Gripen NG supercruzin for a bruzin

[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...

Ok, found a official source for the original Gripen.
Not the NG AD

------Quote--------------

"“There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “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..

------------End Quote----------

Look at page two.. http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf

So maybe Gripen NG with the stronger Engine do have a higher supercruising speed than I thought?

And we 'kicked ass' against Norwegian and Finnish American aircrafts F-16 and F-18! as early as 2003 (informal sources) and had a tighter turning radius.

Hope this is sufficient for you?

 

[longbow]

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.

Norway and Sweden are cooperating on some minor ventures, like the CV90 and the Archer artillery system, but the RNoAF are quite happy using US-gear. They will probably continue practicing DACT though. The Swedes regularly attend Norwegian and NATO exercises, like Cold Response 09. IMHO both sides gains from this. The Swedes has even stated that they would like to meet up with the Norwegian F-16's on a weekly basis. If this continues now that the Norwegians won't be buying the Gripen remains to be seen though!:unknown

 

[longbow]

And we 'kicked ass' against Norwegian and Finnish American aircrafts F-16 and F-18! as early as 2003 (informal sources) and had a tighter turning radius.

Hope this is sufficient for you?

This is really off topic, but imho this thread is turning into yet another sweden/gripen strong-thread. You should read up about energy management, relating to F-16 tactics. Yes, the Gripen might have a tighter instant turning radius, but ... Some might say the Gripen is more agile, some might say the F-16 is more agile. If you google F-16 vs Gripen you should get some interesting threads, this forum is not the one for x vs y comparisons.

Even the swedish pilots hints at two evenly balanced aircrafts:
"But who's the winner when Norwegian F -16 and Swedish Jas Gripen do battle during the exercise Cold Response?

Col.lt. Carl Johan Edstroem(SwAF, 212. division in Luleaa) answers: F -16 has good weapon systems, while Jas Gripen is more maneuverable. It is the tactic that decides the outcome."

http://www.mil.no/ovelser/cr09/start/article.jhtml?articleID=175483

 

[yoron]

You're right in sounding like me blowing it up. But it was a question about if Gripen could 'supercruise' that I feel have been answered, and the 'dogfighting' described I do believe to be correct too, even if it's unofficial. Of course I like Gripen Why shouldn't I? It's a lovely aircraft. Still, as you say, it depend on the pilots and what role they and their aircraft is expected to play.

----
But don't set your hopes to high
Col.lt. Carl Johan Edstroem is in all probability a very polite and diplomatic officer.
You wouldn't by any chance be Norwegian?

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

Its early days yet, but there is now open discussion about a combined military force based on core competencies.

It only involves Sweden, Norway and Finland. Denmark is not interested.

Even so, this is years away and is only conceptual at present. I still can't see RNAF stepping away from JSF though - privately the RNAF are very determined to get that capability and they do appear to have the ears of teh Govt.

 

[yoron]

This is really off topic, but imho this thread is turning into yet another sweden/gripen strong-thread.

You know, Mr Longbow. The reason why I even bothered to join this forum was my impression of just the opposite taking place here, A lot of uninformed opinions about Gripen combined with BS about Sweden. I've got two sources now, both claiming that it actually is capable of doing Mach 2 supercruising. Both are unofficial though.

And if one are waiting on Saab or the Swedish military to confirm it I guess we will have to wait quite some time. We have a 'delicate' position here in Sweden and don't really want to share what capabilities we might have with to many neighbors. The linking and radar capabilities we have is still a step ahead of most, if not all Nations. It have been created with our specific needs in mind and now also offered on very good terms to Norway. It is naturally Norway's choice choice to find them acceptable or not.

But, when I find, as I found some few doing here, people spreading (excuse the choice of words here) 'dung' just to make Gripen sound bad I did react. It's 'easy game' as the specifications might be hold closer to the breast by us than by others not having the same geographic location. Anyway, be that as it may.

Gripen is just as good as you fear Longbow cheaper too and with a proved reliability. Take a look here for the "released unclassified executive summaries of firm proposals to Norway and the Netherlands" and do read the comments too
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:c37bf741-e055-48ca-8c82-e7234d227276

 

[yoron]

Its early days yet, but there is now open discussion about a combined military force based on core competencies.

