F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 13:54

Uneconomical to repair. Remember it was a second hand carrier already which then suffered a serious engine fire.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1116
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 14:22

The Brazil story: "How on planet earth did we end up with a Griphen deal".

Question one : Who's pockets are full?

Question two : Why are my pockets still empty?

Question 3 : If ever build locally?
How many of the build airframes will ever succeed to take off before the 'Fill my pockets first" scandal ends the deal.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 15:18

spazsinbad wrote:YES but AFAIK there is a long term plan for a NEW build conventional aircraft carrier for Brazil - but now they have bought former HMS Ocean that plan may be even longer in the far future? OCEAN will only carry HELOs with no thought F-35Bs.


Well, as AFAIK there is not even a plan to acquire a "new" second hand aircraft carrier (a "real aircraft carrier", I mean) to directly replace the São Paulo let alone to build a new one.
I admit that I wasn't aware of the HMS Ocean deal but then again and as you hinted it can hardly operate STOVL aircraft (like the F-35B and/or Harrier) so and certainly it's not capable of operating a "Navalized Gripen" - And I'm saying this because by looking at this, IMO it's pretty clear that the HMS Ocean will be Brazil's "future carrier" or resuming I doubt that Brazil will acquire any other "flat deck", namely a "true" Aircraft Carrier.

Regarding the F-35 (namely the F-35B and even the F-35C), I remind that Brazil is one of the countries for which the F-35 is "off limits".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2198
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 16:44

ricnunes wrote:
Regarding the F-35 (namely the F-35B and even the F-35C), I remind that Brazil is one of the countries for which the F-35 is "off limits".


Just curious, why is it off limits?

By the way, a bit off topic, but did Argentina invoke the Rio treaty during the Falkland war? Cause Brazil is under that as well, and how far off is the Rio treaty compared to the NATO treaty?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 18:56

zero-one wrote:Just curious, why is it off limits?


It's seems obvious (to me) that the level of confidence between the USA and Brazil is not that high, specially when compared to all the countries that purchase or are about to purchase the F-35.

In terms of alliance and despite the "Rio Treaty" (which I'll address below) I would say that the stance (namely military) between both USA and Brazil is "neutral".
I would also say that the same level of stance between the USA and any other country that purchased/signed the F-35 or intends to purchase is "allied", this trying to put things in a "simplistic perspective".

Moreover, if you look at the recent Brazilian fighter aircraft competition (FX-2) the F-35 was not offered to Brazil, instead LM was allowed to offer Brazil a version of the F-16 (which didn't reach the final 3 contenders phase).
I would say that the NSA espionage scandal which resulted in the Super Hornet losing/being eliminated from the competition (at a time when it was viewed as the favourite contender) probably undermined these relations a bit further.

zero-one wrote:By the way, a bit off topic, but did Argentina invoke the Rio treaty during the Falkland war? Cause Brazil is under that as well, and how far off is the Rio treaty compared to the NATO treaty?


About that, my 2 cents are:
In the USA perspective I would say that the NATO alliance is far, far more important than the "Rio Treaty" specially in the early 1980's which was perhaps one of the highest points (in terms of hostility) of the cold war.
About the "Rio Treaty" or more precisely the "Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance" I found this entry in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Ame ... Assistance
where about the Falklands it says:
During the Falklands War (Malvinas in Spanish), the United States, despite having signed the Rio Treaty before the NATO alliance, arguing that Argentina was the aggressor, favoured the United Kingdom, as did Chile and Colombia. This was seen by most Latin American countries as the final failure of the treaty.


So, the above is also true - The aggressor was indeed Argentina and the "Rio Treaty" is indeed a defensive treaty which can be invoked when one of the signatory countries is attacked which again, was not the case regarding the Falklands war (Argentina attack first and invaded and not the otherwise).
On the other hand, if American countries (namely Latin American countries) started to directly help the Argentinians then same could also help on the UK side with all or most NATO members (including the USA) entering the war on the British side.
Probably the Argentinian and British allied countries realised this and ultimately decided to only support a side politically so that the conflict wouldn't escalate into a potential global conflict/war.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 19:24

