Gripen NG supercruzin for a bruzin

[wimpymouse]

Good news from your Gripen fanboy #1.

Saab first time today demonstrated the capability of the Gripen Demo, without after-burners in the area to fly supersonic.



According to Saab test pilot Magnus Ljungdahl reached the Gripen Demo in about 8500 meters above the Ostsse a speed of Mach 1.2 without afterburner use. "Potential customers the super cruise capabilities of the Gripen to demonstrate is an important milestone," said Bob Kemp, Sales Director of Gripen International.

The Gripen Demo flying since last summer as a test vehicle for several new systems. Among other things, a stronger shear F414G engine built by General Electric. An AESA radar, and new electronic warfare systems will follow. So far about 40 flights were completed.

http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/flugzeuge/gripen-demo-zeigt-supercruise-faehigkeit.7017.htm


So is this the start of new Gripen flame wars, or will the Gripen haters finally cave in to the supremacy of Sweden. LMAO :rofl:

 

[Feanor]

So is this the start of new Gripen flame wars, or will the Gripen haters finally cave in to the supremacy of Sweden. LMAO :rofl:

Comments such as this are hardly appropriate. Please keep them to yourself. Finally supremacy is relative, and depends not only on the platform (which is clearly inferior to the F-22), but also on the support assets available. With the conitnuing cuts to the Swedish military...... I don't know that it even matters.

 

[B3LA]

Money Makes The World Go Around!

Yes, this year it will not be the technological developments and achievements in Military Aviation that will be of most importance, but what spending cuts that will be executed by the politicians in their respective governments.
Will they listen to the professionals who knows the priorities or to the Secretary of the Treasury, The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Ministry of Finance ?
Most interesting, globally, will be what mix and numbers Mr Obama finally decides between the F-22 and the F-35.

 

[wimpymouse]

Comments such as this are hardly appropriate. Please keep them to yourself. Finally supremacy is relative, and depends not only on the platform (which is clearly inferior to the F-22), but also on the support assets available. With the conitnuing cuts to the Swedish military...... I don't know that it even matters.

The whole sentence was for sh*ts and giggles (including the [white] supremacy bit), with nods to the small part of anti semitic, sorry, I mean anti Swedish crowd hanging here.
I thought that was obviously clear with the "LMAO :rofl:" remarks ending it...

On a military equipment level, this proof of flight perfomance might end the long going debate in this forum on if the Gripen NG will be super cruising fast enough to get away from the drag around Mach 1. Then again, was it eqipped to a normal mission standard with an extra drop tank and a few missiles while doing so? Ohh, here we go again....

 

[rjmaz1]

On a military equipment level, this proof of flight perfomance might end the long going debate in this forum on if the Gripen NG will be super cruising fast enough to get away from the drag around Mach 1.

Actually that is not proof at all. Many aircraft such as the F-16, F-15 and dozens of other aircraft built in the 20th century have demonstrated the same ability. However once weapons are carried these aircraft can no longer supercruise or sit smack bang in the high drag region of Mach 1.

Then again, was it eqipped to a normal mission standard with an extra drop tank and a few missiles while doing so? Ohh, here we go again....

Exactly.. you just realised the mistake you made by posting the original thread.

So in combat configuration the Gripen is no faster than its competition being the Eurofighter, Rafale and F-35. Then when you take into account its smaller payload and lack of range the Gripen will struggle to sell.

The smaller the aicraft the bigger speed hit the aicraft receives with a set payload. This is however a different ball game with the F-35 as its internal weapons provide very little speed reduction. Put two 2,000lb bombs and a pair of amraams on the Gripen and see how fast it can go. Then put a pair of fuel tanks on the Gripen so it can hit the same distance targets as the F-35... The gripen will be travelling nice and slow

Does this make me anti-semantic or a F-35 fanboy because i post correct information?

 

[karan583]

However once weapons are carried these aircraft can no longer supercruise or sit smack bang in the high drag region of Mach 1.

So in combat configuration the Gripen is no faster than its competition being the Eurofighter, Rafale and F-35. Then when you take into account its smaller payload and lack of range the Gripen will struggle to sell.

I think I read somewhere during the Norway campain that the Gripen NG will be able to supercruise in a A2A confirguration (a couple of IRIS-T and Meteor's). I can find the source for that now, but I'll have another look later.

What I did find was this from gripen.com
"Air-to-air superiority is guaranteed with METEOR, AMRAAM, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, 12 missile capability, supercruise..."

Supercruise isn't mush of an advantage in A2A superiority without any A2A missiles so I guess it will have that capability. Yes, this is of course sales talk and we'll have to wait a while for the truth. But given that the Gripen Demo could do it (a JAS39 two-seater with a F414) the odds are good for at least the single-seater 39NG.