It only involves Sweden, Norway and Finland. Denmark is not interested.

Even so, this is years away and is only conceptual at present. I still can't see RNAF stepping away from JSF though - privately the RNAF are very determined to get that capability and they do appear to have the ears of teh Govt.

Neither can I GF, and Norway can definitely afford the F35 JSF too I presume As for how what 'core competence' may be redistributed will probably be a long discussion if so. For myself I would feel rather uncomfortable if we laid down, for example, our Sub construction, giving it away to another nation. We are quite competent in what we create for our own needs, We have created some of the best 'diesell/Stirling' Subs in the world, as well as tanks and military aircrafts. And we do some nice work on other armaments too I think. What exactly would we get instead?

 

[SlyDog]

yoron: Your right . We have quite good skill here in Sweden when it comes to defence equipment. But I think gf0012-aust (I think) expressed "the problem" quite well in some post here on the forum. The development cost seems to rise in a "terrifying way". That means that might be difficult for Sweden to manage to keep up....small series resulting in high unit cost. Which lead to we will get "to little bang for the money".

 

[yoron]

yoron: Your right . We have quite good skill here in Sweden when it comes to defence equipment. But I think gf0012-aust (I think) expressed "the problem" quite well in some post here on the forum. The development cost seems to rise in a "terrifying way". That means that might be difficult for Sweden to manage to keep up....small series resulting in high unit cost. Which lead to we will get "to little bang for the money".

Yeo Slydog, although I presume our next generation of aircrafts to be unmanned. If the trend of miniaturizing continues they should be able to mass produce those quite cheaply, in some circumstances perhaps consisting of both aircraft and missiles combined. There is a 'nano revolution' going on everywhere now. And our electronics/radar knowledge should fit that as a hand in a glove.

Gripen should be good for the next ten years at least. Then we will see, it's very possible that we won't do this alone of course. Still, we already have Gripen, and if we could stop being so 'secret' about its performance we would probably sell more, just on the 'goodwill' produced by customers knowing what they get, although I admit that we have good reasons for not doing so

 

[yoron]

'Develop costs' is in some ways very alike the cost you have for health care. You buy this expensive magnetic X-ray machine to the hospital for like fifty millions. Then when counting on the number of patients it cures it will seem very expensive, but, it saves life's. When a government want to draw down on spending they often look at their public hospital budgets. They say that a hospital doesn't 'produce', and therefore only can be seen as a 'cost'. But in fact, you easily can find a lot of very important 'service sectors' in any Country (except in the most corrupted perhaps?) that according to this way of thinking doesn't 'produce'.

Defense Industry is one such, To build up the expertize will cost you a lot of money, to give the knowhow and industry away complaining that it 'cost' is to me like saying. - Let's get rid of all those hospitals, they only cost money. A Defense Industry isn't something you buy on IKEA, in a 'perfect' society defense shouldn't be needed, but hey I'm not perfect, neither are anyone else, according to me. To let our 'know how' slip away will make us lose more than just money, we will lose hard earned knowledge. Sweden is more and more relying on 'cutting edge' technology, from steel making to whatever sector you might think of. And research and defense development will and must cost, just as hospitals, if we're lucky we won't need neither, but don't count on it

 

[Feanor]

Neither can I GF, and Norway can definitely afford the F35 JSF too I presume As for how what 'core competence' may be redistributed will probably be a long discussion if so. For myself I would feel rather uncomfortable if we laid down, for example, our Sub construction, giving it away to another nation. We are quite competent in what we create for our own needs, We have created some of the best 'diesell/Stirling' Subs in the world, as well as tanks and military aircrafts. And we do some nice work on other armaments too I think. What exactly would we get instead?

What I think he meant was that it's very expensive to maintain all the capabilities necessary, so there may be somewhat of a split between Finland, Sweden, and Norway, where incase of war they would cooperate closely either way and such not every single one of them needs for example heavy lift assets. This is in terms of actual forces employed, not in terms of defense budgets, or the MIC.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok, found a official source for the original Gripen.
Not the NG AD

------Quote--------------

"“There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “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..

------------End Quote----------

No air to ground weapons in that load and only one centreline fuel tank and limited wing mounted stores. (AMRAAMs are only 335lbs each and sidewinders 180lbs each).

