Eurofighter has a good chance to strike a deal in Japan

1. Japan wants a new fighter that will be able to enter service in 2009, while JAS-39NG won't be able to become the truth until post-2012 ~ 2015.


2. JAS-39NG (Empty weight: 7,100 kg) with 22,000 Ib class F414 engine will just reach roughly the same class of T/W ratio as F-16A (Empty weight: 7,150 ~ 7,400 kg; F100 engine with the thrust of 23,770Ib class), which is still significantly behind F-22A, EF-2000, F-15C/E/K/SG, F-16C block50/52, F-16E/F, Su-35 and so on today.


3. As for upgrading project of F414, it is just in the stage of R&D right now. It is even can not be sured if F/A-18E/F will use it one day, not to mention if JAS-39NG will be able to get it finally.

If you want to take the assumption that JAS-39NG mayl get upgrading F414 engine in the future, then you should also take the assumption that:

A. EF-2000 may get EJ-230 (15% more thrust than EJ-200) or even EJ-270 (30~35% more thrust than EJ-200 ).
B. Rafale may get M88-3 (20% more thrust than M88-2).
C. F-15/F-16 may get upgrading F100/F110 (15~25% more thrust than the newest F100/F100 today).
D. Su-27/30/35 may get AL-41F or AL-31M3 (20~25% more thrust than the AL-31F today).

at the same time. And then the gap / difference of T/W ratio between JAS-39 and other air-superiority/dominance fighters won't be change, since everyone will have the new or upgrading engine with roughly the same improvement in thrust at that time.

What I think you fail to realise is that this is a "new" aircraft, both regarding range- and capability. A new fuel efficient engine plus 40% more fuel put it more or less in the same class as the other Eurocanards, performance wise.

To prove that, let´s take that one piece of the cake (performance) and do some calculus:

Fuel fractions (Full internal fuel in liter/full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg):

F-16 C (~3160/3160 + 8270): 0.28
Typhoon (~5000/5000 + 11000): 0.31
Rafale (~4600/4600 + 9500): 0.33
Gripen NG (~3150/3150 + 7100): 0.31
F-15J (~5260/5260 + 12700): 0.29

Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)

F-16 C (13147/3160 + 8270 + ~1000):1.02
Typhoon (9185*2/5000 + 11000 + ~1000): 1.08
Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06
F-15J (10809*2/5260 + 12700 + ~1000): 1.1


Already revealed above but let´s go to your question...

Sundowner wrote:Put both 39 and F-15J on the runway, and perform a scramble take-off (full internal fuel, full AAM loadout + one tank). The Eagle should be at 36'000 feet in less than 90 seconds, and going supersonic at that time, where will be the 39 then?

F-15J - T/W ratio ~1.01
(Loaded with 6*AIM-7(Still in use by JASDF?) + 4*AIM-9, full internal fuel and a 2271 L center droptank)

(AFAIK F-15 has five hard points under the fuselage, center is wet, and two pylons under the wings that can carry 2 Radar ms or 4 Ir ms and 2 drop tanks, is this correct?)

Gripen NG - T/W ~1.0 shows that it will be slightly behind but not by much.
(4*AIM-120 + 2* IRIS-T and 1250 L droptank, other as above)

Eurofighter - T/W ~1.02 is slightly ahead.
(6*AIM-120 + 4*ASRAAM and 1000 L drop tank, other as above)

Of course there´s a buttload of "much more" to all this but I think they (above rough numbers) give a hint...and will refute ignorant (no offence Sundowner but it really is ) comments such as:

Sundowner wrote:...it will never be an air superiority fighter.

Regards C.

Today ~ 2012
1. Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C / F-15EJ / F/A-18E / JAS-39C
2. Weght: 11000kg / 9500kg / 14515kg / 14288 kg / 6800 kg (Empty)
3. Int. Fuel: 5000kg / 4700kg / 5920kg / 6780 kg / 2268 kg
4. Weight: 17000kg / 15200kg / 21450kg / 22070kg / 10070kg
5. Engine: EJ-200*2 / M88-2*2 / PW229*2 / F414*2 / F404RM12*1
6. Thrust: 18370kg / 15300kg / 26310kg / 19960kg / 8165kg (Sea level, Max AB)
7. T/W ratio: 1.08 : 1 / 1.01 : 1 / 1.23 : 1 / 0.90 : 1 / 0.81 : 1 (6/4)
8. Fuel fraction: 0.3125 / 0.3310 / 0.2897 / 0.3218 / 0.2501


