Gripen NG supercruzin for a bruzin

[Aussie Digger]

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.

WRONG.

What the F-35 has is 2x internal hardpoints each rated at 2500lbs and 2x internal "rails" that allow the carriage of an AIM-120C/D AMRAAM on each rail.

The loadout that can be carried internally on F-35 in it's Block 3 guise (ie: the first aircraft of an "operational standard") might include 2 bombs.

It might include an extra 2x AMRAAM, with more flexible options available down the track, (including greater AMRAAM carrying capability, L-M has already confirmed that Block4/5 F-35 aircraft from 2015 will be able to carry 6x AMRAAM internally).

It might include 8x small diameter bombs (SDB I/II), it might include 2x AIM-154C Joint Standoff Weapons or it might include 2x NSM (Naval Strike Missile) being designed by Konsberg.

The "standard" load for the F-35 that is being used for testing is 2x 2000lbs bombs, 2x AIM-120 and a full internal fuel load. This is the load used to establish basic performance parameters during it's system design and development (SDD) phase.

As to it's stealth when carrying external store, go and read the F-35 thread, if you want, I can't be bothered re-writing everything that's in there.

Arguing it can only carry "2x bombs and 2x robots", whatever that means exactly, shows a fair lack of understanding...

However, we are straying a LONG way from "Supercruising Gripens", perhaps we can go back to that?

 

[yoron]

WRONG.

What the F-35 has is 2x internal hardpoints each rated at 2500lbs and 2x internal "rails" that allow the carriage of an AIM-120C/D AMRAAM on each rail.

The loadout that can be carried internally on F-35 in it's Block 3 guise (ie: the first aircraft of an "operational standard") might include 2 bombs.

It might include an extra 2x AMRAAM, with more flexible options available down the track, (including greater AMRAAM carrying capability, L-M has already confirmed that Block4/5 F-35 aircraft from 2015 will be able to carry 6x AMRAAM internally).

It might include 8x small diameter bombs (SDB I/II), it might include 2x AIM-154C Joint Standoff Weapons or it might include 2x NSM (Naval Strike Missile) being designed by Konsberg.

The "standard" load for the F-35 that is being used for testing is 2x 2000lbs bombs, 2x AIM-120 and a full internal fuel load. This is the load used to establish basic performance parameters during it's system design and development (SDD) phase.

As to it's stealth when carrying external store, go and read the F-35 thread, if you want, I can't be bothered re-writing everything that's in there.

Arguing it can only carry "2x bombs and 2x robots", whatever that means exactly, shows a fair lack of understanding...

However, we are straying a LONG way from "Supercruising Gripens", perhaps we can go back to that?

So I stand corrected
I still say that there was a mistake from the Norwegians not choosing Gripen. But you're probably right in that the armament doesn't do that much to the stealth cappabilities, Gripen shows a very small radar signature as I understands it with external load, and so I might presume the F-35 to behave too. So how is its 'stealth capabilities' as seen from behind Aussie Digger?

 

[Aussie Digger]

So I stand corrected
I still say that there was a mistake from the Norwegians not choosing Gripen. But you're probably right in that the armament doesn't do that much to the stealth cappabilities, Gripen shows a very small radar signature as I understands it with external load, and so I might presume the F-35 to behave too. So how is its 'stealth capabilities' as seen from behind Aussie Digger?

Obviously not as good as from the front end, but then we have only seen small snippets of the "production" rear end of the F-35.

What has been seen on BF-1/2 has shown a significant degree of edge serration, on aircraft that are closer to actual production aircraft than AA-1 which most "analysts" have based their so-called analysis on.

At the end of the day, stealth aircraft have "spikes", which are basically angles from which their LO is not optimal and likely to result in increased radar returns. These are well known by the users and flight profiles are flown accordingly and tactics devised to counter such a weakness.

The issue for the F-35 at the moment, isn't it's radar signature, but rather thermal management issues. Not so much in IR signature management, though I imagine it's affected, but rather in it's ability to operate in hot temperatures and given even the USAF has requested design changes to the platform to address these issues, RAAF would be well advised to consider them, given that a large proportion of the fleet will be operated in the VERY tropical Northern Territory...

If you are going to go down the "IR signature path", we will have to take it to the F-35 multi-role fighter" thread.

This one is for Gripen...

 

[yoron]

About Gripens 'super cruising'..
Looking at Swedish pages the information is not that much
It just states as far as I've seen that Gripen was traveling at Mach 1.2 at 28 000 feet without any afterburner on. In what way do you see this as not being 'super cruising' AD (Aussie Digger)?

------
As for me discussing F-35 JSF? Well, that was just in passing.
The other links I read (and reacted to too was closed.

