Of course not, did I say so?
De Vieres statements during the evaluation do however show his true attitude towards the Gripen NG. One wonders if he even bothered to read the RFI response.
Care to provide a source for this statement?
Gripen NG supercruzin for a bruzin
- Thread starter wimpymouse
- Start date
De Vieres statements during the evaluation do however show his true attitude towards the Gripen NG. One wonders if he even bothered to read the RFI response.
?? You've confused me on the double negative..
the implication was that De Vieres was acting of his own recognisance rather than listen to the advice of airforce professionals, engineers within the airforce, pilots and those who deal with tactical planning and logistics - as well as those involved with costings and forward estimates. That could easily involve close to 100 people (if not more if other Govt agencies are bought in to independantly review the assessments.
either 100+ professionals in the NL airforce are incompetent, plus whatever finance and review entities are tasked with independant review - or the govt has ignored all of those entities and individuals advice and "have gone off the reservation" Considering that in procurement teams such as these the pilots chosen usually have multiple thousands of hrs on type, are also qualified combat trainers and usually have done off type exchange flying, then they normally are the best available to test.
it's irrelevant what a Minister may think personally, as he still has to listen and effectively counter the advice from his own organisations professionals if he is in dispute with the outcome. Considering that he is way outside his skillset - then it would behoove him to listen to those who have "nn" thousand hours as pilots, combat trainers, loggies, engineers, armourers, tacticians etc....
once again, we have an issue where air force professionals including pilots, aviation engineers, logisticians, tac planners, independant govt review bodies (treasury and finance for example) have supported a plane that those without privileged access to the assessment criteria challenge.
This must be the 3rd or 4th airforce to prefer JSF and so must either have completely incompetent pilots and engineers - or LM have done a mind meld ala star treks "spock"
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:157b69a5-b9d0-4fcd-8077-e5df04b98bd2
Bill Sweetman, esquire...
I doubt the Gripen has a true supercruise capability: that is the ability to cruise supersonically with our without afterburner. The F414 engine is not designed for sustained supersonic speed. Weather the afterburner is applied or not isn’t really relevant for supercruise, what matters is being able to sustain the speed for a reasonable (ie noteworthy) distance. This for most contemporary fighters is a limited by the engine’s material ability to handle the high temperatures and pressures of the high Mach air.
To indicate the distance covered by the Gripen we have that it flew from one side to the other of a test area above the Baltic. At the most this is likely to be a 60 NM long box (being generous) thanks to the size of the Baltic. Mach 1.2 at 28,000 feet is a ground speed of 713 knots so it would fly from one side of the box to the other in 5 minutes.
The F-22 burning a full tank of gas on supercruise can fly for 400 NM or 30 minutes at Mach 1.5 at 40,000 feet. Real supercruisers like the SR-71 Blackbird would stay at Mach 3+ for 90 minutes or 2 hours at Mach 3 for B-70 Valkyrie.
But since it could only do this in a clean configuration it’s not really a relevant capability to modern warfare. Since you can’t sonic boom at an airshow its no good their either. It did get Saab lots of free press so I guess that was worth the $50,000 tank of fuel?
To indicate the distance covered by the Gripen we have that it flew from one side to the other of a test area above the Baltic. At the most this is likely to be a 60 NM long box (being generous) thanks to the size of the Baltic. Mach 1.2 at 28,000 feet is a ground speed of 713 knots so it would fly from one side of the box to the other in 5 minutes.
The F-22 burning a full tank of gas on supercruise can fly for 400 NM or 30 minutes at Mach 1.5 at 40,000 feet. Real supercruisers like the SR-71 Blackbird would stay at Mach 3+ for 90 minutes or 2 hours at Mach 3 for B-70 Valkyrie.
But since it could only do this in a clean configuration it’s not really a relevant capability to modern warfare. Since you can’t sonic boom at an airshow its no good their either. It did get Saab lots of free press so I guess that was worth the $50,000 tank of fuel?