Hardly "fulll air 2 air / air 2 ground configuration".

Look at page two.. http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf

Search google news for "sonic booms" in Sweden and see how many hits there are?

There are plenty of hits in other countries...

Gripens inadvertently creating sonic-booms all over the Swedish countryside would seem to be rather newsworthy to me...

Bit of a dubious claim there, I think...

So maybe Gripen NG with the stronger Engine do have a higher supercruising speed than I thought?

Heavier engine, heavier airframe and more fuel, will somewhat offset the gains in thrust that the F414 provides over the F404. The aerodynamics aren't being improved significantly either, so I would suggest that any improvement in "supercruising speed" won't be significant.

Hope this is sufficient for you?

I'm afraid not, my friend. If more thrust were all it took to perform "supercruising", then perhaps it might be significant, but unfortunately, it isn't.

The P&W F100-220 and GE F110, that power modern F-16's provide significantly greater thrust than either the Gripen's RM-12 (GE F404 variant) or GE F414 (replacement engine chosen for Gripen NG) and yet we don't hear much about "supercruising" F-16s, though clean, they are capable of it, as are most modern fighters.

An ability to be a supercruising engine is not really dependant on the thrust of a jet engine, provided it has a sufficient amount of course, but moreso the exhaust velocity and the engine bypass ratio.

On top of which, anecdotal reports around the place, claim that Gripen is only able to "supercruise" provided it uses it's afterburner to pass through the transonic region, achieve supersonic speed and then switch the afterburner off and maintain it's supersonic speed, on dry thrust only at that point.

If that is the case, then the operational utility OF it's "supercruise" capability HAS to be called into question, because the principal philosophy behind obtaining a supercruise capability is to gain an ability to fly supersonically WITHOUT using the afterburner.

If your sources are as knowledgeable as you claim, they should be able to point these issues out and address them adequately.

They should also be queried on how the new engine for NG, turns the F414, an engine decidedly optimised for subsonic cruise, into an engine suitably designed for supercruising and should be able to give some examples of how this could be achieved.

These are significant issues, that need to be identified before any credibility can be given to "supercruising" claims.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You know, Mr Longbow. The reason why I even bothered to join this forum was my impression of just the opposite taking place here, A lot of uninformed opinions about Gripen combined with BS about Sweden. I've got two sources now, both claiming that it actually is capable of doing Mach 2 supercruising. Both are unofficial though.

There is no WAY, a Gripen could "supercruise" at Mach 2. Period. Even the F-22 doesn't make such a claim.

But, when I find, as I found some few doing here, people spreading (excuse the choice of words here) 'dung' just to make Gripen sound bad I did react. It's 'easy game' as the specifications might be hold closer to the breast by us than by others not having the same geographic location. Anyway, be that as it may.

The capabilities being called into question, by me in particular, are capabilities that can be known publicly, or estimated fairly closely.

As to marketing brochures, I for one don't consider them the slightest bit interesting, because they ARE marketing...

 

[yoron]

What I think he meant was that it's very expensive to maintain all the capabilities necessary, so there may be somewhat of a split between Finland, Sweden, and Norway, where in case of war they would cooperate closely either way and such not every single one of them needs for example heavy lift assets. This is in terms of actual forces employed, not in terms of defense budgets, or the MIC.

Ok, this will be a long and boring post, about how I see it Feanor.

I agree, nowadays it's a national decision to build a new aircraft f ex., no private company can or will take the risk of developing a new military aircraft on their own. Sweden Norway and Denmark is three different Countries. We share a lot historically and the last two hundred years or so Denmark and Sweden has been at peace with each other Well, except for them jokes. Norway and Sweden are brothers, with all what that may contain of brotherly 'splits' , still, the Norwegians want and need their independence. I doubt that Norway would find it sufficient to just reap what economical benefits there might be from just buying up Kockums. So what should Sweden do, give our knowhow and technology away 'for free' so that Norway can 'take over'?

We could sell an awful lot more armaments than we do if we were prepared as a country to loosen up on our regulations, that should tell you that we don't have those industries purely from an economical point of view. Ask Australia what it cost them to develop their own submarine industry, and why they still went ahead to do it. Finland, our Nordic 'blood brothers' if I may say so, as close to us Swedes as any other brother we have, still have a defense industry of their own. I believe in countries independence and in their different 'personalities', even brothers walks different ways, and to me that's a good thing.