But as the Swedish links I've seen don't and, as I see it, shouldn't disclose sensitive information we can only guess at what energy consumption that Gripen was at. The main point though is that it did not use any afterburner while cruising.

 

[Aussie Digger]

About Gripens 'super cruising'..
Looking at Swedish pages the information is not that much
It just states as far as I've seen that Gripen was traveling at Mach 1.2 at 28 000 feet without any afterburner on. In what way do you see this as not being 'super cruising' AD (Aussie Digger)?

------
As for me discussing F-35 JSF? Well, that was just in passing.
The other links I read (and reacted to too was closed.

But as the Swedish links I've seen don't and, as I see it, shouldn't disclose sensitive information we can only guess at what energy consumption that Gripen was at. The main point though is that it did not use any afterburner while cruising.

I've never said it's not "supercruising".

To me, travelling faster than Mach 1, without the use of afterburner is "supercruising". Others, L-M in particular, have a different interpretation.

What I said was, operationally speaking, a capability to do M1.2 on "supercruise" with a clean airframe, is utterly useless.

Chuck on 2x 2000lbs weapons, 2x AMRAAM, 2x IRIS-T, a targetting pod of your choice, 2-3x external fuel tanks and then demonstrate a supercruise speed of M1.2 for a considerable part of the entire flight (ie: at least 100nm worth), without A2A refuelling at any time during the entire flight and demonstrate an ability to pass through the transonic regime, carrying all this stuff, without afterburner.

If the Gripen can do all that, then I will be impressed with it's "supercruise" capability.

Until it demonstrates this or greater, it is nothing but a marketing tool.

 

[yoron]

OP (OPSSG)
You asked "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. "

I'm interested in them new 'radars' too There are a lot of 'new technology' coming it seems. I found some old 'definitions' and some new..

----Qoutes-----------------

Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA, but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200˚ coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....

It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...

Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....

Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."

----------End Quotes-------------------

And then we have SAR too which seems very cool. Take a look here http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/cpl/record/index.xsql?pubid=41284 for an interesting read.

 

[Vivendi]

Arguing it can only carry "2x bombs and 2x robots", whatever that means exactly, shows a fair lack of understanding...

Language lesson:

Missiles in Swedish are referred to as "robots": Yoron, the English word is "missile" not "robot", suggest you use the English term to avoid confusion

V

 

[yoron]

Ok AD, point taken. And, wish i knew, I would presume Gripens super cruising to be applicable with armaments too, otherwise I agree in it being useless for operational purposes. And it would be rather stupid by Saab to present it as a fact without Gripen being able to 'reproduce' the flight with weapons, don't you agree? But it's a good question.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10706.html

-----
Thanks Vivendi, will do.

 

[OPSSG]

Thanks for posting info on the Mk-5 of the PS-05/A.

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 .

Fyi, the Swedish A26 project is the successor submarine project after the canceled Viking project (Denmark and Norway withdrew). The A26 will include UUVs and AIP. We should continue any further A26 discussion in the navy section.

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.

Different countries have different planning assumptions on Awacs-support surviving.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Gripen is a great plane and have posted in support of Thailand's decision to buy Gripens and to use more Swedish technology. As I said earlier, different countries have different defence needs. While Singapore is a buyer of Swedish military technology (6x submarines, 4x MCMVs & so on), our air force a SCP in the JSF program.

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.

Off Topic: The Singapore Centre For Military Experimentation and the Swedish National Defence College have written a paper on C2 Collaboration in Command Posts.

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.

Right now, the problem is that the JSF program is being heavily criticized and often unfairly, so there has been some stronger than usual posts that speak in defence of the JSF.

 

[yoron]

You have interesting links OP
And yes, different countries have different solutions.
I like the F35 JSF too. It's a very cool aircraft, and definitely 'state of the art'.
I 'toppled' in here in answer to those, more or less implying that Gripen and Sweden being, ah, whatever as I don't see it that way. Although, it is rather expensive. (Sorry, couldn't help myself there

-----
And yes, I saw that you were talking about the 'next generation' of subs. Just didn't get my synapses working before I wrote. Can I blame that one on no coffee?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok AD, point taken. And, wish i knew, I would presume Gripens super cruising to be applicable with armaments too, otherwise I agree in it being useless for operational purposes. And it would be rather stupid by Saab to present it as a fact without Gripen being able to 'reproduce' the flight with weapons, don't you agree? But it's a good question.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10706.html

-----
Thanks Vivendi, will do.

Indeed I do. And that is very much the crux of the argument. I don't doubt the Gripen CAN "supercruise" with a clean airframe.