2012 ~ 2015
1. Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C / F-15EJ / F/A-18E / JAS-39NG
2. Weght: 11500kg / 10000kg / 15000kg / 14288 kg / 7100 kg (Empty)
3. Int. Fuel: 5000kg / 4700kg / 5920kg / 6780 kg / 3150 kg
4. Weight: 17500kg / 15700kg / 22000kg / 22070kg / 11250kg
5. Engine: EJ-230*2 / M88-3*2 / GE132*2 / F414*2 / F414*1
6. Thrust: 21125kg / 18600kg / kg / 29484kg / 19960kg / 9980kg (Sea level, Max AB)
7. T/W ratio: 1.21 : 1 / 1.18 : 1 / 1.34 : 1 / 0.90 : 1 / 0.89 : 1 (6/4)
8. Fuel fraction: 0.3030 / 0.3197 / 0.2897 / 0.3218 / 0.3073


Post-2015
1. Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C / F-15EJ / F/A-18E+ / JAS-39NG
2. Weght: 11500kg / 10000kg / 15000kg / 14288 kg / 7100 kg (Empty)
3. Int. Fuel: 5000kg / 4700kg / 5920kg / 6780 kg / 3150 kg
4. Weight: 17500kg / 15700kg / 22000kg / 22070kg / 11250kg
5. Engine: EJ-230*2 / M88-3*2 / GE132*2 / F414+*2 / F414+*1
6. Thrust: 21125kg / 18600kg / kg / 29484kg / 24950kg / 12475kg (Sea level, Max AB)
7. T/W ratio: 1.21 : 1 / 1.18 : 1 / 1.34 : 1 / 1.13 : 1 / 1.11 : 1 (6/4)
8. Fuel fraction: 0.3030 / 0.3197 / 0.2897 / 0.3218 / 0.3073

(And the possble upgrading engine variants of EJ-270 for EF-2000, M88-4 for Rafale, and F110-GE-XXX with the thrust of 37,000 Ib class for F-15/F-16 after 2015 isn't included in this estimation......)

(Japan wants a new fighter to replace its F-4EJ after 2009. Therefore, JAS-39NG, just like F-35, won't be able to join this F-X fighter competition......)

Hi Toan! You have used the abacus a lot more than I have.
Thanks for those!

toan wrote:(Japan wants a new fighter to replace its F-4EJ after 2009. Therefore, JAS-39NG, just like F-35, won't be able to join this F-X fighter competition......)

You´re probably right. Although SAAB could deliver Gripen NG to Norway as early as 2013, it´s not likely but who knows many things can happen. Japan will also not only replace their F-4EJ, F-15J are on the retirementlist too - total quantity of about 250-300 aircraft. So possibly they will order more than one type.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/332c3534-d58e-11db-a5c6-000b5df10621.html

Regards C.

Caprice, your T/W calculation for F-15 is off.

F-15J:
Empty Weight:28000lb
Internal Fuel:13123lb
Thrust:2x25000lb

The armament weights are also bit off:
AIM-9: 190lb
AIM-7: 500lb
AIM-120: 335lb
600gal tank weight: 2000lb

F-15 have 4 rail launchers and 4 jettison types for BVRs.

Total weights for 4 AIM-7 + 4 AIM-9 + 600gal tank + full int. fuel:
45883lb - that will give T/W = 1.09

Total weights for 4 AIM-120 + 4 AIM-9 + 600gal tank + full int. fuel:
45223lb - that will give T/W = 1.11 (put 229s on it and it will have 1.29!)

I can't find official data for Gripen NG, so I will go with yours, and that plane won't be slightly behind, if it have 9-11% lower performance, it will be far behind, not to mention it will go all the way subsonic.

Sorry the 39 was not design to be air dominance fighter, it will always stay behind true ADFs. It's not ignorance, it's a fact.

Maybe do comparisons using JASDF weaponry..

AAM-5 = 185lb
AAM-4 = unknown but id take it as similar to the Aim-120C

Andy

Sundowner wrote:Caprice, your T/W calculation for F-15 is off.

F-15J:
Empty Weight:28000lb
Internal Fuel:13123lb
Thrust:2x25000lb

-28000lb=12700 kg (Could be more IMO)
-Internal fuel-Ok stand corrected. (F-15 later got a little more internal fuel)
-I based the thrust on F100-PW-100. Did a little bit more research now and those engines apparently have been changed later to F100-PW-220s with a little lower thrust(~23,770lb). JASDF F-15 page says ~19000lb but is probably wrong...

