Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on September 26, 2001, 02:54:00 PM
-
The Swedes beat the US to having an operational 4th generation fighter. Not only that, they also beat them on having such a one capable of supercruise:
http://www.gripen.saab.se/news/pdf/GN1_01.PDF (http://www.gripen.saab.se/news/pdf/GN1_01.PDF)
Page 2, 3rd column:
"Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two Sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner"
Pretty nice.
Oh, they have a helmet mounted sight system on it now, for "look over shoulder look-n-shoot" capability. Much like the Russians do.
Of course, standard things like triplex fly-by-wire and glass cockpit with three colour MFD's is in there. And the datalink thingie that's becoming popular for sharing info.
Price the same as a new F-16C. But operating costs much lower at around $2500/h (including fuel and maintenance). That's about the lowest there is for a 4th generation fighter from what I read. 10 manhour of maintenance for every hour of flight isn't too bad either.
Fully loaded, it can easily operate at fields around 800m. On landings, it can be brought to a stop on less than 400 metres.
It's designed to run on rough airstrips or even roads, and naturally is designed for the harsh Swedish climate.
"Assuming fuel and weapons have been pre-positioned (which is SOP for any operator) enough ground equipment to support 4 gripens can be carried by one C-130 Hercules."
"Once back at base - which might be just a stretch of roadway covered in snow, or sand - each aircraft can be refuelled and rearmed by its six strong aircrew and be back in the air in 10 minutes"
And these aircrew dudes are normal conscripts, not specialists.
New forms of ILS and navigation systems, incorporated into the aircraft, makes is self reliant in this way.
And the airframe is upgradeable - it was concieved when thrust vectoring was in its infancy. Once this technology becomes economically viable, the Gripen will have an airframe and FBW software that easily can be modified to use it.
The F-22 has stealth over the Gripen, but it'd be hard to compare the two as the premises for what the aicraft must do are quite different - the ripen is basically a fast multirole fighter and designed for quick launches and interceptions, due to the nature of Sweden's geography.
It's nice to see that it's not only the Americans that can make great aircraft :).
Oh, and it's beautiful too:
(http://www.gripen.saab.se/image_gallery/photo/images/IMG0009.jpg)
Excellent visibility :)
Gotta admit that the new light weight helmet they've developed looks kinda funny:
(http://www.gripen.saab.se/image_gallery/photo2/images/IMG0020.jpg)
-
Hasn't the Gripen been out for awhile? or is this an upgraded model?
Saab has been making great looking planes for some time now. :) They just happen to be damn good planes as well.
-
Oh yeah, it's been operational for quite a while. It's just been upgraded a little already :).
Also been sold to South Africa and leased to Poland.
They were gonna sell it to Finland, but the Fins opted for the F/A-18, reportedly after quite heavy pressure from the Americans.
-
Yup, it's been out for a while, still one of the most advanced planes in the world, only bad thing about it is that it really isn't Stealth like the F22 or other 4:th generation fighters. Like Santa said, it was the first 4:th generation fighter, it can be used for most things including strikes, interception, recorgnisance, pure fighter etc. It's equiped with a 27mm cannon with 120 rounds, the gun fires by it self when the target is correct in the sight. It allso uses a nice system wich, when 2 or more planes work together, locks on to a target, sends it to the wingman, who's plane automaticly locks onto another target, thanks to this the pilots don't need to worry about targeting and getting the same target.
I visited one of the Gripen Squadrons 3 years ago, and it's great I must say, looked into the cockpit and it's just very very nice, the stick is extremely small (slighly shorter then the MS Sidewinder Stick). It's got backup systems of everything, inlcuding a little wheel for the throttle.
Plane is allso very durable, during one of the tests with it, it was flown threw a thunder storm, the computers stabelized it and the pilot described the ride as "slightly shaky". When the plane got out of the storm all color had fallen of due to shakes.
-
Still can't understand they went for the F18, there is another country (can't quite remember wich one) who was thinking about Gripen aswell, but went for F16(?!).
Santa got me all up and running now :D
(http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/img/saab/gripen/gall97/gripen-cockpit.jpg)
(http://www.gripen.saab.se/image_gallery/photo/images/IMG0019.jpg)
[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Wilbus ]
[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Wilbus ]
-
F-18 has some good points Gripen doesn't have. One thing is F-18 is capable to VERY short landings using arrestor hook: If watermelon hits the fan you propably wouldn't find too many fighters from airfields 'cause they would be spreaded around highways. Landing gears made for rough carrier landings are good too. Another nice thing is two engines...
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/hn1.jpg)
And another nice pic here (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/hn2.jpg)
-
Site with couple pics from landings on the streets with using hook: http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/satlsto/laivue/galleria/koukkuun.htm (http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/satlsto/laivue/galleria/koukkuun.htm)
-
why does sweden need a airforce? they never fight any wars
well them wild finns ARE right their border
-
The only thing I object to about the Grippen... It's a fediddlein SAAB fer crissakes! ;)
Head to head; I think the SAAB's a better plane than the old FA/18.. however the newer 'Super' F18's with the cannards are supposed to be pretty damn good in an eyeball to eyeball situation. The biggest edge the F18 has nowdays is it's weapons package and BVR abilities... the "Made with pride in the USA" sticker on the dash is a big point in my book too. :)
I had a blast flyin the Grippen in that old EF2K sim... thought it was a pretty slick bird, evil lookin and nimble as all getout. Hope NATO buys a buncha these things, as a land based econo/euro fighter it's got a lotta punch.