Sorry for the confusion. I was not trying to imply that De Vries were acting on his own in order to achieve things on his personal agenda. But if he did listen to his advisers, he wouldn’t make statements like “Saab doesn’t know what engine to use in Gripen NG”. That’s ignorance IMO.
Also, I have no reason to believe the Dutch evaluation wasn't properly done. What I opposed, and I believe GD and swerve agree, was the fact that it seems the Dutch was set on the F-35 all along and the "competition" was merely a "charade" in order to keep the lower house happy.
The link that Bill is referring to says noting about "accelerating to Mach 1.2 and then cut A/B". That is IMO his own assumptions. There for, this still remains "unknown".
Note: I'm not saying they went passed Mach 1 without A/B, but there are no statements (except Bill's assumption) saying they used A/B.
According to posts on another internet forum citing a Saab e-mail response; this was the first of many test fights investigating the ability to supercruise. As always when performing test flights you start nice and slow and then expand the flight envelope. Since Saab has said that "Air-to-air superiority is guaranteed with METEOR, AMRAAM, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, 12 missile capability, supercruise...", it looks like they're aiming at supercruise ability in an A2A configuration. The next logic step would be to use more and more external load for the next test flights to see how it affects the performance. I'm sure we'll here more from Saab since, as you said, they get a lot of free press.
Regarding the F414G's ability to withstand supercruise for a sustained time, this is a valid point IMO. GE is part of the Gripen Demonstrator program and I'd be surprised if they're not part of the test and evaluation, investigating the engine condition. I'm sure the GE marketing department would love to be able to say the F414 has the ability to supercruise.
True, there's no shortage of ignorant politicians in any of our respective countries..
It may appear to be a charade as such, but I'd also argue (from the procurement perspective) that the professionals may well have had sufficient compelling evidence on overall capability to not burn the public purse and lose procurement time.
that does not mean that it was not "properly done". significant supporting material would have been available through areas such as existing ewarfare programs, exchange officer programs, C4 developments etc.... eg RAAF didn't need to go to a full evaluation of the Flanker to realise that it would cause a logistical embuggerance, a technology transfer risk (even though the russians offered to co-develop a long range anti-shipping missile {probably yakhont was on their mind at the time} etc.....
the selection matrix does make things clearer and you don't always need to go through a physical run off.
What sniping, I think your over reacting a little bit here... I just asked a question about aircraft comparisons (like the one in your post 7) and already got a polite explaining answer from Todjaeger.
I refrain from comment the rest, thank you...
Just want to say that definitive conclusions can't be made until more data is known, as already pointed out.
PS. Ferry range on internal fuel albeit not directly comparable (as I pointed out) it's an indication of aircraft range which of coarse also affect super cruising range.
Regards
Strange Stuff?Too many conclusions here based on swiss cheese logic IMHO.
What we "know" (from SAAB's press release) is this:
- A Gripen Demo aircraft "supercruised above Mach 1.2 at an altitude of 28000 ft.
- To draw above conclusions from only that is a little thin to say the least.
What we need to know:
- Load out
- Throttle settings(Allthough one could assume 100% full throttle it's not certain)
- Other things that one might add to the picture (Some mentioned above).
- The Demo is a two seater with a weight ~600-700 lbs above single seater version, maybe one should add test equipment weight also?
- Two seaters have more drag than single seaters.
- I also wonder what impact an altitude ~12000 ft higher would have had.
(I thought such "this vs that" aircraft comparisons was not so popular here...rightly so in my view because they invite to meaningless discussions?)
My understanding is that it's more economical(in fuel consumption) to use afterburner to get above Mach 1(in supercruise)?
Finally, since already Gripen C is claimed to have the capability(on a cold winter day etc.) but that it wasn't touted by SAAB(officially), probably because the internal fuel capacity(and thrust) was to low.