The important thing to understand here, from my point of view, is that it takes blood sweat and tears to build a high-tech defense industry, and that no industrial Country does it just for 'economical purposes'. It comes around when a nation feel that they need it for their sovereignty, and once you've done it, as the Australians did, it's worth more than just money.

In the space industry they love to speak of 'spin offs' from creating all that marvelous technology. The most important 'spin off' to my eyes is in fact the intellectual properties reaped and the way it forces a Nation to stay ahead. In a modern society like Swedens we need that 'knowhow', to freely give it away just for 'short term' economical benefits doesn't sit right with me. Also, it will always be cheaper to 'buy' from ourselves as well as having shorter lines of delivery from a long term perspective. We are not the 'Nordic united states', we are independent countries, trusting each other but, nota bene, independent.

There is already a 'organic' cooperation between Norway Sweden, Denmark, Island and Finland and there will be more as our Earth grows smaller, but it should be allowed to come on its own terms without any 'supranational' decrees as the EEC ideas of 'Festung Europa'. Those ideas won't hold in a longterm perspective, the division of labor you are suggesting will probably come to be anyway, but, if so, it should come from 'inside', not 'forced' on any Country from the outside. It's like with the Baltic states, it will grow from mutual risk-taking for economic and social benefits. The way to peace is just that, economic and social ties, creating blood bands that makes it hard to see another country as just 'the enemy'.It doesn't work at all times, but it's the best we seem to be able to do. And we are doing it better as we grow wiser. 'Forcing' from above is not the way.

 

[yoron]

AD, this is what I could do to show that Grpien can and will 'supercruise.'. As for how much armaments the NG will be able to take? I would assume, what ever is needed. But that is nothing I will find out other than in-officially I believe. And the speed I don't know, those figure I got was not 'official'. And frankly, to continue proving this speed, would in my eyes make me do things I won't .

First you doubted if it could supercruise with any armaments at all. Then I found a official description from the first generations of Gripen (2001) describing supercruizing with 'an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner.' And as the NG have the same body except for the wheels being moved I expect it to have the same cappabilities, but, with a stronger engine.

You seem to lift the crossbar for ever higher here? Should it carry a tank to get your approval of what 'supercruising'? should mean, when it comes to Gripen? The question was if it could 'supercruise' with armaments as I understood it? And my final answer is. Yes, even the first generation could do that, thank you. Notice how the word 'supercruising' seems to be of a later origin(?) btw, as Colonel Eldh only uses the word 'supersonic' describing it.

----------------------------

Here is the full qoute from http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf page two.

"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “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..

In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced.

It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy.”

------

Reading this I see nothing about first turning on afterburners?

It would be very strange if a pilot first put on his afterburner, then forget that he had done so, not lowering his speed coming over populated areas.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, this is what I could do to show that Grpien can and will 'supercruise.'. As for how much armaments the NG will be able to take? I would assume, what ever is needed. But that is nothing I will find out other than in-officially I believe. And the speed I don't know, those figure I got was not 'official'. And frankly, to continue proving this speed, would in my eyes make me do things I won't .

It will make you try to do things you won't ever be able to do. The Gripen will not be able to fly at Mach 2 without using an afterburner.

Period.

Parastic drag hasn't been magically overcome by SAAB or we would ALL know about it, because they'd be singing their own praises to the heavens and rightly so. It would be an aeronautical engineering feat, un-paralled in the history of flight, let alone human flight.

As to it's ordnance, I wasn't asking what it's MTOW was, but rather questioning your earlier assertion, that the Gripen can "supercruise" with a "full A2A and A2G" load.

That the only source you can provide to verify the claim that the Gripen possesses ANY supercruise capability whatsoever, specifically omits to mention carrying large air to surface munitions, seems to be a glaring oversight and one that does not inspire confidence in the "authority" of the claim you have made...

First you doubted if it could supercruise with any armaments at all.

No I didn't. This is what I said first, about Gripen supercruising:

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

I then went on to say that until Gripen has demonstrated an ability to supercruise with a large external load, then I will be impressed.

