Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:24 pm

If I was starting my navy from scratch, I'd be real interested in the Gripen-M. Same or better performance, better range, uses less deck space, uses fewer maintenance people, and SIGNIFICANTLY lower operating cost. Jane's claimed the land Grippen was $4,700/hour and the F-18 (land version) was $11,000/hour.

I can get more aircraft on the carrier, use fewer crew on the carrier, spend less operating money, and get a plane just as good. The pilot interface is better than the F-18E. The aviation fuel tanks on the carrier last about twice as long. The catapults work less hard. Everything is better!

I concede the Gripen is more affected by a heavy load.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 pm

Completely conceptual, basically bespoke aircraft.

Standard Euroworld parts/sustainment...see also EF2000, Tornado.

Potentially good per hour cost, but complete guess on deck performance.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8593
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:31 pm

Completely unproven shipboard design from a builder with no carrier airplane design history. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Gripen is a great fighter and deserves more sales, but why would a navy, for its one fighter on-board an immensely expensive ship, but an unproven design however good the paper numbers are? There’s not a lot of history of successful conversion of land-based designs to carrier operations. The Hawk is the only one that comes to mind and that’s a trainer that required extensive redesign work.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:04 pm

Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
If I was starting my navy from scratch, I'd be real interested in the Gripen-M. Same or better performance, better range, uses less deck space, uses fewer maintenance people, and SIGNIFICANTLY lower operating cost. Jane's claimed the land Grippen was $4,700/hour and the F-18 (land version) was $11,000/hour.

I can get more aircraft on the carrier, use fewer crew on the carrier, spend less operating money, and get a plane just as good. The pilot interface is better than the F-18E. The aviation fuel tanks on the carrier last about twice as long. The catapults work less hard. Everything is better!

I concede the Gripen is more affected by a heavy load.

I have posted previously how factually incorrect the Janes figures for cost per hour are. Saab themselves although sponsoring the Janes study didn't even provide any source info to Janes...


I'd be interested in this. Can I get a pointer or some such?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:05 pm

I notice that no one is saying the Gripen is actually worse than the F-18 or Rafale-M, except a carrying heavy loads.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:11 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Completely unproven shipboard design from a builder with no carrier airplane design history. ... There’s not a lot of history of successful conversion of land-based designs to carrier operations. The Hawk is the only one that comes to mind and that’s a trainer that required extensive redesign work.


Mirage 2000, Rafale.

Both programs started knowing (1) the land version is by far the most important and (2) the naval version must also work. So not exactly the same I concede, but sorta-similar.

Saab in my mind has a great reputation of delivering what the promise. Not perfect, but I'd pick them over several other companies (wanna mention Tejas, cannot mention Tejas, thread drift bad :-).
 
johns624
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:45 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I notice that no one is saying the Gripen is actually worse than the F-18 or Rafale-M, except a carrying heavy loads.

You make it sound like that's a minor thing...it's not. With the demise of the A6 and A7, bombing is a very important part of what they do.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:07 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
If I was starting my navy from scratch, I'd be real interested in the Gripen-M. Same or better performance, better range, uses less deck space, uses fewer maintenance people, and SIGNIFICANTLY lower operating cost. Jane's claimed the land Grippen was $4,700/hour and the F-18 (land version) was $11,000/hour.

I can get more aircraft on the carrier, use fewer crew on the carrier, spend less operating money, and get a plane just as good. The pilot interface is better than the F-18E. The aviation fuel tanks on the carrier last about twice as long. The catapults work less hard. Everything is better!

I concede the Gripen is more affected by a heavy load.

I have posted previously how factually incorrect the Janes figures for cost per hour are. Saab themselves although sponsoring the Janes study didn't even provide any source info to Janes...


I'd be interested in this. Can I get a pointer or some such?

Read the study...

One of the more amusing parts is where they claim a number for the F-16 but base that number on the single data point that is abnormal across a fleet of aircraft and used that for their calculation…

If you follow Saab CPFH claims over the years they have gone from 2k to 4k to 10k to the Swiss finding the number was closer to 27k…

kitplane01 wrote:
I notice that no one is saying the Gripen is actually worse than the F-18 or Rafale-M, except a carrying heavy loads.