It's reasonable to assume that SAAB know thinks it's operationally viable in the Gripen NG(since they advertice about it) with a fuel fraction of ~32% and a new more powerfull engine.
If they (or LM) is right is another matter.
Regards
Is this kind of information accessible for the new American Aircrafts?
So, either you believe the press release at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169578/posts or you don't. The swedish military seems to believe it
I've noticed a lot of 'back talk' about Gripen. Sadly enough some of the worst from our closest neighbors? Don't really know why there, I hope it just is some few. To have an aircraft industry is nowadays extremly expensive and that we in Sweden with only nine million people have succeeded is worthsome praise in itself. Then I've seen some really bad comments about Sweden's presumed (un)willingness to fight. Well, we've succeeded in keeping our peace for two hundred years now, not that bad It's easy to start a fight, harder to keep the peace. Before that though, I do believe we were 'well known' in Europe as well as Eastern Europe, But you are correct in that we Swedes often seem a little boring
levelheaded but boring. Strangely enough, as we don't often go for that American art of 'boasting', we still seem to survive without it? But if you believe that it was only Danes that were Vikings you’re sadly misinformed. Didn’t you know that one of our Swedish subs sunk a US hangar ship in one of your recent war games? And that the US chartered it one year more, just to train against it Our subs, as our planes may be small but one shouldn't mistake that for slight capabilities.Here are some facts about the first generations of Gripen.
-------Quotes-----------------------
1. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation.
2. The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots need to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.
3. Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the targets track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.
4. In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.
The Swedish AF is the pioneer of fighter-to-fighter data-link, and the JAS-39 is the first fighter with the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link. However, almost every NG fighter in the world (F/A-22, F/A-18E/F, F-35, EF-2000, Rafale, Su-30MKK/MKI, Su-27SM, Su-35/37, MIG-31) has equipped or will equip soon the same class of NG fighter-to-fighter data-link since then. The Gripen was the first fighter with this kind of revolutional innovation, but it is not unique now.
Will the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link help the fighters like JAS-39 catch the stealthy target at longer distance??? I think the answer is Yes, since even the stealthy fighter can’t make its RCS in every direction as small as its frontal RCS. If you combine the data from the different fighters, AWACS, ground-based air-defense radar and so on in different location with the help of NG data-link, you may catch out the stealthy target earlier then just use the radar of your fighter’s own, as an old saying goes: The unite is the force
And a few words from the Hungarians, how they experienced the exercise Spring Flag in Italy 2007.
"The Gripens flew as part of the hostile ‘Red Force’, largely conducting beyond visual range air battles with the ‘Blue Force’. Colonel Kilian recalls, We flew 24 sorties over the two-week exercise, and we launched every day with our two planned Gripen Ds. We were the only participants to have a 100% operational record with the scheduled aircraft.
In Hungary we just don’t have large numbers of aircraft to train with, but in Spring Flag we faced COMAO (combined air operations) packages of 20, 25 or 30 aircraft. The training value for us was to work with that many aircraft on our radar – and even with our limited experience we could see that the Gripen radar is fantastic. We would see the others at long ranges, we could discriminate all the individual aircraft even in tight formations and using extended modes. The jamming had almost no effect on us – and that surprised a lot of people.
Other aircraft couldn’t see us – not on radar, not visually – and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.
Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors – but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out."
Views from South Africa..
"Gripen is pretty much as agile it can get. G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), the Gripen platform is designed with tactics in mind. Gripen fight not only with missiles and bullets but with information, superior situation awareness is the key in modern warfare..
Gripens flight computer is outstanding, and can make some worldclass calculations. Gripens Fedec are highly impressive, it even has a backup mechanical calculation system. something only a handfull of companies can manage. The air craft also incorporate a very low radar profile making it hard to find. And it has a superior data link. And in real tests against other aircrafts the radar has been found very hard to jam by other systems, meaning that it will work in practice, not only in theory. And those countrys using it have found it working in all weathers.