-
btw Hornet's takeoff takes less than 600m with normal A2A equipments and internal fuel, It climbs to 12km in couple minutes, landing takes 1000m without hook and 300m with hook.
Its also capable to super-cruise without afterburner thought I'm not sure what kind of payload it can carry in that situation.
-
Few pics of Finnish Hornets, Drakens and Migs with U.S F-14, F-15, F-18, KC-10 and Red Arrows (http://koti.mbnet.fi/staga/hornets/)
-
Cool
Working for Hughes Electronics I Built the HUD"S for the Jas-39 nice to see a pic of all my hard work :D
Moto_MOL
-
Aaah Santa. The Eurofighter will kick its bellybutton any day of the week. :D
It has a funky helmet mounted sight thing too. It also has a voice activated command system.
Only the F-22 beats it in terms of survivability, and the Eurofighter beats that in terms of cost. ;)
-
Was just watching Wings the other day and they made mention of the Eurofighter's cost overuns meaning that it will most likely be similar in cost to the F-22. The same was said of Mirage's latest effort.
Gimme an F-22 any day... I'd rather be invisible than cheap ;)
A show I watched displayed how you fight using your wingman's radar so that you don't have to turn yours on. Combine that with stealth technology and that means you can be well within missile range prior to anyone having an idea you are there. Shudder.
AKDejaVu
-
Propably all modern "front-line fighters" have a data-link. Finns and Swedes were thinking to do one together but Finns were not satisfied Swedish plans and decided to build one their own if I remember right.
-
I'll take couple Su-30's for 1/3 price and blow you all up :)
-
The SAABS are very nice. There was a nice article on them in Air Power Journal recently. When I start my own personal air force we will have a squadron of them. :)
I think the Finns were smart though. The Hornet is a good fit for their operating environment and it's combat proven unlike some of the alternatives. IIRC the "pressure" from the US consisted of VERY lucrative offsets. "Pressure" my bellybutton - the Finns made a good deal. :)
Sukhois are nice but I think the only combat victories they achieved are some "maneuver kills" at airshows. ;)
[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Well one thing that's extremely important for small countries (and Sweden has only about 8 million inhabitants) is low operational cost - nothing beats the Gripen here.
The Eurofighter is running very expensive - and it's not even operational like the Gripen. It has two engines and better range than the Gripen, but other than that, there's little difference; the Swedes have used the canards for years. The Viggen (Thunderbolt), the predeccessor to the Gripen had 'um too.
Yer right about the arrestor hook though Staga; but ya need to take off too :). I doubt that a fully laden F/A-18 can do it with less than 400 metres (which is what the Gripen will need for a landing). Also, as I'm sure DB603 will tell ya, it's not quite as serviceable in cold weather as the Gripen :D.
Heheh Funkedup, yer probably right; the US cut the price to get the deal :). Of course, in Sweden the story is that that's not the only thing they did ;).
Now, it would be sorta neat to have all these 4th generation fighters up in the air in mock combat :).
-
So that's a Saab? Wonder what Toyota has up their sleave?
-
They were gonna sell it to Finland, but the Fins opted for the F/A-18, reportedly after quite heavy pressure from the Americans.
I dont think it was pressure, rather a smart marketing tactics.
At the time of decision, Gripen didn't have any BVR armament available. Saab was negotiation with US to purchase AMRAAM to Gripen but guess what? The deal was authorised only after Finns had already bought F/A - 18 :)
-
Well, short landings require a hook, fast takeoff for the F18 (as fast as Gripen) requires a catapult. The 2 planes can't be compared in the same way though, Gripen has pretty short range, used primary for defence since Sweden is a "neutral" country, we're not going on an offence and haven't gone on one for ages.
The empty weight of a Gripen is 5300Kg, that's similair to the P47. Fully loaded the Gripen is at 14000kg.
As for SU's, IMO they would beat many new planes, even 4:th generation fighters in Close combats thanks to their manuverabilty, AFAIK the SU's don't have any "max G" that stops a pilto from pulling as high G's as he can handle. All new fighters, Gripen, F18, F22, Eurofighter etc have the computers to limit it around 7-8G's that can be overridden for a very short while if you pull hard.
I've never understood this thinkin, the pilot and plane pulling the highest G's in a combat will win, if a pilot can handle 10-14G's with a G suit, but is limited to 9, this is a serious disadvantage.
-
Thought I'd might mix in the Viggen in here aswell, it's IMO the most manly plane today :D
The JA37 Viggen is the fighter version, JA stands for Fighter/Attack. When the JA37 first flew, it was the fighter in the world with the most powerfull engine ever, no other fighter plane had an engine as strong as it. The same thing goes for the 30mm cannon, no fighter had ever been givven such a powerfull gun.