Politics is a beautiful thing - then there is reality. Up until the SAO biscuit was scrapped the USN was helping to keep their LSOs current (not easy with no carrier and only FCLP with their ageing Brazilian Skyhawks). Conversely these some Brazilikins offered / or did help the Chinese with their initial 'carrier landing efforts'. Info on this in this forum methinks.

https://jamestown.org/program/plan-offi ... t-carrier/

USN has taken down the 'LSO newsletters' so boosucks to USN ffsake.
LSO Newsletter Dec 2013:

“...We travelled to Brazil; I know everyone feels bad for us for that one, thanks for your pity. What we saw there was a group of naval Aviators, no different from us. They’ve all been through our pipeline and have at least 10 traps on our boats, but these guys have no working aircraft carrier to continue their careers and they’ve been waiting for it for over 8 years. They only have 2 lenses, one on the ship and one at their FCLP field. They plan to make do with what they’ve got and they are continuing to look our way for some LSO guidance and support when the opportunities arise to get some deck time. It was great to head down to the Southern Hemisphere, wave some A-4s, navigate some head high faces,....”

Source: http://hrana.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... er2013.pdf

Some ooh-la-la about the BRAZILian carrier getting WAXED: https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... t-carrier/
&
"...The LSO School was established in 1943 in Jacksonville, Fla. It was re-located to NAS Oceana in the late 1980s. The school trains more than 200 landing signal officers, air officers and assistant air officers every year. The staff is responsible for all LSO training in the U.S. Navy. Additionally, they train LSOs from Brazil and Argentina and are preparing to train LSOs from France and the United Kingdom in the future." 27 May 2011 [some LSO trainings NO LONGER Required]
https://www.militarynews.com/norfolk-na ... bd163.html
Last edited by spazsinbad on 20 Mar 2018, 20:03, edited 4 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

swefrank

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 18 May 2016, 09:57

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 19:46

ANALYSIS: Saab continues refining Gripen Maritime
19 Mar 2018 Greg Waldron
On handling characteristics, Ogilvy notes that the original Gripen design was optimized for rough landings on Swedish roads. Landing on an aircraft carrier involves a comparable low flare approach with a relatively steep angle, he says. [SAD that there is no acknowledgement of the SIX Degrees of Freedom issue & NO FLARE - a carrier is NOT A ROAD]
Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-446635/

Gripen pilots don't flare at all when landing on roads. They keep a steady AoA all the way until touchdown, just like a carrier landing. 6 DOF is of course something different compared to a road, but I guess Tony Ogilvy would know a little bit about it considering that he is a former RN fighter pilot.

But as some of you already have stated, I think the Sea Gripen is a rather farfetched idea that looks good in a glossy sales brochure.

My 5 kronor,

Frank
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 19:53

:doh: So Ogilvy should know better and explain better and not suggest it is like landing on a road because it ain't. End of.
I'd like to see a road move from left to right during a GRIPPING approach (with NIL WIND even) no crabbing allowed. :devil:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

swefrank

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 18 May 2016, 09:57

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 22:17

Would be nice to hear from someone who has experience of both carrier landings and road strip landings. I've only done the road strip landings live and the carrier landing in the F/A-18C Hornet sim at Lemoore, and while the approach and landing was fairly similar the sim don't move much...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 23:34

Well now... our A4Gs landed upon a 6,000 foot runway that was 150 feet wide IIRC. It was a real up and down adventure at NAS Nowra situated on a kind of doughnut 400 feet above surrounds. It was only a wartime airfield for prop airyplanes that somehow got to be a really busy airfield back in the 1970s early 1980s. The two runway intersections met at the btm of the doughnut whilst three ends were higher with only the intersection threshold also at the btm. It could be quite a struggle to clear the trees on the most used runway 26 starting high then down to the intersection then UP again with the overrun slope continuing upwards. DAMN. But hey nothing beats a carrier landing for thrills and the occasional spill. :mrgreen:

Not only that but the higher ground west of the airfield (a series of deep valleys with table tops) would channel the prevailing westerly winds - very strong in Aug/Sep - over the airfield creating a lot of turbulence with particular emphasis before the threshold of RW 26 which also had a deep gully running east off it to exacerbate the DOWNDRAUGHT. This phenomena cost the lives of several Sea Venom aircrew and earlier some Sea Fury/Firefly pilots. Luckily the A4G had plenty of waveoff power to get out of the downdraught clutches. The training jets not so much but we were careful.