But then, that's no great achievement. Most modern fighters can and the first fighter to demonstrate such a capability was the English Electric Lightning, back in the 50's.


If the Gripen can supercruise, with a reasonable external load of ordnance and fuel, for a reasonable amount of time (and ergo, distance) then it's worth discussing.

So far there haven't been too many official reports outlining such a capability...

 

[yoron]

Indeed I do. And that is very much the crux of the argument. I don't doubt the Gripen CAN "supercruise" with a clean airframe.

But then, that's no great achievement. Most modern fighters can and the first fighter to demonstrate such a capability was the English Electric Lightning, back in the 50's.


If the Gripen can supercruise, with a reasonable external load of ordnance and fuel, for a reasonable amount of time (and ergo, distance) then it's worth discussing.

So far there haven't been too many official reports outlining such a capability...

AD I've checked it up and Gripen, according to my sources, have full supercruising capabilities with full air 2 air / air 2 ground configuration, with a max speed over Mach 2+ with extra fuel tank included. It seems that the papers never understood that this is what supercruising should mean in military terms And to be honest, I didn't think about it either :)

And Saab is pi**ed off Swedes don't usually 'complain' but take a look at Saabs page commenting Norways Decision to go for the F35. That's the nearest to being Pi**ed off I've ever seen Saab to be. But our defense minister Sten Tolgfors is soo very defensive (Could it be, nah, it can't can it?? Oil:) in his comments and have a 'full understanding' over Norway's decision. You can't help but love those politician's.
Here is Saab's rebuttal. http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

----
According to a press release I found, one of the reasons is that Norway are planning on hunting the enemy far in on their own territory (wonder who that might be? And then they desperately will need a lot of fuel. One can see their point here, as the mosquito said to the elephant, that's what I call real 'strategic' thinking, probably made by a politician, possibly with a tiny winy bit of a mustache flapping over that upper lip?

 

[gf0012-aust]

And Saab is pi**ed off Swedes don't usually 'complain' but take a look at Saabs page commenting Norways Decision to go for the F35. That's the nearest to being Pi**ed off I've ever seen Saab to be. But our defense minister Sten Tolgfors is very defensive (Could it be, nah, it can't can it?? Oil:) in his comments and have a 'full understanding' over Norway's decision. You can't help but love those politician's.

It might be worthwhile for SAAB to hold fire rather than vent on the Norwegians - esp in light of the potential skandinavian force developments. Not that it will mean that the RNAF will change their mind - but SAAB need to take the long view - esp as the Swedish Govt is mulling over some changes to their own force strucures in light of "Nordic Light" being in play.

 

[yoron]

It might be worthwhile for SAAB to hold fire rather than vent on the Norwegians - esp in light of the potential skandinavian force developments. Not that it will mean that the RNAF will change their mind - but SAAB need to take the long view - esp as the Swedish Govt is mulling over some changes to their own force strucures in light of "Nordic Light" being in play.

As I see it, we don't really need to take anything into consideration. It may cost us to be 'independent' but we already have the aircraft. And, it's perfectly good for defending Sweden. It may not be able to wander into , ah, 'enemy territory' to bring them the fight back, but that wasn't our intention either. But it will definitely be able to handle attacking forces inside Sweden, we do have some territory to defend, take a look on the map. If Norway somehow sees itself differently then that's up to them.

If you are talking about our government trying to shape us up into a 'policing' force ala Nato, instead of a 'folk army' well, that's plain stupid. We should be able to defend ourselves, not counting on any 'big brother' running to the rescue. There are all to many examples in the real world of what trusting your 'big brother' might bring you in the end. Better to be a 'mean mosquito' than the one waiting for the 'hand out' And those kind of 'political' blocks have a very slow response time, modern warfare is fast.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I see it, we don't really need to take anything into consideration. It may cost us to be 'independent' but we already have the aircraft. And, it's perfectly good for defending Sweden. It may not be able to wander into , ah, 'enemy territory' to bring them the fight back, but that wasn't our intention either. But it will definitely be able to handle attacking forces inside Sweden, we do have some territory to defend, take a look on the map. If Norway somehow sees itself differently then that's up to them.

If you are talking about our government trying to shape us up into a 'policing' force ala Nato, instead of a 'folk army' well, that's plain stupid. We should be able to defend ourselves, not counting on any 'big brother' running to the rescue. There are all to many examples in the real world of what trusting your 'big brother' might bring you in the end. Better to be a 'mean mosquito' than the one waiting for the 'hand out' And those kind of 'political' blocks have a very slow response time, modern warfare is fast.

there might be a loss in translation here. I'm talking about the Nordic Mini NATO proposal which is getting some attention. Swedish technology has a number of opportunities if it comes to pass. I can't see RNAF moving away from JSF and the Nordic NATO offshoot would take a few years yet.