The engine is rated at 125000 N (28100 pounds).
The plane has never stopped accelerating, reason for this is that the pilots aren't alowed to use the engine at or close to full power and full afterburner, allso, on full afterburner the plane would have enough fuel for 5 minutes only.
The max speed they have been up to (not on full power) is more then mach 2.5, wich is pretty fast IMO.
Fuel consumption on full afterburner is 68000 Liters per hour (17964 US gallons or 14958 UK gallons).
Not sure but the engine MIGHT still be the most powerfull single engine ever fitted in a fighter, anybody know a bigger one?
They're capable, just like most other Swedish planes, to operate on short strips and in harsh weather. Landing distance is shorter then 500 Meters and take off is shorter then 400 Meters.
Unfortunatly they are to be taken out of service in a few years, big misstake IMO.
(http://hem.passagen.se/jim76/ja07.jpg)
(http://hem.passagen.se/jim76/ja01.jpg)
(http://www.student.vxu.se/home/bwosv96/viggen/ja37_11.jpg)
(http://www.student.vxu.se/home/bwosv96/viggen/vigg13.jpg)
So many beutifull pictures of this bird but I can't add them all, I like the one with the snow covered strip alot :)
-
Its the pilot, not the plane.
But a good plane helps....
Hans.
-
If the plane limits the G the pilot can't do what he could do in a plane with no G limit.
-
Staga, using Doppler radar as speed trap it's unfair!!!
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/hn2.jpg)
And this is a policecar from witch you cannot escape:
"Maverick locked, stop or i pull the trigger" :D
BTW Viggen it's a beauty.
-
SAAB and the Eurofighter consortium stand to really capture the next generation export market. Though, as previous posts suggest the Eurofighter may be too expensive to attract many sales -- its hard to imagine how such a committee project could get so out of hand from a development cost standpoint :)
Still, it's also hard to imagine too many countires affording F-22s or even the JSF. Too bad, since exports help keep the overall program costs down.
And the Viggen has always been one of my favorites :)
Charon
[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Wilbus, and someone jump me if I miss the mark, I beleive the F-16's current engine output is 32,000 pounds.
-
Waitin' for bus eh ?
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/dk36.jpg)
Viggen looks ugly if compared to Draken (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/dk62.jpg) IMO :)
-
It's strange that the Gripen hasn't been sold more widely. For the cost of a Gripen, and the technology that is packed in the airframe, it's quite a deal. It has datalink capabilities that are only now coming into existence in other aircraft and the maintenance requirements better match a less technically capable/advanced customer. But, when you buy F16 or F18 you get to ask for AMRAAM as part of the deal... when you buy Gripen you have to try and negotiate for it afterwards, a tough job. If JSF survives then it'll become a competitor also.
Notice how much the canards obscure rear-down view in that first picture. It might just be the angle but it makes the plane almost appear to have swept wings like an F14.
All these Su30/27 fans forget one key thing about it's maneurability, they are always displayed at airshow takeoff weights. One thing never considered is actual combat weight performance. Several articles have been published that talk about the extremely high internal fuel load on the Su-30 series and the relative positioning of that fuel. Apparantly it shifts the CG quite radically aft and limits maneuverability fairly severely at normal combat weights (Su-30's have high combat weights). Some estimates have placed as much as a +7G limit on an Su-30 at even 60% internal fuel...
The original Su30 was basically just a long range interceptor without canards or thrust vectoring. Most notable it had better avionics (which in the Su27 tended to be fairly primative), a second seat, in flight refuelling, and larger internal fuel (including wet tails and rear stinger boom (thus the large shift in CG)).. people are probably talking about the Su30MKI as in Indian Service (well not quite yet, though they are ordered and in testing) or some places call it the Su-37 in Russian service. The Su-37 does have canards and thrust vectoring. Then again, the Russians had about 5 designations for every aircraft and variant so it can be confusing.
-Soda
-
Well, while the Eurofighter development programme might be expensive, per unit cost will be a fraction of the F-22. Also, the RAF gets its first plane next summer and will eventually have 150 to replace its Tornado F.3 aircraft.
Invisible to radar? Until someone overcomes it with new technology and negates the advantage. ;) Hasn't there already been something created to detect the stealth?
BTW, the Tornado is still a competitive plane. Seems to do rather well in those RAF/USAF Red Flag competitions. ;)
-
Few things generate more patriotic feelings than military hardware :D
-
This is my favourite...
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/harri.j.niemi/hornet_training_1small.jpg)
Harppa
LLF
-
Heheheh Harppa :)
Draken is one of the most beutifull planes aswell, it's one of those cruel looking machines :)
I don't know wether the F16 has got more power, I trust you Skuzzy so it might very well have. Doubt the F16 is capeble of over mach 2.5 though ;)
But then again, maybe it is.
When it comes to jets, the Swedish ones are my favorites, the cruel look combined with the effectivness and easyness to rearm and take care off, in many different climates makes em worl winners in my eyes, specially for defence :)