The SAAF Forum

nanotech i agree with you. the j17 is more slick. but i m not concerned abt slick. its a fact the gripen goes down 1st asap

_________________
I have always believed if done right , armed robbery doesn't have to be a totally unpleasant experience- Brad Pitt as J.D in Thelma and Louise

Sure. Back it up Skyhawk.

I've done calculations on the two official empty weights avaliable on the Gripen. The true weight of the Gripen is of course a secret, but the same goes for the JF-17.

Here's a comparison just for fun. If you see something that is off, please let me know.

Gripen
Wingloading: empty 188.7kg/m²-225.2kg/m²

JF-17
Wingloading: empty 262.7kgm²

Gripen
Wingloading: max weight 463.6kg/m²

JF-17
Wingloading: max weight 520.5kg/m²

Gripen
Wing Aspect Ratio: 2.34/2.76 Not sure how it works here for an unstable delta/canard fighter. As the canard adds to the total lift they are added in the total wing area(the left figure). But how does it work when turning? The canard surely isn't the main lifting force here. The main wing will do that job. So I calculated the aspect ration minus the canards as well(right number).

JF-17
Wing Aspect Ratio: 3.10

Gripen
Thrust to Weight Ratio: Empty 1.4/1.2, fueled up 1.0/0.88, MTOW 0.59

JF-17
Thrust to Weight Ratio: Empty 1.34, fueled up 0.98, MTOW 0.68

Drag is of course important, but numbers on that is not avaliable to us.

I've heard from several sources that the Gripen has very low drag. And I would guess that the Gripen has lower drag in comparison to the JF-17.
The Gripen has fully movable canards which can be trimmed to give as low drag as possible. The slim tailless aft fuselage gives minimal drag also. The JF-17 has two huge fixed LERX's, and two large elevators causing great drag. The JF-17 fuselage is also alot less slimmed in comparison to the Gripen fuselage. The lack of wing twist on the JF-17 should give it a poor and un-even stall behavior. Is the wing of the JF-17 just a slightly modified MiG-21 wing I wonder?
The JF-17 appears to be stable, whereas the Gripen is unstable. The JF-17 needs to kill lift in order turn, the Gripen has positive lift on all surface during maneuvers.

So, I believe that when it comes to dogfighting, the Gripen would walk all over the JF-17. No match here IMO. The Gripen has shown superiority in maneuverability and agility over the F-16, F-18, and the F-15 in several excercises.

Skyhawk, fill in for the JF-17, here. I'm gonna blab about the Gripen for a while.

A hot engine change can be made in 45 minutes by a team of three.

10 maintenance hours per flight hour, includes all depot level maintenance.

Twice as reliable as its competitors.

Twice as easy to repair.

Enough ground equipment to support four Gripens can be carried by a single C-130 Hercules.

The Gripen can be refuled and rearmed in less than 10 minutes.

An airborn time of 60 seconds is possible when on high alert with the APU running, all systems fully avaliable 10 seconds after take off. The F-16 needs 3-4 minutes, and its INS and radar will not be fully avaliable.

Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours.

The Gripen costs less than 2000$ per flight hour.

Airframe life is 8000 hours.

On a CAP 385km from base, a Gripen can stay on station for two hours carrying 2X AMRAAM, 2X AIM-9 and 2X droptanks.

When carrying 3X 1000lbs GBU-16 on a LO-LO-LO strike profile, the Gripen has a mission radius of 648km. With 2X GBU-16's and extra fuel tanks radius increases to 833km.

Ferry range is 3500km according to Col Jan Jonsson of the Swedish Air Warfare Center.

The Gripen can accelerate from M 0,5 to M 1,1 in 30 seconds.

The Gripen can sustain M 1,1 using dry thrust, while carrying a droptank and AAM's.

The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide roadstrips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters.



What have you got for me, Skyhawk?

We all know what Shyhawk is gonna make of this! He surely won't like what you said Roban. He'll soon counter with something like:

Gripen is the ugliest fighter in the World! Viva JF-17, the Gripen eater!