 

[yoron]

there might be a loss in translation here. I'm talking about the Nordic Mini NATO proposal which is getting some attention. Swedish technology has a number of opportunities if it comes to pass. I can't see RNAF moving away from JSF and the Nordic NATO offshoot would take a few years yet.

Ok, I'm stymied here, would you happen to know which Countries have suggested this proposal and for what purposes. Are you talking about Nato thinking of splitting itself up in geographic 'modules' by any chance? And that we would join one of those? I know we are in 'partnership for peace' with Nato , and the 'Euroatlantic partnerships council' too (hope my translations are correct here) but this one is new to me. Now you've got me curious.

--
My English is at times atrocious.
Edit edit edit.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ok, I'm stymied here, would you happen to know which Countries have suggested this proposal and for what purposes. Are you talking about Nato thinking of splitting itself up in geographic 'modules' by any chance? And that we would join one of those? I how we are in 'partnership for peace' with Nato , and the 'Euroatlantic partnerships council' too (hope my translations are correct here) but this one is new to me. Now you've got me curious.

I deal with a number of Swedish and Norwegian military technology companies, there has been some discussion that a proposal for Sweden, Norway and Finland to merge military capabilities could eventuate. The simplistic proposal is that Sweden pick up Air Defence, Norway pick up Naval Defence and for the Finns to take on Land Warfare roles. ie each country would specialise in its core strength and act as the force provider for all 3 countries.

ie Norway would take on all maritime roles
Sweden take on all military aviation
Finland (as she has the most powerful land army and force structure) to take on land warfare roles etc....

the discussions have become more frequent recently, and basically because my Swedish colleagues have said that Sweden needs to change the way she will do business in future - its regarded currently as unsustainable. They look with a degree of nervousness at how the French have dropped the ball with Leclerc and Rafale and don't want to be in the same place in 5 years time.

Hence why there has been a very strong push to align with the US, to get US companies to invest in Swedish military tech (and in some cases buy majority holdings) etc... The Swedes are appearing in more and more meetings which previously were NATO and ABCA only - and they're in a number of future warfighting technology initiatives which prev were only US and tier 1,2 allies.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD I've checked it up and Gripen, according to my sources, have full supercruising capabilities with full air 2 air / air 2 ground configuration, with a max speed over Mach 2+ with extra fuel tank included. It seems that the papers never understood that this is what supercruising should mean in military terms And to be honest, I didn't think about it either :

Who are your sources? This capability seems to be rather a stretch to me. I also VERY much doubt the fuel tanks are rated to plus M2...

Those sort of claims aren't even made by Eurofighter...

 

[yoron]

Interesting GF (gf0012-aust) not a bad idea that one, looking at how our neighbors acted here I doubt it would work though. It's sounds somewhat like a common market approach to 'unity'. Looking good on paper but with all kinds of hidden clauses built in to why each Country should have this or that 'ability' left. I'm no fan of the EEC as you might guess And can't say that I would trust in this 'partitioning' either.

The Finnish are very good at what they do, but they are with us anyway in cause of war, just as I expect us to be with them The Norwegians want Nato instead of any 'Nordic cooperation', and when it comes to the Danish my best guess is NATO too. And from their (and mine) point of view it makes sense. Denmark have a tight geographic connection to Europe, and Norway is most probably counting on NATO wanting to defend their oil, as well as expecting Nato to see Norway as a sort of 'bridge head' for further operations if worst comes to worst.

My own point of view is that Sweden needs to be able to stand on its own two legs, although belonging to the Western community, sharing a lot of the same mindset. With that comes a price naturally, but I expect us to be able to pay it. Like they say 'comes need comes means' also we need to be at the 'edge' technologically to survive, and warfare today is 'high tech'. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to adapt our weapons to work at a 'common ground' with Nato. Just that (I guess) Eastern Europe need some 'breathing holes' left. Would you like to split your Countries forces into French aircrafts, British naval forces and an Irish army, ah, if you were English that is

 

[yoron]

Who are your sources? This capability seems to be rather a stretch to me. I also VERY much doubt the fuel tanks are rated to plus M2...

Those sort of claims aren't even made by Eurofighter...

Sorry AD, didn't mean that it would do that at Mach two, there should be a comma stuck in somewhere there And the source is 'informal'. It's just information I've gotten while discussing your question with Swedes..

--
Instead of me writing "with a max speed over Mach 2" I should have writeen "and at a max speed" awh, definitely need to polish that English, that doesn't seem to come out right either. But as to what speed that 'supercruising' might be on I believe it to be around 1.2 Mach?