The reason for this is simple. It's a multi-role fighter. If it can't "supercruise" when it's carrying A2A and A2G munitions, external sensor pods (ie: Litening) PLUS the fuel load it will likely carry in combat situations (2-3 external tanks) then it's ability to supercruise, is in reality, irrelevent.

On top of this, for it's "supercruise" to be tactically useful and really give the Gripen an edge over other fighters, it has to be able to "supercruise" over a considerable distance. If it can't and the Gripen has to spend the majority of it's flight time, subsonic, then it's no different to almost every other fighter.

As I've said ad nauseum, most modern fighter aircraft can supercruise, when carrying little or no extra drag, besides the airframe itself. That is what "clean" means when referring to airframe performance. It means the airframe is not encumbered by "dirty" (ie: drag incurring) stores.

An aircraft's "clean" performance is always better than it's "dirty" performance, but combat is ALWAYS conducted "dirty" (unless you happen to have internal weapons carriage capability...)

That your only sources, shy away from these issues, doesn't speakly highly of their opinions...

Then I found a official description from the first generations of Gripen (2001) describing supercruizing with 'an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner.' And as the NG have the same body except for the wheels being moved I expect it to have the same cappabilities, but, with a stronger engine.

No, the link says it can cruise supersonically. It says NOTHING about transferring through the transonic regime on dry OR wet thrust.

As to the Gripen demo, the wing root and landing gear have been modified, so that the landing gear is moved. The shape of the underside of the aircraft has been modified and different stores carriage options are presented, which means: extensive flight tests will have to be done to validate the changes.

The stronger engine, I discussed. It is the F414 compared to the Gripen's current RM12. The RM12 being an improved version of the F404, as is the F414.

I have no doubt the new version of the F414 will be improved. As to substantially improving "supercruise" capability. I significantly doubt it. It would require a new turbine and fan arrangement, featuring a lower bypass ratio and a new exhaust nozzle, that can handle the necessary higher and far hotter exhaust gases that will come out and if the Gripen truly is being modified to fly supersonically at a higher rate than now, I'd suggest the air intakes would need to be modified somewhat, to deal with all that supersonic air flowing in...

That they aren't touching the air intakes is interesting for a number of reasons...

You seem to lift the crossbar for ever higher here? Should it carry a tank to get your approval of what 'supercruising'? should mean, when it comes to Gripen?

Do you wish to actually have a discussion, or is your mind already closed on the issue?

I want to discuss why it apparently is the case, that an aircraft that uses a single fairly low powered jet engine (F404 and F414 are built to be reliable, not supremely powerful) in a mid 80's designed airframe, with no option but to carry draggy external stores, has according to it's fans, such a massive aerodynamic performance advantage, compared to it's contemporaries? Are these claims due to the brilliance of it's designers, or it's marketers?

The F-35 isn't officially capable of supercruise.

F-15, F-16, F/A-18A/B/C/D and F/A-18E/F don't claim a supercruise capability.

The Typhoon has some officially declared supercruise capability, but even Eurofighter does not claim to do so, to Mach 2, nor with enormous external ordnance loads.

Rafale hasn't ever really claimed a significant supercruise capability. It has hinted occasionally at "some" but these aren't specified to the same detail as SAAB's.

The contemporary Russian, Indian and Chinese fighters (MiG-29, J-10, LCA JF-17 etc), don't claim it either.

Was is it exactly, that SAAB is doing so brilliantly, that all these other fighter jets, are missing?

The question was if it could 'supercruise' with armaments as I understood it? And my final answer is. Yes, even the first generation could do that, thank you. Notice how the word 'supercruising' seems to be of a later origin(?) btw, as Colonel Eldh only uses the word 'supersonic' describing it.

Another interesting point.

I do with some interest, note that both SAAB and Eurofighter only started using the term, once the USAF demonstrated a capability to do so, in operational configuration, with the F-22.

Now quite suddenly, these other fighters have discovered they have the capability to do so too. It's interesting, that the Gripen, which was competing in fighter acquisition competitions at the time, mostly unsuccessfully, I might add uncharitably, waited until the F-22 went into service, before announcing such a capability...

Reading this I see nothing about first turning on afterburners?

There was no comment whatsoever about passing through the transonic region. Perhaps you could fire off such a question to Colonel Eldh?