Watch this space.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

actually its not that ugly but that doesnt make it a better fighter. robban i hope you are aware
that we are talking of the saaf gripen which is different from the standard gripen offered by saab. do you know the gripens destined for SA have no air refuelling capability netheir can they carry nuclear weapons?

in short

they are heavily mutilated.

_________________
I have always believed if done right , armed robbery doesn't have to be a totally unpleasant experience- Brad Pitt as J.D in Thelma and Louise

Do you have a reliable source for that statement, to my knowledge it can supersruise at Mach 1.08 without an external load.


The SAAF Gripens do have an air-to-air refueling capability, although we do not yet have a refueling aircraft since our B-707 were retired, hopefully that gape will be filled by the A400, do you know what the differences are between the SWAF Gripens and the SAAF Gripens?

Please explain why we or any other country would need nuclear weapons?

1) We don't have nuclear weapons and have no plan to ever have any again, so what would the use be of a platform that can deliver them?
2) Our gripens do have in flight refuelling capability - in fact, we were the first customer to insist on this capability and we were even involved in the flight tests when this new capability was added to Gripen.

Where do you find these gems?

The fact is: SAAB had to improve the Gripen for SAAF's list of needs. They had to up their standard a bit according to our demands/wants. Gripen didn't have dumb bomb capability - SAAF said WE WANT IT, so SAAB had to do it.

<Edited by mod>

By the way, if you search hard enough, you can find some pictures of a SAAF Gripen A2A refuelling in Sweden before it was delivered...

Here's a pic composed by Signatory.

2. says that it can sustain M1.2 loaded with two wingtip Sidewinders.

4. is in Norweigan and says that all pilots that fly the Gripen for the first time accidently breaks the sound barrier. There's no mention if this done with reheat or without, so I guess that quote isn't too reliable.

The cool air in Sweden probably gives the added punch to supercruise. I've heard that even the Finnish Hornets have been reported to fly supersonic without burners. Granted they have 10% more thrust than their USN cousins. But still.

Thanks for the source Robban, I see you enjoy the Gripen news thread at military photos, its possible that the lower density altitude could give that extra kick, but then again if the Gripen can fly at Mach 1.2 with only two sidewinders, I'm assuming that it is the maximum load that it can carry to reach that speed with the augmentor off, thus the Gripen can only supercruise with two sidewinders and to be precise it can transonic cruise (Transcruise) at Mach 1.0 < X (Velocity) < Mach 1.2 with a belly tank, four AMRAAM's and two sidewinders.

You're welcome Wolfman. Yes, the Gripen news thread is great. No arguments, just news and facts.

Mach 1 loaded with 2X Sidewinders, 4X AMRAAM's and one belly tank is probably a realistic number. I'd like to see the Gripen C/D fitted with the F-414, currently flying in the Gripen NG. 22000lbs of thrust!

GE has offered a few F-18 E/F Super Hornet customers a thrust growth potential of 20% (26,400 lbf) on the current F414 and it is called the F414-EDE (Enhanced Durability Engine) and future enhancements can see a maximum thrust growth of 30% (28,600 lbf).

The newer engine and engine enhancements will require a larger inlet for the Gripen but in the F-18 Super Hornet's case no modifications is required since its inlet can accommodate the increased airflow required.

In the Development Phase 2 in 1991 the RM-12 was expected to be given a thrust increase of 20,025 lbf, a 10% increase over the original engine without any increase in engine size.

I hope one day to see or fly a Gripen with a F414 rated at 26,400lbf or even 28,600lbf

28,600lbs! That's almost 13 tons of thrust! Talk about a good TWR!

What effect will this engine have on range?
If the effect on range is unacceptable, larger fuel tanks are needed. And the result is: Gripen NG?

So, I guess that the current Gripen A - D airframe does not have what it takes to accomodate a more thirsty engine.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

The engine is very advanced and very fuel efficient for an engine in the 117.35 kN class, although it won't be a good choice to implement it in a Gripen C/D without the landing gear relocation for the extra fuel. I have seen a few concepts of the Gripen with CFT's which is also an option, it looks very similar to the F-16 E/F.

Source: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost ... tcount=565

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!