The radar is capable of detecting, locating, identifying and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air, in all weather conditions. It can guide four air to air missiles (AMRAAM, MBDA Meteor) simultaneously at four different targets. "
The Czech Air Force had this to say after testing the first generation Gripen 2005.
"Sweden required hard discretion related to ALL Gripen abilities information, but rumors say Gripen pilots used to call fox 3 (AMRAAM engagement) farther away than viper guys. When reporters asked guys from AFB Caslav to compare our new birds with another, they answered our fighters (model C block2) are the best HW currently available on the word market."
And also
"Since 1 May we have flown over 570 missions in total [figures as of mid-October] and since 1 July when were went operational on the QRA mission we have flown over 300 missions. We are very busy and we’re flying every day. Every aircraft flies at least twice, each day. We have eight pilots at the moment and sometimes we have all eight flying – and it’s not unusual to have all 12 aircraft operational and available on the line. We have never lost a single operational mission due to a technical snag with the aircraft and every single QRA mission has gone ahead as planned."
--------------------End of quotes--------
You need to be rather ‘nationalistically thickheaded’ not to understand what a nice packet the new Gripen NG will be. One of the things people love to lift up is this macho ‘battle testing’ Well, if you test yourself against ‘third world’ technology I don’t call it ‘battle testing’ maybe ‘endurance testing’ if it comes to that. Both are important aspects of a real War against a technological peer, but remember, Americans still haven’t ‘invaded’ any true technological peer, and, may I add, hopefully never will. As that as I see it would be the end of what we all trust in, democracy and a free society.
http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/The+Future+is+Gripen+NG/GripenNG.htm
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Gripen NG is SAAB's effort to remain relevent in the marketplace. It is attempting to introduce capabilities onto it's platform that are already extant on commercial rival aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
The early start to it's data-link technology is often lauded and rightly so, but it's hardly relevant now. Data-link technology has caught up and even Gripen's international sales are delivered with Link 16/MIDS rather than Sweden's proprietary link system.
A joint operational combat doctrine is the way forward, but it's hardly unique. Most forces aspire to greater "Jointness" and VLO aircraft, stealth if you prefer, won't be operating as a discrete capability, either...
even more relevant is he fact that if the swedish/norwegian/finnish proposal moves forward - then Link16 will have priority.
We're seeing far more swedish involvement not only in NATO, but also with other mainstraem US allies such as Australia. In fact our tech sharing agreement signed with Sweden a few years back, the fact that US companies are now buying into Swedish military companies (if not buying them outright) shows a shift in their own design and comms future.
All the swedish gear I've reviewed in the last 12 months is highly focussed on US interoperability, and those companies make it very clear that they are not interested in developing discrete NCW/data fusion systems anymore.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Sweden become a NATO member within 5 years - and they're already getting included in some of the more classified programs that atypically included long term US allies plus senior NATO partners. This has been at Swedish request with US imprimatur.
Gripen NG will migrate to a more NATO compliant solution - its now inevitable.
yoron, first of all, welcome to DT and I hope you'll enjoy posting here. It is good to see that you bothered to try putting together quite a bit of information in your first post. As you are new, could you also post a intro about yourself in intros & off topic.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to question some bits of your post. Please know that I am a fan of Swedish technology, so the criticism is not directed at Swedish capabilities or technology. Rather, it is done with a view to interacting with you and improving the dialogue on your beloved Gripen NG.
Can you post more information on the progresses of the A26 submarine project in the Naval Forces / Navy section? I'm really interested in reading more and I'm limited to reading only English material.Swedish subs sunk a US hangar ship in one of your recent war games? And that the US chartered it one year more, just to train against it
Can you clarify? Are you taking about Mk-5 of the PS-05/A (with an AESA antenna), which is in development or the earlier model radars. Multi-mode capabilities in fighter radars are not usual. Further, there are alot of bigger fighters, with bigger radar cones, so what do you mean by a large antenna (and compared to what)?