In a A2G config, you'll allways have the ability to supercruice on your way home, ones the bombs are dropped, making life harder for the interceptors.

Then put a pair of fuel tanks on the Gripen so it can hit the same distance targets as the F-35... The gripen will be travelling nice and slow

The external tanks are the ones emptied first and are dropped before the ingress. That's the advantage with DT's.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What is important is NOT whether the aircraft can technically achieve a definition of "supercruise" (because MANY aircraft can) it is whether the aircraft can do so over tactically useful ranges.

The F-22 can manage about 100nm of supercruise with 290nm of subsonic cruise on a typical mission.

The Gripen isn't likely to exceed this...

It also requires the use of reheat to pass through the transonic flight regime, which is going to further reduce range.

Pardon me, if I don't get too excited about the "capability"...

 

[Haavarla]

What is important is NOT whether the aircraft can technically achieve a definition of "supercruise" (because MANY aircraft can) it is whether the aircraft can do so over tactically useful ranges.

The F-22 can manage about 100nm of supercruise with 290nm of subsonic cruise on a typical mission.

The Gripen isn't likely to exceed this...

It also requires the use of reheat to pass through the transonic flight regime, which is going to further reduce range.

Pardon me, if I don't get too excited about the "capability"...

I would have to agree here, all this supercruise capabilities are pretty much overrated AFAIC. The mission range will suffer greatly in a supercuise transit. It will seldom be used, same goes with full A/B and top speed capabilities..

If a fighter is well inside a SAM system or a enemy fighter missile range, you cannot escape with supercruise or full A/B topp speed.. u cant beat mack 4-6 anyway. Countermeasures and jamming capabilities are of more intrest here.

 

[caprise]

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.

What is important is NOT whether the aircraft can technically achieve a definition of "supercruise" (because MANY aircraft can) it is whether the aircraft can do so over tactically useful ranges.

The F-22 can manage about 100nm of supercruise with 290nm of subsonic cruise on a typical mission.

The Gripen isn't likely to exceed this...

It also requires the use of reheat to pass through the transonic flight regime, which is going to further reduce range.

Pardon me, if I don't get too excited about the "capability"...

(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

 

[Todjaeger]

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

You are quite correct in that "vs. threads" are unpopular here. This is the case due to the frequent preference people have for "their" aircraft, ignoring that most people who have knowledge of the actual platform performance tend not to say things, etc etc.

In terms of the Gripen Demo achieving 'supercruise' it IMV is nothing to get particularly excited about. As mentioned in various other threads over the years, many other aircraft have been able to reach that milestone, starting (IIRC) in ~1948 with an English Electric design.

As AD indicated, what would be an important milestone for the Gripen NG, is whether or not it is able to supercruise for a tactically useful distance...

There are several variables which need to be known in order to determine if that is the case for the Gripen NG. As mentioned above the loadout needs to be known, not just in terms of total aircraft weight, but also in terms of external weapons and stores carried. Also the various fuel consumption rates would need to be determined, so that an idea of how much fuel the Gripen NG would have available to use to supercruise at various points, and just how long it would be able to do so.

Lastly, and something I feel people overlook too often. It was the Gripen Demo which demonstrated the capability, not the Gripen NG. As I understand it, the Gripen Demo is a modified Gripen-D being used as a testbed for the avionics and engine planned for the Gripen NG. It was also my understanding that the Gripen NG is expected to be a slightly larger and heavier aircraft, with increased internal space and weight allocated to allow a higher fuel fraction amongst other things. As such, the real aerodynamic performance of the Gripen NG could very well be different. To my understanding, this situation is somewhat opposite from a normal fighter development programme, where there is a prototype (actually several usually) which undergo various flight testing regimes. These prototypes are usually heavier than the finalized production aircraft, in part due to test equipment, changes in materials and layout due to experience gained during prototyping, etc.

In short, to get a real idea of the flight potential of the Gripen NG, one needs to wait until that aircraft actually begins flight testing.

-Cheers

 

[caprise]

Agree about the part about variables.

My guess is that Gripens fuel fraction (which is relativly large for such a small aircraft) could be enough for "supercruising" over longer distances. AFAIK something the Electric could not. In that context one could also question if F-22 fuel fraction is enough, something that also have been done. The fuel fraction numbers i've seen (If right) is not so impressive...

If you look at the Gripen NG distances on internal fuel only - 2500km, (albeit not the same) I find it strange that one is not impressed but of coarse different strokes for different folks.
------------------------------
The airframe you see in Gripen Demo is the same as Gripen NG/IN/BR will/would have, atleast I haven't seen any data that differs. The notion that it would have a bigger airframe is a missunderstanding from some editorials (Flight Global) I think.
The claim that the weight only will rise some 600 lbs is SAAB's own estimation. I think they have reasonably control over weight issues, for example there are some studies started to construct the air channels in composite material, instead of aluminium, as a single load bearing part, to reduce weight

Personally I think we will have to wait for a single seater next generation Gripen to get a real idea.