As a platform I expect both the Rafale M and F-18E are better aircraft than the mythical Gripen M if the Gripen M is based on either the C or E variant. Gripen M will have a smaller radar, less range, lower payload, no indication the airframe is customised for the maritime environment etc.

kitplane01 wrote:

Mirage 2000, Rafale.

Both programs started knowing (1) the land version is by far the most important and (2) the naval version must also work. So not exactly the same I concede, but sorta-similar.
What carrier version of the Mirage 2000 and pretty sure the Rafale M was the first to IOC over the land based aircraft.

kitplane01 wrote:
Saab in my mind has a great reputation of delivering what the promise. Not perfect, but I'd pick them over several other companies (wanna mention Tejas, cannot mention Tejas, thread drift bad :-).

I disagree when it comes to aircraft. Saab builds other weapons and systems that are excellent but the Gripen is too customised to Swedish requirements to make it applicable for other nations.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:31 am

Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I notice that no one is saying the Gripen is actually worse than the F-18 or Rafale-M, except a carrying heavy loads.

As a platform I expect both the Rafale M and F-18E are better aircraft than the mythical Gripen M if the Gripen M is based on either the C or E variant. Gripen M will have a smaller radar, less range, lower payload, no indication the airframe is customised for the maritime environment etc.



Why do you think the F-18E has a better radar than the Gripen? Even assuming we're talking about the upgraded APG-79.

The APG-79 has a larger faceplate. The Selex Raven has a repositioner to more directly point the antenna at the target of interest. In fact, the Selex Raven can even scan somewhat behind the aircraft; it has a larger field of view because of the positioner.

The Gripen has a built in IRST. The F-18 has this weird permanently mounted fuel tank with IRST.

The Gripen has much better sensor fusion, to give the pilot a more clear picture of the battle space.

If you can find the range of these radars I'm interested .. but they seem to not be google-findable.

But it's not obvious the APG-79 is better than the Selex Raven as installed in the two aircraft.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:36 am

Ozair wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
Saab in my mind has a great reputation of delivering what the promise. Not perfect, but I'd pick them over several other companies (wanna mention Tejas, cannot mention Tejas, thread drift bad :-).

I disagree when it comes to aircraft. Saab builds other weapons and systems that are excellent but the Gripen is too customised to Swedish requirements to make it applicable for other nations.


The two customizations that I see are
- Short runway requirements
- Smaller aircraft

The first one is awesome for carrier ops. The second one is better on a carrier when the goal is to generate lots of air-air or air-ground sorties, but worse when you want large bomb loads. Do you see something else?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:47 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Ozair wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
Saab in my mind has a great reputation of delivering what the promise. Not perfect, but I'd pick them over several other companies (wanna mention Tejas, cannot mention Tejas, thread drift bad :-).

I disagree when it comes to aircraft. Saab builds other weapons and systems that are excellent but the Gripen is too customised to Swedish requirements to make it applicable for other nations.


The two customizations that I see are
- Short runway requirements
- Smaller aircraft

The first one is awesome for carrier ops. The second one is better on a carrier when the goal is to generate lots of air-air or air-ground sorties, but worse when you want large bomb loads. Do you see something else?

Beefed up structure and landing gear for starters. Carrier aircraft take a ton of abuse while landing and taking off. Landing on an aircraft carrier is basically akin to a controlled crash.

Also, maritimization work is also needed; changes to anti-corrosion coatings, different navigation systems, etc. Not easily or simple.

kitplane01 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
If I was starting my navy from scratch, I'd be real interested in the Gripen-M. Same or better performance, better range, uses less deck space, uses fewer maintenance people, and SIGNIFICANTLY lower operating cost. Jane's claimed the land Grippen was $4,700/hour and the F-18 (land version) was $11,000/hour.

I can get more aircraft on the carrier, use fewer crew on the carrier, spend less operating money, and get a plane just as good. The pilot interface is better than the F-18E. The aviation fuel tanks on the carrier last about twice as long. The catapults work less hard. Everything is better!

I concede the Gripen is more affected by a heavy load.

I have posted previously how factually incorrect the Janes figures for cost per hour are. Saab themselves although sponsoring the Janes study didn't even provide any source info to Janes...


I'd be interested in this. Can I get a pointer or some such?