There is a thread on DACT in this forum. It is a must read.
Last edited:
OPSSG, thanks for that timely reminder about DACT. It is worth reinforcing.
Similarly, the same applies to underwater warfare training events. The debate about Gotland and the USN has unfortunately been dumbed down to minimum variables - Gotland was not bought in to "sink" USN assets in partial prosecution events - it's requirement was much more significant.
Unfortunately, we see time and time again the notion that a conventional scoring against a larger skimmer in what is a "partial prosecution" event as somehow symbolic of capability.
Yes, this will be a necessity against LO/VLO targets. With the new AESA antenna, this capability will be further improved
Eurofighter just recently demonstrated this capability.
http://eurofighter.com/news/20090104_AMRAAMFiring.asp
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It did and the only thing unique about this firing event, was it was the first time a Eurofighter has done this.
It is not a "first of kind" in the world however...
Yes, people seem to overlook the fact that you don't have to be actively transmiting in the network to be a part of the network. You can passively enter a network and receive data from other platforms without them knowing that you are there. B2's do it now as does any other platform that doesn't want to broadcast its location ie. UAV's, drones, SF etc.
What's your point? I didn't claim it was a first. I'm just trying to argue that this is an important capability by exemplifying with the recent EF-trial. The French have done it as well with their Mica, where the Rafale were firing it "over-the-shoulder".
http://www.cesa.air.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/jpg/mica.jpg
Thanks OPSSG for the friendly welcoming. I will try to see what information I might find on HMS 'Gotland', but my guess is that you have more inf on your side of the pool than I've on mine . As for clarifying the quote on the PS-05/A? Defining how the cone is built? Don't really know there. There is a Swedish study from FOA (2001-2003) discussing what the next generation radar and antennas and links should be as, but that one is in Swedish though, that's what I believe laid the 'groundwork' for what we have in the armed forces and Gripen today.
In a real battlefield you won't be able to count on any 'flight control' (Awacs-support).surviving, taking care of you, it might just be you and what buddies you might have up (and down) there at that point and place, then that 'link' will help immensely. Did you know that Gripen under the US 'Red flag' exercise at times trained without using any Awacs-support whatsoever, and still did well, as I understands it. If you're wondering about how those links can enhance a radar you might ponder (and goggle) about all those observatories linked together to give a enhanced image of the universe. I presume that the same principles rule here too. We have just incorporated the philosophy behind the Internet into battle.
Also I would like to point out that those stealth planes with those sleek air frames like the F-35 JSF that Norway choose instead of Gripen (To much Oil $$$, too little sense there, I would say only can carry two bombs and two robots 'in stealth mode' , And as soon they need more armament that 'perfect stealth' is more or less gone.
What I believe we use in Sweden is advanced software and hardware creating a '3-D' image of the 'battle zone'. As the information will be taken in from a 3-D sphere consisting of all nodes sharing those links on the ground as well as in the sky and space, you will need very good hard and software interfaces to present (simplify) and handle that kind of information and I think we've done a good job there. But probably Norway is counting on us sharing this technology anyway.
Thinking of Norway and that (those?) guy(s) banned here, we actually had a election where Norway got a free choice to stay in a union with us or leave to be on their own. I don't know any other country in the world doing that? So no matter what jokes there might be about Swedes, we've treated the Norwegians fairly. And apropos Denmark, the Danish girls, at least, are lovely lasses. And that's all I will say about that :)
I can see that all Countries want to sell their own aircrafts, it's a hellishly expensive undertaking, and there are a lot of jobs connected to it. But I still prefer a forum like this one to be relatively free from 'debunking'. May I compliment you on the overall quality shown in the threads btw (discounting those prejudiced.