Dear Colonel Eldh,

Is the Gripen C/D (as we are talking about 2001) capable of transiting through the transonic region, between sub-sonic and supersonic flight on dry thrust (otherwise known as mil power) only?

If so, at what altitudes is it capable of this and in what load configurations?

If he could actually answer these questions (which I doubt, the Swedish Military might be a bit upset with him) then we would have a credible response to this question. What you have provided, doesn't begin to address the question.

On top of this, I can't find anywhere in newspapers or other media, reports of Gripen's flying supersonically over residential areas, either.

Now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesn't even mean it wasn't reported (my Google fu, might be playing up) but I KNOW that supersonic aircraft flying over residential areas, causes significant damage and destruction.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. It's the result of flying supersonically over residential areas:

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/662943.html

It would be very strange if a pilot first put on his afterburner, then forget that he had done so, not lowering his speed coming over populated areas.

But that's exactly what your source said:

we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas.

And yet, no-one apparently complained and no damage was caused.

Amazing.

Or complete crap...

 

[Vivendi]

I then went on to say that until Gripen has demonstrated an ability to supercruise with a large external load, then I will be impressed.

The reason for this is simple. It's a multi-role fighter. If it can't "supercruise" when it's carrying A2A and A2G munitions, external sensor pods (ie: Litening) PLUS the fuel load it will likely carry in combat situations (2-3 external tanks) then it's ability to supercruise, is in reality, irrelevent.

Supercruise in a2a config is not relevant? Why not?

As I've said ad nauseum, most modern fighter aircraft can supercruise, when carrying little or no extra drag, besides the airframe itself. That is what "clean" means when referring to airframe performance. It means the airframe is not encumbered by "dirty" (ie: drag incurring) stores.


On top of this, I can't find anywhere in newspapers or other media, reports of Gripen's flying supersonically over residential areas, either.

Now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesn't even mean it wasn't reported (my Google fu, might be playing up) but I KNOW that supersonic aircraft flying over residential areas, causes significant damage and destruction.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. It's the result of flying supersonically over residential areas:

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/662943.html



But that's exactly what your source said:



And yet, no-one apparently complained and no damage was caused.

Amazing.

Or complete crap...

I have yet to see a report of an F-16 supercruise with 4 a2a missiles and one external tank; I have only seen descriptions of completely clean F-16s supercruise. AD, could you provide some links to F-16 supercruise w. a2a ordnance and one drop tank? Thanks!

As for not causing damage: Sweden is mainly empty land. Not much to damage there...

Also the qoutation said that the throttle settings were adjusted in the early development of Gripen to avoid the problem of going supersonic inadvertadly. That could be another reason why few sonic booms have been reported from Sweden.


V

 

[yoron]

It's interesting reading you AD. What it seems to come down to is that we both have to wait until Saab find it time to tell us whether you are right or not. I'm not going to dig that much more I prefer a quiet life of solitude. Not well dressed gentlemen that knock on my door wanting to discuss what possible 'sources' I might be able to find :)

My own decidedly impression is that Gripen can 'supercruise' with armaments. As for the speed I agree to that is sounds a little to much to my ears too. If it can 'supercruise' with all kinds of armaments I will leave unsaid for now . As you write there are a lot more to 'supercruising' than what meets the eye. So until Saab or the Royal Swedish Airforce find it for good to enlighten us I will just wait

But I learnt a lot discussing with you, and hopefully I will learn some more. So what would you define as the aircraft openly proved to be able to 'supercruise' with all kinds of armaments/load it possibly can bear AD?

--

The F22 Raptor maybe.
And the flanker?
SU 37??


Just want to add that so far I've understood this capability was somewhat of a surprise for both Saab and the RS Airforce. As you say "both SAAB and Eurofighter only started using the term, once the USAF demonstrated a capability to do so, in operational configuration, with the F-22." they didn't "plan" with that possibility in mind it seems to me. But Gripen's lines was 'good enough', so to my eyes they seemed to get it '4-free'. But we know that it will be important enough for the NG. As for Gripen's operational reach you may find this link interesting reading AD. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:c37bf741-e055-48ca-8c82-e7234d227276
The comments further down seems good too. Naturally it's all 'secret information' so this is 'guesswork' but it seems like good guesswork to me.