The Canadian Parliament laughed at the sales pitch Saab made for the Gripen a while back; one Parliamentarian astutely pointed out that the $4,700 / hour rate would just barely cover the cost of fuel for a typical mission, let alone anything else.
 
johns624
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:53 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Beefed up structure and landing gear for starters. Carrier aircraft take a ton of abuse while landing and taking off. Landing on an aircraft carrier is basically akin to a controlled crash.
This adds weight, which cuts performance and weapons load.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:55 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I notice that no one is saying the Gripen is actually worse than the F-18 or Rafale-M, except a carrying heavy loads.


I'd be fascinated to see what the Gripen-M bring back is for fuel and weapons, and what the UNREP capacity of the Indian Navy is.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:03 am

acecrackshot wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I notice that no one is saying the Gripen is actually worse than the F-18 or Rafale-M, except a carrying heavy loads.


I'd be fascinated to see what the Gripen-M bring back is for fuel and weapons, and what the UNREP capacity of the Indian Navy is.

That's an important consideration; with how complicated and expensive weapons are, being able to bring back unused weapons back to the carrier for later reuse is increasingly important.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:55 am

ThePointblank wrote:
That's an important consideration; with how complicated and expensive weapons are, being able to bring back unused weapons back to the carrier for later reuse is increasingly important.


Esp. if you don't have a designated tanker airframe for the recovery.

Honestly, I'd surprised if a Gripen could carry enough buddy stores to make it worthwhile. We crushed the flight hours of Bugs when press them into tanking, but it can do the job.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8593
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:06 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Ozair wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:
Saab in my mind has a great reputation of delivering what the promise. Not perfect, but I'd pick them over several other companies (wanna mention Tejas, cannot mention Tejas, thread drift bad :-).

I disagree when it comes to aircraft. Saab builds other weapons and systems that are excellent but the Gripen is too customised to Swedish requirements to make it applicable for other nations.


The two customizations that I see are
- Short runway requirements
- Smaller aircraft

The first one is awesome for carrier ops. The second one is better on a carrier when the goal is to generate lots of air-air or air-ground sorties, but worse when you want large bomb loads. Do you see something else?


Catapults and A-gear pretty obviate they need for great short field performance. After all, they brought the Vigi on board ship.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:54 am

acecrackshot wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
That's an important consideration; with how complicated and expensive weapons are, being able to bring back unused weapons back to the carrier for later reuse is increasingly important.


Esp. if you don't have a designated tanker airframe for the recovery.

Honestly, I'd surprised if a Gripen could carry enough buddy stores to make it worthwhile. We crushed the flight hours of Bugs when press them into tanking, but it can do the job.


If the Gripen can deliver half the gallons, but only needs to feed one engine ... that kinda works out.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:10 am

Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Why do you think the Gripen has less range than the F-18E?
Wikipedia says a ferry range 2,500 for the Gripen, 1,800 for the F-18E. Obviously ferry range is not the operational benchmark, but "combat range" is so dependent on mission profile as to be incomparable.

Ferry range is utterly useless as a comparison…


Ferry range does provide some data. But we only know two comparable numbers. Max fuel load and ferry range. The Gripen does a little better on max fuel load, and much better on ferry range.

I wish we had "range using a reasonable and equal combat profile" but no one is offering that. Do you have anything like that?

My best guess (and that's all either of us can do) is that the Gripen has a greater range than the F-18E, but the advantage goes down as weapon load goes up.

Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Why do you think the F-18E has a better radar than the Gripen? Even assuming we're talking about the upgraded APG-79.

The APG-79 has a larger faceplate. The Selex Raven has a repositioner to more directly point the antenna at the target of interest. In fact, the Selex Raven can even scan somewhat behind the aircraft; it has a larger field of view because of the positioner.

The aperture is larger on the SH which makes a significant impact on radar performance despite both being AESA. The repositioner is IMO a gimmick, I don’t think it provides enough benefit and also introduces what AESAs were able to do away with, mechanical complexity.


The new Captor-E for the Eurofighter has one. So some people like it.

Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
The Gripen has a built in IRST. The F-18 has this weird permanently mounted fuel tank with IRST.

The Gripen has much better sensor fusion, to give the pilot a more clear picture of the battle space.

If you can find the range of these radars I'm interested .. but they seem to not be google-findable.