---
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw111708p1.xml
. As for clarifying the quote on the PS-05/A? Defining how the cone is built? Don't really know there. There is a Swedish study from FOA (2001-2003) discussing what the next generation radar and antennas and links should be as, but that one is in Swedish though, that's what I believe laid the 'groundwork' for what we have in the armed forces and Gripen today. In a real battlefield you won't be able to count on any 'flight control' (Awacs-support).surviving, taking care of you, it might just be you and what buddies you might have up (and down) there at that point and place, then that 'link' will help immensely. Did you know that Gripen under the US 'Red flag' exercise at times trained without using any Awacs-support whatsoever, and still did well, as I understands it. If you're wondering about how those links can enhance a radar you might ponder (and goggle) about all those observatories linked together to give a enhanced image of the universe. I presume that the same principles rule here too. We have just incorporated the philosophy behind the Internet into battle.
Also I would like to point out that those stealth planes with those sleek air frames like the F-35 JSF that Norway choose instead of Gripen (To much Oil $$$, too little sense there, I would say
only can carry two bombs and two robots 'in stealth mode' , And as soon they need more armament that 'perfect stealth' is more or less gone. What I believe we use in Sweden is advanced software and hardware creating a '3-D' image of the 'battle zone'. As the information will be taken in from a 3-D sphere consisting of all nodes sharing those links on the ground as well as in the sky and space, you will need very good hard and software interfaces to present (simplify) and handle that kind of information and I think we've done a good job there. But probably Norway is counting on us sharing this technology anyway.
Thinking of Norway and that (those?) guy(s) banned here, we actually had a election where Norway got a free choice to stay in a union with us or leave to be on their own. I don't know any other country in the world doing that? So no matter what jokes there might be about Swedes, we've treated the Norwegians fairly. And apropos Denmark, the Danish girls, at least, are lovely lasses. And that's all I will say about that :
)I can see that all Countries want to sell their own aircrafts, it's a hellishly expensive undertaking, and there are a lot of jobs connected to it. But I still prefer a forum like this one to be relatively free from 'debunking'. May I compliment you on the overall quality shown in the threads btw (discounting those prejudiced
.---
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw111708p1.xml
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I can reciprocate that on the Swedish girls, thank you.Thinking of Norway and that (those?) guy(s) banned here, we actually had a election where Norway got a free choice to stay in a union with us or leave to be on their own. I don't know any other country in the world doing that? So no matter what jokes there might be about Swedes, we've treated the Norwegians fairly. And apropos Denmark, the Danish girls, at least, are lovely lasses. And that's all I will say about that :
And to add: Greenland and the Faroes have a standing option to secede whenever they want; you see, we can be nice too.
Last edited:
Thanks GD. I've never found Denmark boring. (I just got p**ed off reading a few guys hereI can reciprocate that on the Swedish girls, thank you.
And to add: Greenland and the Faroes have a standing option to secede whenever they want; you see, we can be nice too.
As I see it, for a modern battlefield, there are two definitions (or more
as seen from the view of our Western Society. One is a battlefield inside your own country. Then what Sweden have in form of 'informal link up:s' will do very well, and will cost any enemy dearly, as long as the fight is fought inside our borders. The other is when you see your Country or military force 'policing' other countries. Then those links will be more limited, consisting of what military 'infra structure' you can take with you. So what Nato might be interested in f ex. might be different as compared to a preliminary defensive 'infra structure' for defending your own Country. And so will any modern equipment be 'slanted' too depending on 'needs' I believe. Then you have the problem with overall 'logistics' and what troops you may 'count on'.
There is also the fact that to 'win' over a Country you will need more that just military might, at least from a Western 'point of view', I found Iraq a good example on those problems. Then you have tribal Country's like Afghanistan where the 'battle lines' will change constantly. I've always found 'hearts and minds' as the British introduced a good concept. Also that the less 'corruption' any 'policing' force might have internally will give the best results. But those are my thoughts of course