Regards

 

[Grand Danois]

Re drag from missiles on wingtip rails. They do not need to increase drag. F-16 with AMRAAM on the wingtips make less flutter than with Sidewinder or no missiles at all.

This could possibly also be the case with the Gripen.

I don't think anyone has ever made the assertion here on DT that the GNG could not supercruise - quite to the contrary.

 

[swerve]

Lastly, and something I feel people overlook too often. It was the Gripen Demo which demonstrated the capability, not the Gripen NG. As I understand it, the Gripen Demo is a modified Gripen-D being used as a testbed for the avionics and engine planned for the Gripen NG. It was also my understanding that the Gripen NG is expected to be a slightly larger and heavier aircraft, with increased internal space and weight allocated to allow a higher fuel fraction amongst other things.
-Cheers

From the SAAB press releases I've read, the Gripen Demo is a testbed for all the Gripen NG features. The airframe has been rebuilt into the Gripen NG configuration, which does have a little more internal space (used for fuel), achieved by relocating the undercarriage (same gear, just moved) outwards into enlarged wing roots. It also has inlet & engine bay modifications for the new engine.

It does not yet have all the Gripen NG avionics. Many have yet to be developed.

SAAB are marketing the Gripen NG as a new-build, or as a rebuild of older Gripens. It is also marketing partial upgrades to customer requirements, e.g. you could have the avionics (or just some of them) without the airframe changes. Gripen Demo is meant to showcase what's possible, as well as being a development tool.

 

[Grand Danois]

SAAB are marketing the Gripen NG as a new-build, or as a rebuild of older Gripens. It is also marketing partial upgrades to customer requirements, e.g. you could have the avionics (or just some of them) without the airframe changes. Gripen Demo is meant to showcase what's possible, as well as being a development tool.

It may seem like a lot of options to the customer, but it also gives uncertainty to as to what is actually on offer and to what other customers decide to go with.

Remember that the Dutch defmin said that SAAB didn't even had decided on what engine was on the Gripen NG for the Netherlands... perhaps not a gaffe.

 

[swerve]

It may seem like a lot of options to the customer, but it also gives uncertainty to as to what is actually on offer and to what other customers decide to go with.

Remember that the Dutch defmin said that SAAB didn't even had decided on what engine was on the Gripen NG for the Netherlands... perhaps not a gaffe.

Maybe not. Could depend on the Dutch timescale. But the Dutch decided long ago, in any case. Any pretence at a competition is farcical. They actually started spending money on preparations for taking the F-35 into service a few years ago. I don't know why SAAB ever bothered with them.

 

[Grand Danois]

Maybe not. Could depend on the Dutch timescale. But the Dutch decided long ago, in any case. Any pretence at a competition is farcical. They actually started spending money on preparations for taking the F-35 into service a few years ago. I don't know why SAAB ever bothered with them.

Nothing here to disagree with.

 

[karan583]

Remember that the Dutch defmin said that SAAB didn't even had decided on what engine was on the Gripen NG for the Netherlands... perhaps not a gaffe.

Jack de Vieres has been showing his ignorance on several occasions, this being one of them. Like you said, they've been aiming for the F-35 for a long time so I guess they don't even bother looking up the facts regarding Gripen NG.

For the rest of the reasoning, I agree with you and Swerve.

To the whole usefulness of supercruising I'd just like to add this. Even if it consumes alot of fuel, it consumes a whole lot less than on reheat. It also generates less IR-signature. On intercept missions where both time and distant are essential, this feature can be useful.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Like you said, they've been aiming for the F-35 for a long time so I guess they don't even bother looking up the facts regarding Gripen NG.

decisions made by ministers of the govt are not done in isolation of Service and SME advice.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

We also know that it used afterburner to get through the transonic flight regime.

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

Who was comparing anything? I mentioned what range the F-22 has been noted as possessing.

The Gripen is a smaller lighter fighter, but one with much less fuel too.

AS to the cold day idea, how cold do most people reckon 20,000+ feet is?

Here's a hint. It's colder than most ground level days at ANY time of the year...

If you're going to snipe, pick your targets a bit better and read what is written before you try...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Agree about the part about variables.

My guess is that Gripens fuel fraction (which is relativly large for such a small aircraft) could be enough for "supercruising" over longer distances. AFAIK something the Electric could not. In that context one could also question if F-22 fuel fraction is enough, something that also have been done. The fuel fraction numbers i've seen (If right) is not so impressive...

If you look at the Gripen NG distances on internal fuel only - 2500km, (albeit not the same) I find it strange that one is not impressed but of coarse different strokes for different folks.

Ferry flights hardly count and won't be conducted whilst supercruising anyway...