But it's not obvious the APG-79 is better than the Selex Raven as installed in the two aircraft.

The IRST is a small advantage not a great one and the SH always flies with tanks anyway. The sensor fusion on the Gripen is no better and the SH has IMO a better datalink in the TTNT.


Are you talking about the F-18E Block 3? Because the F-18E normally has it's data spread among three screens, unlike the F-35 or the Gripen which has one large screen.

Ozair wrote:
The question still remains that you haven't answered, who would actually acquire the aircraft?


See post 7. "No one".
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:13 pm

kitplane01 wrote:

If the Gripen can deliver half the gallons, but only needs to feed one engine ... that kinda works out.


Its not just a feed, but also a delivery and loiter thing, and usually that benefits the larger aircraft (pretty intuitively...why widebodies make better tanks than 737/A320.)

For recovery tanker operations, you might not even pass any gas...you launch the recovery tanker to allow extra passes. So, if you need two tankers to support a strike vs. one, then that's a sortie that isn't dropping bombs or doing CAP or strike escort.

Here's a good video on it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoPBLLd ... =emb_title
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:57 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

If the Gripen can deliver half the gallons, but only needs to feed one engine ... that kinda works out.


Its not just a feed, but also a delivery and loiter thing, and usually that benefits the larger aircraft (pretty intuitively...why widebodies make better tanks than 737/A320.)

For recovery tanker operations, you might not even pass any gas...you launch the recovery tanker to allow extra passes. So, if you need two tankers to support a strike vs. one, then that's a sortie that isn't dropping bombs or doing CAP or strike escort.

Here's a good video on it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoPBLLd ... =emb_title


I understood loitering matters. I don't know that the Gripen loiters less time than the F-18E.

Also, range isn't everything. The ability to operate more planes on the deck, with lower RCS and better missiles, matters too.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8593
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:06 pm

Any idea of a Gripen-M’s max trap weight, maximum unexpended stores weights for trapping? Large fuel fraction is great, but if you launch and need to trap with all that fuel, it can be problem, same or ordnance, throwing away a multi-million dollar store because you need to land gets expensive.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:17 pm

Please provide links to your sources when stating facts, this applies to any kind of image or charts posted, unless it is clearly marked as your own one, as well. Thanks.

Feel free to re-post accordingly.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:39 pm

A major factor in considering the Gripen is its penalty in having to trade ordnance payload for fuel. Below is something I wrote on the Finnish F-18 replacement thread I think last year.

The Gripen E cannot take off with a full load of fuel and a full weapons payload. It trades weapons payload for fuel or vice versa. If you review the following payload chart you can see that the three external fuel tanks take pylons that could hold A2G ordnance and therefore a Gripen E will never fly with all potential fuel and all potential weapons payload.
Image
Graphic, weights for ordnance etc from here, https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... e-details/

You see some interesting issues with configuring the aircraft. If using 6 RBS 15 ASCMs then the Gripen E can only take off with internal fuel, not only because it cannot use a pylon to take the external fuel tanks but the payload of those ASCMs is 4800kg (6 x 800kg RBs 15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS-15 , combined with the empty weight of 8000kg, an internal fuel load of 3400kg and a targeting pod (200Kg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litening then it cannot haul both wingtip AAMs or an ECM pod. That doesn’t include the pylon weight for the ASCMs which is not insignificant. If the aircraft tries to trade an ASCM for an external tank it also runs into payload issues because the full external fuel tank weighs upwards of 1350kg, almost twice the weight of the RBs 15.

What you end up having to do is trade four ASCMs to get a load out of 2 x IRIS-T (90kg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T , 2 x RB 15 (800kg), 2 x Meteor (200kg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) , 2 x external fuel tank (1350kg), TGT pod (200kg) (all up payload 4840 plus pylon weight plus pilot weight plus chaff/flares weight. The jet cannot carry the third external fuel tank for MTOW reasons but I guess could use that free pylon to lift an ECM pod (350kg for the new arexis pod). That is a reasonable load out but the drag on that load will be significant and likely impede the range of the aircraft. Swapping the ASCMs for standard A2G munitions, the aircraft cannot carry two LACMs, KEPD 350 (1500kg each), as well as the 450 gal external fuel tanks, so immediately has to sacrifice that range to carry a standard cruise missile payload. Not unusual as the Eurofighter also currently suffers from this issue. Even when you trade a heavier ASCM for a lighter A2G bomb, the jet can only carry two 2,000 lb weapons, or use those two pylons for smaller weapons on multi-ejection racks.