 

[Todjaeger]

Supercruise in a2a config is not relevant? Why not?

Not meaning to put words into AD's mouth but what he posted was the following...

I then went on to say that until Gripen has demonstrated an ability to supercruise with a large external load, then I will be impressed.

The reason for this is simple. It's a multi-role fighter. If it can't "supercruise" when it's carrying A2A and A2G munitions, external sensor pods (ie: Litening) PLUS the fuel load it will likely carry in combat situations (2-3 external tanks) then it's ability to supercruise, is in reality, irrelevent.

He did not specifically mention here that a requirement of useful supercruising was that it be done while carrying A2G munitions. What he did mention was that a large external load had to be able to be carried while supercruising for the capability to be useful, and therefore worth claiming as a feature of the Gripen.

In truth though, a useful supercruise capability is not dependent on carrying a useful load of external store, the aircraft just needs to be able to carry stores, either internally or externally...

I have yet to see a report of an F-16 supercruise with 4 a2a missiles and one external tank; I have only seen descriptions of completely clean F-16s supercruise. AD, could you provide some links to F-16 supercruise w. a2a ordnance and one drop tank? Thanks!

As for not causing damage: Sweden is mainly empty land. Not much to damage there...

Also the qoutation said that the throttle settings were adjusted in the early development of Gripen to avoid the problem of going supersonic inadvertadly. That could be another reason why few sonic booms have been reported from Sweden.


V

Regarding the mention of the F-16 carrying stores and supercruising, I do not recall any claims of that either... OTOH, people are not generally claiming a supercruise capability for the F-16 either. Which was mentioned was that from an aerodynamic perspective, a number of aircraft are capable of supersonic flight without the use of afterburners when in a 'clean' configuration.

As has been mentioned repeatedly though, this is not a new capability, IIRC the English Electric Lightning was the first to do so, back in the 1950's. What is different now, some fifty years later, is that an aircraft has been developed which can, amongst other capabilities, supercruise (i.e. travel at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners) for a tactically useful distance, while carrying a useful munitions load.

Two problems I have with some of the recent posts regarding a Gripen "supercruise" capability is that the sources quoted have stated "cruising at supersonic speeds..." which can mean supercruising, but it can also mean something else as well. The other problem I have is that while the aircraft is mentioned to have cruised while traveling supersonically, no mention has been made of the range this can be done at, or what effect doing so have on the overall mission range the aircraft would have.

Looking at the F-22, which was designed to be able to supercruise while carrying a warload... Supercruising still has a negative impact on the overall mission range without the use of drop tanks and/or AAR. IIRC the amount of fuel the F-22 burns while supercruising ~100 miles is sufficient to allow the aircraft something like an extra 200-300 miles if the aircraft was flying at a normal, subsonic cruising speed.

For a number of reason I have my doubts that the Gripen, which was not designed with such a capability in mind, would be able to cover a significant distance in supersonic flight (either supercruising or with afterburners) while also carrying a useful load of A2A or A2G munitions and/or systems. Incidentally, while the capability itself is useful IMO, I do not think it is something which would determine whether or not a design overall is useful. As has been mentioned, the F-35 does not have that as a feature and it is an even later design than the F-22 and has benefitted from some of the developments from the F-22. Something to think about.

-Cheers

 

[caprise]

The other problem I have is that while the aircraft is mentioned to have cruised while traveling supersonically, no mention has been made of the range this can be done at, or what effect doing so have on the overall mission range the aircraft would have.

What differs is IMHO Gripen NGs relatively large fuel fraction compared with those aircraft you mentioned, around 38%(32%) with one drop tank. Numbers I've seen to make "super cruising" feasible is about 35%.

This is, I think, the reason SAAB didn't publicly "Talked about" super cruise in the C/D model despite pilots comments about above mach 1 speeds with ~4+2 AA load.

I can't prove it of course but if you deduct the info available I don't find it THAT hard to believe, obviously not with heavy AG loads though. Each of us is of course free too think otherwise for whatever reason.

Also AD: About The air intakes, they were modified. Not so hard to do thanks to the design philosophy of Gripen. The intake module was simply replaced with a bigger one. Something that was planned from the beginning.

Regards C.

Edit: Spelling