"JASDF Eagles were initially powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 turbofans. From 1991, these have gradually been replaced by F100-PW-220s, which are more reliable but slightly lower-rated."
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/backgroun ... g=23&id=11

Sundowner wrote:The armament weights are also bit off:

AIM-9: 190lb
AIM-7: 500lb
AIM-120: 335lb
600gal tank weight: 2000lb

- If you mean the first "~1000 kg" air-to-air load, that was to get a equal
load-out comparison. For the runway take-off-example I used the missiles
weights above for a full AA loud-out (Couldn´t find what missiles JASDF use).

-600 Gallons of fuel only 2000lb?... that can´t be right?: 600 G ~2270 L...2270x0.77 (specific fuel weight) ~1750 kg(3858 lb)?

So I end up with this:

F-15J
Thrust: 2*23770lb
Empty weight: 28000lb
Internal fuel: 13123lb
Missiles: 2760lb (4*AIM-9+4*AIM-7) or (with AIM-120=2100lb)
Drop tank: 3860lb

T/W (AIM-7): 1.0
T/W (AIM-120): 1.01

Sundowner wrote:I can't find official data for Gripen NG, so I will go with yours...

Some info(6MB):
http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00 ... 89303a.pdf
(page 17)

F414(EDE) Thrust (20% more than ordinary F414) is GE source:
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 61212.html

Sundowner wrote:...that plane won't be slightly behind, if it have 9-11% lower performance, it will be far behind, not to mention it will go all the way subsonic.

See above and why go subsonic when you can supercruise?

Sundowner wrote:Sorry the 39 was not design to be air dominance fighter, it will always stay behind true ADFs. It's not ignorance, it's a fact.

It was designed as a point defender yes, however I think with this modification it will narrow the gap to Typhoon and Rafale so close that it will only be a silly thing to debate on forum's like this one. It´s also arguable if any of those will have a engine upgrade in the near future since their T/W is pretty good at the moment, specially Typhoon's and such things cost money. For SAAB on the other hand, it´s necessary to do this, among other things, to be able to compete on the international market. Gripen will of course not have the size and carrying capabilities as F-15 sized fighters (and also not the same RCS) but with a loud-out of 16 SDB, 4*BVR, 2*WVR+two drop tanks is there really a need? A triple carrier for LGB like Rafale has would also be a nice thing.

boff180 wrote:Maybe do comparisons using JASDF weaponry..

As said above, didn´t know what they are using so I took F-15A loud-out.

BTW rumor says that F-15 is out of this competition, is that true?

Regards C.

Caprice wrote:See above and why go subsonic when you can supercruise?

In a steep climb ? I don't think even Raptor could do that

The 39 can supercruise, just like the F-16 - when it's clean, no stores, no pylons. Anyway, today "supercruise" is redefined to fly above mach 1.5 without the burner... that's what only F-22A can do. With drop tanks, and 6 AAMs even with burner, Gripen wont go supersonic in steep climb, and immediately after achieving altitude - like F-15, and Typhoon can. Apples and Oranges, and you just can't use apples for "tequila sunrise" drink

The JASDF weapon pack is only 20lb lighter - thats 0,044% , that's nearly nothing.

Sundowner wrote:

Caprice wrote:See above and why go subsonic when you can supercruise?

In a steep climb ? I don't think even Raptor could do that

No I did meant level flight, I confused my self there for a moment.
But on the other hand you phrased it in such a way that one could implicit that other aircraft could do it:

it will be far behind, not to mention it will go all the way subsonic.

But stop the semantic...

Sundowner wrote:The 39 can supercruise, just like the F-16 - when it's clean, no stores, no pylons. Anyway, today "supercruise" is redefined to fly above mach 1.5 without the burner... that's what only F-22A can do.

I know what supercruise means...but again, sorry to say, you keep repeating things about what exists now. Yes Gripen can supercruise already today (~mach 1.2) with two wingtip stores (No, they do not pluck pylons away), otherwise clean, thanks to it´s excellent aerodynamic design. Supercruise better than Typhoon, with a better engine on Gripen is not impossible IMO.

Sundowner wrote:With drop tanks, and 6 AAMs even with burner, Gripen wont go supersonic in steep climb, and immediately after achieving altitude - like F-15, and Typhoon can.

Climb performance is a function of thrust/weight and drag...AFAIK
Put a engine with sufficient power in Gripen and you get a aircraft with comparable performance, simple really.

Sundowner wrote: you just can't use apples for "tequila sunrise" drink

There are better drinks than that out there.

Sundowner wrote:The JASDF weapon pack is only 20lb lighter - thats 0,044% , that's nearly nothing.

Don´t know what are trying to say here?