(FYI assumption made on fuel tank weight based on fuel weight, Arexis pod came from here, https://www.edrmagazine.eu/outsmarting- ... ew-systems and Gripen weights taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_ ... #JAS_39E/F which references Saab website)

Really only in an A2A configuration is the Gripen E going to fly with three external tanks as the AAM missile payload is light enough to allow carriage of that third tank. Again that is similar for the Eurofighter and Rafale although Rafale has a higher payload and benefits from more wet stations. SH also has more wet stations and you generally see SH and Rafale fly with three external fuel tanks on operations over Iraq/Syria. The issue is the Gripen is more impacted by the drag of three tanks gvien its worse thrust to weight compared to the Rafale M and SH.

Hence the flow on effect is that in representative configurations, not airshow fluff…, the Gripen isn’t going to be able to compete with the Rafale M and SH on payload range because it has to trade that payload for fuel to reach comparable ranges. As you load the Gripen up the jet is more impacted from drag than the larger jets which translates to higher thrust required from a jet that is already low on thrust.

kitplane01 wrote:
The Gripen
- costs less to operate
- can fit more on the boat
- has a lower RCS
- Shoots a much better missile (go Meteor)

(I think the Gripen has a longer range than the F-18E. But range isn't everything.)

Poor comparisons,

- Costs less to operate is up for debate. Without a valid verifiable source the Saab claims are just that, claims. The Janes study makes it clear it isn’t an accurate number and a whole of life cost is the most important factor, not a cost per flight hour. Even if it did cost less to operate, you likely need more to drop the same amount of ordnance on a target compared to the Rafale and SH.

- Can fit more on the boat isn’t an issue for almost all naval aviation operators as they generally do not fit more on their carriers than their carriers are capable of carrying.

- Has a lower RCS is probably wrong given both Rafale and SH advertise significant RCS reduction while Gripen E does not https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... er-hornet/ and https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... f42s-66727 . All three have external weapons and fuel in most configs so very much a moot point anyway.

- Shoots a better missile... really? The Rafale has the Meteor as well and the F-35 will have it in 2023. The SH will get the AIM-260 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-260_JATM with IOC planned for 2022.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:50 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Are you talking about the F-18E Block 3? Because the F-18E normally has it's data spread among three screens, unlike the F-35 or the Gripen which has one large screen.

Which Gripen has one screen, the same one, E, that isn’t in operational service yet like the Blk 3 SH?
 
johns624
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:49 pm

To reply to the OP's original question---if it was as good or better in appreciable ways than the other three, someone would have chosen to use it.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:12 pm

johns624 wrote:
To reply to the OP's original question---if it was as good or better in appreciable ways than the other three, someone would have chosen to use it.


The F-18 costs less to buy. It's got a greater infrastructure behind it and is therefore less risky. It will be supported for spare parts and such forever.

Remember when people said about choosing computers "You never get fired for buying IBM". Well buying whatever the Americans are using is safe, and often has good economics.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:35 pm

Ferry range links:

The US Navy says "Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained."
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... e-fighter/

Saab says "4000km+" (conditions unknown).
http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com/p/how-the.html

Weird that the Navy quotes a ferry range that's not quite what one would expect. I would expect 5 tanks, no missiles.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:40 pm

Ozair wrote:
I have posted previously how factually incorrect the Janes figures for cost per hour are. Saab themselves although sponsoring the Janes study didn't even provide any source info to Janes


I did read it. I read 100 times how they say they're not sure, but this is they're best guess (and I understand who paid them). Searching didn't help me find your previous posts.

If the Gripen has the same costs as the F-18E to operate, and costs more to buy .. that would be a big deal in my mind.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:56 am

johns624 wrote:
To reply to the OP's original question---if it was as good or better in appreciable ways than the other three, someone would have chosen to use it.


Thats the thread ender for me.

It's fun to debate aircraft x vs z. But whenever the discussion turns to hypothetical aircraft A vs real aircraft B, there's no real discussion to be had.

