (kg): 6526
- Gripen E Empty weight (kg): 8000
- Gripen E Internal Fuel (kg): 3400
--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.57

- F-35 mil thrust (kg): 12700
- F-35 Empty weight (kg): 13154
- F-35 with 50% Internal Fuel (kg): 4195.5 (795.5 kg more than the Gripen with full internal fuel!)
--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.73

The F-35 carries almost 2.5 times the amount of internal fuel compared to the Gripen E.
With AB the TWR diference slightly increases and a F-35 with 50% fuel still carries much more fuel than the Gripen E with full internal fuel while its TWR drastically increases (0.73 with mil thrust) compared to the Gripen E with full internal fuel. This last point IMO proves even more that the Gripen E is way under-powered!

They are probably using the numbers of 10 seconds (etc) of not to exceed limits. They are probably not using a continuous limit of the engine.

[hornetfinn]

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration is listing the dry thrust at >14,388 lbf (>64,000 kN).

How they would achieve greater thrust than a standard F414 at MIL, but the same at MAX, I have no idea.

Yeap, that dry thrust value seems a bit off/"fishy".

Why so? Since max AB thrust for F414 is 22,000 lbf, then 14,388lbf would be 65.4% of that. In EJ200 the ratio is rather similar as it has 20,200 lbf AB thrust and 13,500 lbf MIL thrust. That's 66.8%. I think it's plausible that F414 has higher thrust than EJ200 in both AB and MIL. M88 in Rafale also has similar ratio (66.3%). I think all these three engines are at similar technological level and have very similar characteristics. In F135 the ratio is 65.1%.

In older engines like F100-PW-229 the ratio is different, MIL/AB ratio of 60-61% being common. I think it's more likely that F414 is more similar to EJ200 and M88 than older engines. That 13,000 lbf MIL would be even lower ratio than in F100 or F110 or AL-31. I think that's not very likely.

But the funny thing here is that even with considering that dry thrust value to be correct, the thing (Gripen E) is still way under-powered!

That I agree with. It has one of the lowest T/W ratios in modern fighters even when clean and even worse when loaded. Especially with decent A/G loadout, it's just bad. When Gripen carries say 4 tons of stuff (couple of Mk84s and couple of EFTs), Super Hornet can be at max takeoff weight and still have better T/W ratio. EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale both have significantly better T/W ratio in max takeoff weight.

[madrat]

Makes me think twin-F414 would have been superior to twin-EJ200 in Eurofighter, and not by a little. It also explains why Gripen stuck to F414 over EJ200.

[hornetfinn]

Makes me think twin-F414 would have been superior to twin-EJ200 in Eurofighter, and not by a little. It also explains why Gripen stuck to F414 over EJ200.

Certainly. F414 is the largest and most powerful engine in existence that Gripen can use. EJ200 would've been good engine for older Gripens instead of Volvo RM12 (improved F404) but not so for heavier E-model. Of course besides power, having commonality in engines is good. At least the maintenance is easier when engines of C/D and E-models are closely related with similar (or same?) maintenance and support systems.

What E-model Gripen needs is the F414 Enhanced Engine (previously -EDE and -EPE). Likely not going to happen unless US Navy decides to buy them in large numbers. Even then I doubt it would happen.

[ricnunes]

Why so? Since max AB thrust for F414 is 22,000 lbf, then 14,388lbf would be 65.4% of that. In EJ200 the ratio is rather similar as it has 20,200 lbf AB thrust and 13,500 lbf MIL thrust. That's 66.8%. I think it's plausible that F414 has higher thrust than EJ200 in both AB and MIL. M88 in Rafale also has similar ratio (66.3%). I think all these three engines are at similar technological level and have very similar characteristics. In F135 the ratio is 65.1%.

Well, I must say that your reasoning sound logic to me.
Having a second thought after reading your post, I know believe that a max mil thrust of 14,388lbf for the Gripen E engine (GE F414) is doable/realistic.
So I agree with you above (and thanks for the correction )

I guess that my initial doubts (and directly answering your question "why?") have to do with the fact that I seem to remember to have seen a mil thrust value for the F414 engine as being 13,000lbf or something around that value (but of course that the source could have been wrong).

Makes me think twin-F414 would have been superior to twin-EJ200 in Eurofighter, and not by a little. It also explains why Gripen stuck to F414 over EJ200.

What you say also makes sense. The thrust values of the F414 certainly look better than the EJ200 (14,388lbf vs 13,500lbf in mil power and 22,000lbf vs 20,200lbf with AB).
But it can also be the case that the F414 was chosen over the EJ200 due to cost (both acquisition and maintenance).