And why did you dodge my F-15J T/W proposal?

Regards C.

I took numbers from GlobalSecurity, now I recalculated everything, a gallon of Jet-A fuel weight 6,34 pounds per gallon, and that drop tank is actually 610 US Gallons, so it will give 47726 pounds total with sparrows, and 47066 wit AMRAAMs, and around 47046 with JASDF armament. With thrust at 23770lb per engine, the T/W is:
Sparrow: 1.00
AMRAAM: 1.01
JASDF: 1.01
So, yes your numbers are right. Yet we need to point out that we still compare yesterday fighter, to nonexistent airframe, powered by nonexistent engine

About that "Put a engine with sufficient power in Gripen and you get a aircraft with comparable performance". Well you can put two F119 into F-15 and that will give you T/W nearly 1.80 or more You take what you have, no IFs.

We're still going with the engines performance here, what about the radar ? Compare PS-05A to AN/APG-63v1(still obsolete design). Like I wrote earlier it's not only the engine that make plane an ASF.

Sundowner wrote:I took numbers from GlobalSecurity, now I recalculated everything, a gallon of Jet-A fuel weight 6,34 pounds per gallon, and that drop tank is actually 610 US Gallons, so it will give 47726 pounds total with sparrows, and 47066 wit AMRAAMs, and around 47046 with JASDF armament. With thrust at 23770lb per engine, the T/W is:
Sparrow: 1.00
AMRAAM: 1.01
JASDF: 1.01
So, yes your numbers are right. Yet we need to point out that we still compare yesterday fighter, to nonexistent airframe, powered by nonexistent engine

At least we come to the same conclusion on one thing.
"Nonexistent airframe"? There is no major airframe changes in Gripen NG, the new landing gear "sits" outside the wing box. CG is about the same.

I also wouldn´t call F414 EDE "nonexistent" but ok, it's not fully tested yet.
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 61212.html

Sundowner wrote:About that "Put a engine with sufficient power in Gripen and you get a aircraft with comparable performance". Well you can put two F119 into F-15 and that will give you T/W nearly 1.80 or more You take what you have, no IFs.

I´m no engineer but I think you have to weight one thing against another to reach a acceptable compromise, there must be a reason that "Thrust to weight" numbers seems to have flattened out lately.

(And before you point that out, Gripen is a little behind but as you say below "...it's not only the engine..." )

Sundowner wrote:We're still going with the engines performance here, what about the radar ? Compare PS-05A to AN/APG-63v1(still obsolete design). Like I wrote earlier it's not only the engine that make plane an ASF.

It´s not only the plane either IMO... but the hole AF's system; AEW, tactics, training etc. among a lot of other things. (Again only a layman's guess, don't want to sound like I know what I´m talking about)

Comparing those radars wouldn´t that be only guesswork since nothing or little is public?
Since I sense that you will bring up the fact that AN/APG-63v1 is bigger...antenna size alone don´t make a aircraft that has that radar automatically superior to others...advantage yes but there are more to it, is my gut feeling.

Anyhow the little I know of PS-05/A is that it relates back to Sea Harrier's "Blue Vixen" (As Eurofighter CAPTOR also do), further developed by Ericsson MW (Now SAAB MW).

-It has a antenna diameter of 600 mm.
-Power output Max 8.5 kW (intermittent?)
-Range about 120 km
-When not in use it´s folded 90°

SAAB has also some nifty patented techniques that allows doubling the power output in intermittent radar pulses with the same power circuits and no need for extra cooling, giving longer range under short periods, among other things plus allowing data communication in the pauses. Don´t know if any of it is used in PS-05 today (don't think so) but it will be in future (AESA) versions. Therefore partly negate the small antenna size.

Like the other European aircraft manufacturers SAAB will have access to the result from the Korrigan project in ~2009 (An big effort to counter the American reluctance to export sensible radar technology, read T/R modules).
http://www.gaasmantech.org/Digests/2006 ... sts/3D.pdf

Radar technology in Europe is not (far) behind tech wise. It´s only the implementation of it in operational systems that is IMO.

To sum it up, I think the PS-05/A is quite competitive and will continue to be so.

Regards C.

Sorry toan, I should have answered more clearly on this earlier.

toan wrote:1. Japan wants a new fighter that will be able to enter service in 2009, while JAS-39NG won't be able to become the truth until post-2012 ~ 2015.