Arguing theoretical ranges, payloads, and weights on an aircraft that doesn't exist is senseless. You may as well say it could have a useful payload of 4mil kg, and a range of 10,000km. No one can prove you wrong or right.

And that's not even touching the developmental issues and questions than can arise.

You want the simplest answer possible? The F18 and Rafale are by far superior. Reason? They exist. Navies bought them, and actually operate them.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:55 am

Things I learned on this thread

Ferry range is sometimes stated in weird configurations
Gripen has a lower thrust/weight ratio than other fighters
No one is stressed about top speed on a modern fighter
But thrust/weight ratio remains important
Meteor missile is better than AMRAAM (but new American missile coming)
Naval-izing adds about sorta 5% of empty weight
Most fighters can carry their entire empty weight in fuel!

Thanks to all the people who posted.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2112
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:56 am

Curious ... How do people feel about the Rafale-M vs F-18E.

(Not starting the whole thing over .. just curious.)
 
LMP737
Posts: 6280
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:25 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Beefed up structure and landing gear for starters. Carrier aircraft take a ton of abuse while landing and taking off. Landing on an aircraft carrier is basically akin to a controlled crash.

Also, maritimization work is also needed; changes to anti-corrosion coatings, different navigation systems, etc. Not easily or simple.
.


There are also aerodynamic considerations to take into account. What would be it's high AOA, low speed handling characteristics behind the boat? Along with the structural changes, the Goshawk needed numerous aerodynamic changes before it could be safely flown aboard. The rudders on the F-18 program inboard to help with low speed handling. Something that is not an option on the Gripen.

Another question that has to be asked, would the Gripen have an unobstructed view over the nose when landing on the boat? A very important consideration to take into account.
 
brindabella
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:14 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
If I was starting my navy from scratch, I'd be real interested in the Gripen-M. Same or better performance, better range, uses less deck space, uses fewer maintenance people, and SIGNIFICANTLY lower operating cost. Jane's claimed the land Grippen was $4,700/hour and the F-18 (land version) was $11,000/hour.

I can get more aircraft on the carrier, use fewer crew on the carrier, spend less operating money, and get a plane just as good. The pilot interface is better than the F-18E. The aviation fuel tanks on the carrier last about twice as long. The catapults work less hard. Everything is better!

I concede the Gripen is more affected by a heavy load.


Just finished going through the thread which seems pretty-well all wrapped-up.

Thanks to all - extremely interesting.

However my interest was piqued in that I had watched a Doco on the advance of the US forces in WW2 from the SE Pacific (Guadalcanal) to eventual victory with the surrender of Japan.
By the time of the gigantic sea-battle of Leyte Gulf, the (many) major USN carriers were supplemented by an even larger number of "Auxiliary carriers". (15 or so IIRC).

These were very small at 8,000-9,000 tons, obviously cheap, easy and quick to build, and each carried 20-30 fighters only.
Seemed very smart.
(The flight-deck requirements were obviously far less demanding than any modern jet fighter, as of course being piston-engined and non swept-wing types, these WW2 fighters were much smaller, lighter and slower).


Following along, it seems the USN has played with the idea from time to time but comes up with 50,000 tons++.

Not really the same idea, IMO.
:shakehead:

While the Gripen surely couldn't operate from a 9,000 ton carrier, I do wonder if it could signpost the way to a class of smaller, simpler carrier-borne fighters, for CAP-only.
These should also be significantly lighter and designed as capable of operating from much smaller and cheaper boats than the awesome 100,000+ ton, multi-billion dollar Supercarriers.


(These boats might also host the MQ-25 fleet, further simplifying deck ops on the major units).

cheers
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:34 pm

If you want both an angled flight deck and adequate under deck hangar storage for a useful number of aircraft of a modern, first class size, you can't reasonably go much below 40,000 tons anymore. Anything below that takes major hits to operational tempo and efficiency.

If you want smaller carriers, you almost have to have VSTOL type fighters. They can be supplemented by small UAVs that can use a small catapult on the bow and can use a simple barrier system, or are small VTOLs themselves. The other issue with smaller carriers is a lack of an AWACS plane like the E2. For surface fleets, evading detection is imperative, and running their radars is a million watt beacon in the night. Having a persistent presence in the sky that can listen for adversaries and light them up when needed is very important. It is possible that we will eventually see a UAV do decent work there, but the antennas required for active scanning are quite large. Solutions like the UK crows nest are of limited capability due to altitude and time on station.