So before our embarkation we flew NIGHT circuits -FCLP/MADDLS on this RW 26 with strong night westerly winds blowing and the entire airfield/surrounding buildings blacked out to replicate the ship with only portable limpet lights to mark the 'carrier deck' and centerline (which was the left side of RW 26 with the portable mirror alongside. So you ask 'what do I know'? Not friggin' much.

Photo from Don Simms (wrote an excellent book on the Kiwi A-4K) shows RW26 with ZOOM lens misrepresenting the actual view a little. Also it is May 1991 and to me it is obvious the overrun area has been cleared of trees for some distance uphill. The trees used to be down almost to the road which crosses by the end of that runway (fence just visible). The first A-4K is just about airborne, being very heavy with fuel, on way to Singapore. It will struggle climbing following the contour ahead and being MAY the temperature is not so hot as it will be on a summer day NIL wind. The middle RNZAF A-4K is at the runway intersection of 26/08 and 21/03 at the bottom of the bowl.
Attachments
KiwiA-4KsdepartRW26heavyMay1991simms.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post20 Mar 2018, 23:56

spazsinbad wrote::doh: So Ogilvy should know better and explain better and not suggest it is like landing on a road because it ain't. End of.
I'd like to see a road move from left to right during a GRIPPING approach (with NIL WIND even) no crabbing allowed. :devil:


They could be the same !!! Here's a road strip for the Gripping to land on :devil: :shock: :shock: Just remember "don't flair"... yeah that'll do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njfU8gh5e8

MHO,
BP

PS I once set a 250,000 lb plus tanker down on a 4,000 ft island too [edit: sorry I double checked and it was a 6,000 ft runway when we used it, so easy :)] .. piece a cake, just didn't flair *grin* That's all there is to it ... right ..... BTW I have a bridge in Tacoma to sell you ... oops ... maybe not ... nevermind.
Last edited by blindpilot on 21 Mar 2018, 00:31, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 00:05

How to get arrested on a postage stamp moving island roadway SPEEDING - deck plan graphic HMAS Melbourne superimposed to scale NIMITZ class carrier + USS Kitty Hawk alongside MELBOURNE, Pearl Harbour - details as indicated.

Heheh that TACOMA gives me GLAUCOMA - the most insanest movie I ever saw when I kid google eyed at the pitchas. :shock:
Attachments
ScaleMELBOURNEnimitz&KittyHawk.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 01:23

The amount of weight increase to make a Gripen capable of a carrier landing would probably make it useless for combat.If it had to be ramp launched then it’s be doubly useless. And this is just structural reinforcement. They’d have to add more SAS actuators to make it safe for a rolling deck.
Offline

swefrank

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 18 May 2016, 09:57

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 17:45

spazsinbad wrote:Photo from Don Simms (wrote an excellent book on the Kiwi A-4K) shows RW26 with ZOOM lens misrepresenting the actual view a little. Also it is May 1991 and to me it is obvious the overrun area has been cleared of trees for some distance uphill. The trees used to be down almost to the road which crosses by the end of that runway (fence just visible). The first A-4K is just about airborne, being very heavy with fuel, on way to Singapore. It will struggle climbing following the contour ahead and being MAY the temperature is not so hot as it will be on a summer day NIL wind. The middle RNZAF A-4K is at the runway intersection of 26/08 and 21/03 at the bottom of the bowl.

Dude, that was one weird looking rwy! The roads we land at are 2700ft long and 50ft wide, but fortunately they are fairly level.



This is an old clip that shows a Gripen landing and taking off from the woods. A nice feature about the Gripen is that you can step on the brakes before touchdown and then the computer decides when to apply the brakes. This in combination with efficient brakes (canards, air brakes and wheel brakes) makes for fairly short landings.
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post21 Mar 2018, 18:26

http://soff.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/ ... g-2017.pdf

So, in this document from the FMV, the thrust for Gripen E is listed (last page) as follows...

Dry: >64kN (14,388 lbs)
Max: >98kN (22,031 lbs)

If the F414-GE-400 is 13,000/22,000, how feasible is it that the F414-GE-39E would be roughly 14,400/22,000?

What kind of engine upgrade would increase dry thrust almost 11%, while not increasing wet thrust?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: knowan and 1 guest

cron