Do have you a source on the date?

toan wrote:2. JAS-39NG (Empty weight: 7,100 kg) with 22,000 Ib class F414 engine will just reach roughly the same class of T/W ratio as F-16A (Empty weight: 7,150 ~ 7,400 kg; F100 engine with the thrust of 23,770Ib class), which is still significantly behind F-22A, EF-2000, F-15C/E/K/SG, F-16C block50/52, F-16E/F, Su-35 and so on today.

I don't think that "plus-sign" in the Gripen NG-pdf are there for no reason. Volvo Aero has even mentioned astonishing T/W ratios as 15:1 (for the engine) but that's further in the future.

toan wrote:3. As for upgrading project of F414, it is just in the stage of R&D right now. It is even can not be sured if F/A-18E/F will use it one day, not to mention if JAS-39NG will be able to get it finally.

Volvo Aero and GE have worked together since many years and Russel Sparks (CEO Military Systems Operations) at GE has said that "Should an F414-powered version become reality, we’d let Volvo take the lead on that.” One more thing to have in mind is the changed political landscape in Sweden. Thrust upgrades for RM-12 have been turned down by defense hostile politicians since the nineties, to just name one thing. My guess is that SAAB now have got the political green light to really make a push on the international market something that was tabu to even talk about before. That could also spill over to accelerate work on F414 from the Swedish side.

toan wrote:If you want to take the assumption that JAS-39NG mayl get upgrading F414 engine in the future, then you should also take the assumption that:

A. EF-2000 may get EJ-230 (15% more thrust than EJ-200) or even EJ-270 (30~35% more thrust than EJ-200 ).
B. Rafale may get M88-3 (20% more thrust than M88-2).
C. F-15/F-16 may get upgrading F100/F110 (15~25% more thrust than the newest F100/F100 today).
D. Su-27/30/35 may get AL-41F or AL-31M3 (20~25% more thrust than the AL-31F today).

at the same time. And then the gap / difference of T/W ratio between JAS-39 and other air-superiority/dominance fighters won't be change, since everyone will have the new or upgrading engine with roughly the same improvement in thrust at that time.

Perhaps but unlikely at the moment IMO, neither EF-2000 or Rafale has a engine swap high on their must-do lists, since their thrust is quite satisfactory as it is. T/W ratios of about 1.2-1.4 appear to be max looking at the trends in todays air warfare. I think it would stay at about that level since other areas will be more important.

Regards C.

http://www.sbac.co.uk/community/cms/con ... =15041&t=0

Japan could delay selecting the winner of its F-X replacement programme by up to two years because of funding issues, increasing the chances of Lockheed Martin'sF-22 Raptor or the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the competition.

"Officials from the JDA [Japan Defense Agency] have been saying recently that they are worried about the cost of US troop realignment in Japan. Although nothing has been confirmed yet, funds for the F-X programme could be diverted if they decide that troop realignment is their priority," says an industry official.

The JDA sent a letter to France, the UK and the USA in April asking for information on new fighters as replacements for its 91 Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Kais, which will be phased out from 2010. A selection had been expected around mid-2007, with first delivery targeted for around 2012. That timeline, however, could now be delayed by two years - possibly to the detriment of early favourite Boeing.

The US manufacturer, which is offering the F-15FX and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, would have been able to meet the first deadline and its fighters could be easily assembled in Japan. Lockheed's F-22, on the other hand, has yet to secure export approval from the US Congress and the JSF deliveries - scheduled for 2012-13 at the earliest - were not possible within Tokyo's limited timeframe. A delay, however, could change that.

"If we push the time line back by two years, it is possible that Congress would give approval for the F-22's export and the JSF would fall into the delivery schedule. Boeing would then have a tougher time convincing Japan, especially since the JDF would want to purchase the latest fighters - which are the Lockheed aircraft," says the source.

While the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are also in the fray, they would have a much harder time as they have to convince Tokyo of the merits of acquiring a European fighter for the first time.

"The fact remains that Japan's military tactics, operations and maintenance is linked very closely to the USA. That makes the chances of a European bid succeeding very unlikely," adds the source.

Thanks toan!

I wonder if that "source" is Boeing?

Some voices, true or not, says that Japan has finally figured out that quality weapons can come from other sources than US. That hint about European "incompatibility" visa vi US systems have also been heard before and proven untrue.

Regards C.

Well it can be a bit pain in the...
if I remember correctly all maintenance tools are in imperial units with Japanese F-4, F-15 and F-2, while for Typhoon and Rafale they are in metric, and don't work well together. When tools from F-15 and F-2 could be used for F-22, F-35, etc, European jets will need whole new set of them. Not a BIG problem, but it is one, and will rise costs a bit.

BTW, anyone remember the situation, with metric/imperial mess up with Mars Explorer ?