I don't have a clue about what's going to emerge there, but it seems to me that the USS America is most of the way to where the US needs to be with light carriers. If we could come up with an interim AWACS solution based on the CV-22 osprey, that would get us most of the way to where we need to be for active scanning. A UAV should be able to handle passive scanning to a large extent, and with an electro-optocal turret, handle IFF duties reasonably well also.
 
brindabella
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:17 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
If you want both an angled flight deck and adequate under deck hangar storage for a useful number of aircraft of a modern, first class size, you can't reasonably go much below 40,000 tons anymore. Anything below that takes major hits to operational tempo and efficiency.

If you want smaller carriers, you almost have to have VSTOL type fighters. They can be supplemented by small UAVs that can use a small catapult on the bow and can use a simple barrier system, or are small VTOLs themselves. The other issue with smaller carriers is a lack of an AWACS plane like the E2. For surface fleets, evading detection is imperative, and running their radars is a million watt beacon in the night. Having a persistent presence in the sky that can listen for adversaries and light them up when needed is very important. It is possible that we will eventually see a UAV do decent work there, but the antennas required for active scanning are quite large. Solutions like the UK crows nest are of limited capability due to altitude and time on station.

I don't have a clue about what's going to emerge there, but it seems to me that the USS America is most of the way to where the US needs to be with light carriers. If we could come up with an interim AWACS solution based on the CV-22 osprey, that would get us most of the way to where we need to be for active scanning. A UAV should be able to handle passive scanning to a large extent, and with an electro-optical turret, handle IFF duties reasonably well also.


Many thanks - much that is totally new to me and extremely interesting.
In my comments I am not suggesting that you are a proponent of the USS America class - not at all.
For the sake of discussion, I offer the following to bring it forward to my suggestion that the JAS39 might represent an example of a new "Fleet CAP fighter" class.
(This is also to claim "relevancy" - and to keep the Mods' CAP terriers off my six! :angel: :D ).

Wiki has the USS America go-ahead as 2006. So design frozen well before that.

My comparison with the USN "Auxiliary Carriers" vintage 1944 is purely that - a small, cheap, low-risk addition to the Carrier fleet specifically designed around support for the CVNs, and simplification of their tasks. USS America per Wiki is a much more complicated beast.
(Also, to be honest, I have this dread that the magnificent CVNs are really something like the last of the "ships of the line" of the sailing ship fleets (from the "wooden world").
A phalanx of smaller, nimbler, individually far far less precious carriers would IMO greatly magnify the difficulties facing an adversary, and similarly magnify the
survival prospects of the CVNs - amongst other benefits).

So I am thinking that USS America at 40,000 tons should be able to field many more than 20 F35Bs if specifically designed as a "support carrier".
(And, as we have both mentioned, assisting/managing the ever-burgeoning task/enhancement represented by the UAVs :cool2: :D ).

And an angled flight deck - why not?
Separates T/O and Landing streams.
Much greater throughput.

Would also greatly mitigate the heating problems from the F35Bs - with zero vertical T/Os, the vertical landing would be at much lower weights, one would expect.
If indeed, actually required.
Not to mention the great benefit of the F35Bs etc lifting much greater weights at T/O.
Not to mention Gripen (or similar) operating from the ski-jump and (shortened) landing flight-deck.

USS America presumably envisaged the boat sitting - say - 20 NM offshore - so the F35B T/O performance was irrelevant.

So my theorem is: "not just F35Bs, but also/instead lighter, smaller cheaper Gripens (or similar)".

cheers


PS - your tutorial about AWACS etc was also much appreciated - however my question is directed specifically to a smaller carrier type attached to the CVNs
and not needing the AWACS etc on an individual basis.

PPS - would greatly enjoy your outlining the strategy necessary to survive in the environment where "whoever turns on the lights - LOSES".

:D
 
brindabella
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Gripen-M better than Rafale-M, F-18E????

Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:27 pm

OOOPS!!!

Asserted an "ANGLED Flight deck".

Major bloop.

Meant a "ski-jump" flight-deck. :ashamed:

sorry.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos