Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Saab Gripen : News And Discussions

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Gessler likes this.
  2. Gessler

    Gessler Mod MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,446
    Likes Received:
    8,583
    Country Flag:
    India
    What's with the dark patch below cockpit area?
     
  3. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    It's a false canopy to confuse the enemy - he thinks that Gripen will pitch into one direction, but it goes to another.
     
    Gessler likes this.
  4. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    Nope. "Transient performance" rings any bells?

    Peacetime loss rate:
    F-104: 26,7 losses per 100.000 hours (1 loss per 3.745 hours)
    F-106: 12,2 losses per 100.000 hours (1 loss per 8.197 hours)
    F-4: 20,7 losses per 100.000 hours (1 loss per 4.831 hours)

    As you can see, proper aerodynamic design is far more important than number of engines.

    Neither are modern missiles.

    Wrong and wrong.
    1) Drag and thrust are relevant for sustained turn rate, not for instantaneous turn rate. Only characteristic relevant for instantaneous turn rate is lift-to-weight ratio. Thrust-to-drag is relevant for acceleration intended to restore energy after a turn.
    2) TVC does not provide instantaneous turn rate, you are confusing pitch rate with turn rate. To turn, you need lift. Only LERX, close-coupled canards and other high-lift devices can provide improvement in lift for the same wing area.

    I already know why they were dropped.

    And long arm canards were considered by people far cleverer than they could ever hope to be and dropped. Aerodynamic issues Typhoon has as a consequence of long arm configuration (transonic pitch up, sluggish roll onset etc) do not speak well of Typhoon designers' cleverness either.

    And also prevent proper positioning of canards.

    As usual, you are only half-correct at best, spewing complete bullshit at worst. Close coupled canards reduce supersonic drag by reducing aerodynamic centre shift, keeping aircraft unstable up to higher mach numbers and thus reducing trim drag and improving maneuvering performance. Increased static stability is more than compensated for by reduced dynamic stability.

    You are having it the opposite way.

    And another works at full efficiency, unlike Typhoon where both air intakes are affected.

    As for your videos, you clearly don't know how to draw conclusions from raw data, so I won't bother.

    It does, but these effects break down before even reaching the wing.

    And close coupled canard helps with that due to reduced drag for same turn rate.

    When flown by competent pilots they managed to match the F-4.

    Does "roll performance" mean anything to you? Of course, you may not even know what roll onset is, considering how you consider proven close-coupled canard's effect on roll onset to be irrelevant. Fact is that unlike long arm canard, close coupled canard improves transient performance by improving wing response to control surface inputs.
     
  5. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    So you again prove that you don't know much about canard aerodynamics. Typhoon has unloaded canard (as in, no canard lift in level flight) precisely to reduce drag for its inlet configuration.

    CCC will provide aircraft with greater dynamic instability, thus improving instantaneous turn rate and transient performance, including roll onset. They also reduce drag for a given turn rate.

    http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/27612/90Dec_Kersh.pdf?sequence=1

    "A small improvement in lift-to-drag ratio was noted at all tested angles above 10 degrees angle of attack."
    "It was found that a properly-located canard enhanced the lift at all tested angles of attack, compared to the baseline wing/body configuration results."

    http://www.engbrasil.eng.br/index_arquivos/art111.pdf

    "For example the X-31 aircraft has a "no-load" long-coupled canard which deflects between +20 and -70 deg for high angle of attack pitch recovery control (ref. 1)."
    "Close-coupled canards, by definition, have a more significant, effect on the canard-wing aerodynamic interaction and, consequently, the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft."
    "Gripen, utilizes movable close-coupled canards to obtain maximum lift in maneuvering, maximum lift-to-drag ratio in cruise, and even nose-down pitching moment during short-field landing roll-out."
    "The increase in maximum CL was due to constructive interference between the vortex systems of the wing and canard. "
    "The Viggen aircraft uses a close-coupled canard that was able to generate a 65 percent greater maximum C. at approach than a pure delta wing. "
    "Stoll and Koenig demonstrated that the maximum lift of a close-coupled canard model was 34 percent greater than a non-canard version of the same model. Furthermore, the increase in lift could not be solely attributed to an increase in wing reference area."
    "Improved lift was dependent upon proper longitudinal positioning of the canard."
    "Lacey found that the increase in the maximum CL was mainly a function of the ratio of the canard area to the wing area (SfS,) and the canard placement in both the longitudinal and vertical directions. "
    "These increases in the lift are thought to be due to the vortex of the canard constructively interfering with the main-wing vortex, thereby delaying the onset of flow separation. Note that these enhancements already take into account the lift due to increased reference area."
    "Using a close-coupled canard improved the CL/CD ratio at all angles of attack except at 10 degrees."

    MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben
    "The aerodynamic advantages derived from the close coupled canard configuration, foremost its good vortex flow stability up to high angles of attack (AOA), that can be translated into a very high instantaneous turn rate,"

    "As remarked previously, the only externally visible “fix” to the airframe are a pair of small strakes behind the canard surfaces."
    "In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha. When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded."

    Did you ever think about why Typhoon is the only air superiority fighter to use long arm canard? Of course you didn't, thinking would be too hard to you, especially if it means that your beloved Typhoon may not be the best. Gripen required one aerodynamic fix, Rafale required none, how many did Typhoon require? Oh wait... Automatic Low Speed Recovery, LERx...

    Last link also clearly shows that Gripen's issues were due to PHYSICAL limitation of control surfaces deflections, something that all fighter aircraft are vulnerable to:
    "Among the changes was one pertaining to canard deflection angles at high AOA in combat mode, to increase margins for the trailing edges surfaces to run into a geometrical limitation, and thus possible longitudinal stability loss and eventual departure."
    "But now it was realized that in some conditions, a physical, geometrical limitation to the elevons might be encountered, which momentarily caused loss of stability."

    Still less than most.

    Talking, yes. All Eurofighter consortium does is talk... their deliveries are typically underwhelming (still better than Lockheed's, though).
     
  6. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,946
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Yep, and due to having less drag and more thrust, the Typhoon can use it and recover more often.

    Why not include the twin-engined F-5 and some other single-engined fighters of that era.

    Only if you're really selective with statistics.

    I've already shown that not to be the case. Only a fool would continue arguing the point.

    There’s No Escaping MBDA’s Meteor Missile | Aviation International News

    Why is Gripen even getting Meteor then if it's so poor? Why not just use its passive abilities and IRIS-T. BVR missiles are a waste of time right?

    ITR can last a long time or a short time. And you forget that the thrust vector has a component in the lift direction, just as lift has a component in the drag direction due to AoA. Instability margin is also relevant. TVC actually does have the same effect, it points the aircraft in the right direction like ITR but at the expense of lots of energy.

    They made for a worse air superiority fighter that's why. If they didn't then they'd be on Typhoon, simple as that.

    You mean the ones it used to have prior to resolution and some rubbish you made up.

    Nope, they could still have put the canards in CCC configuration if they'd wanted but they didn't.

    Extra area = extra drag and higher RCS at any speed.

    Nope, you could still use CCC with chin inlets... if you really wanted.

    Affected by what, the Typhoon's beak isn't in the way in side-slip.?

    Simple, you need good parachutes with single-engined fighters.

    Nonsense. The winglet behind the canards direct it over the wing:

    [​IMG]

    Larger canard at higher angle to stabilise aircraft due to CCC position:

    [​IMG]

    Except they don't. Your document only compares it to a regular wing.

    Love your assumptions. Anyone who ever flies against NATO pilots is incompetent and had faulty equipment in your book. Definitely not the case with the Soviet-backed NVA.

    So does having chin inlets, a smaller fin and more centralised mass for a lower moment of inertia.
     
  7. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,946
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    The canard improves wing lift and also allows for more instability to reduce trim drag. By being smaller and allowing for extra instability it reduces drag across the board.

    Only with increased drag. Having chin inlets, a smaller fin and more centralised mass for a lower moment of inertia has the same affect without increasing drag.

    Not telling us anything new.
    [/quote]
    This is just regurgitation. The study compares it against a standard canardless wing only wrt drag. The extra lift issue of CCC is counter-balanced by the reduced instability and increased drag.

    It isn't the only LCC, the J-20 is too, both are dedicated air superiority fighters. The only reason for CCC might be on an extremely fast interceptor with small wings, where low speed lift needs a boost. The Rafale and Gripen are omnirolers. LERX is for further improved performance. Do Rafale have any sales yet?

    Seems to just have an affinity for the ground. Relatively unsafe compared to a Typhoon - the safest fighter currently in service, record speaks for itself. 0.8 losses per 100,000 flying hours. 0.8 Class A incidents per 100,000 flying hours. Only fighter averaging <1 loss per 100,000 flying hours.

    Sadly not the best in class though.

    You're confusing Eurofighter GmbH with Dassault and Saab, all they do is talk, so far with no sales for Rafale or Gripen NG.
     
  8. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    "Transient performance" does not mean only pitch, no matter how much you'd like it does. And Typhoon would need lower wing loading and higher thrust-to-weight ratio plus equal roll/pitch onset rates in order to match Gripen's performance. Wing loading is similar, Typhoon does have better acceleration, but it also has slower roll onset rate.

    What I included is enough to show that twin engined = more survivable conundrum is false. I would have included that data if I had it.

    Then prove me wrong.

    Yes, only a fool would continue trying to teach you to think.

    Typically a short time. Instantaneous turn rate, by definition, bleeds air speed. As you bleed air speed, your turn rate changes.

    Except it doesn't actually improve turn performance, it only improves pitch performance, and as angles of attack involved are far higher and only portion of thrust counters drag, energy loss is far larger.

    Typhoon is optimized for interception, not general air superiority.

    Gripen and Rafale never had any of Typhoon's issues, precisely because of canard position. As for rubbish, check the insides of your head. You should be able to find a lot of it in there.

    They could have, but not with air intake position they have seleced and with the goals they had set to themselves. Achieving acceptable cruise drag would have meant either A) redesigning intakes to a solution more akin to Gripen or Rafale, or B) simply moving canards forward. Option B seemed easier at the time, so they did it.

    RCS yes, drag no. You are oversimplifying... yes, smaller canard span does equal less drag but only assuming that all other things are equal. But other things are not equal, because close coupled canard has large amount of coupling to the wing, which leads to the effects I have already noted but you have ignored in your crusade. Close coupled canard helps shift center of pressure forward, reducing trim drag, and it improves lift-to-drag ratio when turning due to the a) increased instability, b) delayed stall onset, c) reduced trim drag.

    Which depends on wether cruise efficiency is more or less important than maneuvering performance. But best option is not to use the chin inlet.

    Affected by the fact that they are at high angle of attack relative to the air flow.

    I was talking about canard vortices. As for the "winglet", it is simply a strake whose function is to improve directional stability at high angles of attack, not to provide additional lift. Gripen has same strakes just behind canards:
    [​IMG]

    They are deflected in the level flight, but only slightly, and as I have pointed out, they actually reduce trim drag. They are deflected downwards during sustained turn:
    Hungarian Air Force SAAB JAS 39 Gripen RIAT 2009 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
    but so are Typhoon's:
    http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9489/vortexd.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/mMPA8.jpg
    (you can also clearly see that vortex generators / strakes at Typhoon's sides are there for directional stability, not for lift generation).

    Long arm canard is simply a control surface in front of the wing itself. It has no effect on the wing itself beyond the increase in reference area it provides (which does mean a minor decrease in drag as lower AoA is required for the same turn rate, but close coupled canard leads here).

    I never said that, so stop your compulsive lying. North Vietnamese were competent so they managed to more than match USAF. Fact is that they couldn't match USNs training (or USAFs, once they got off their ass) but for a Third World country they did excellently - and only countries that could match NATO in training were never attacked by NATO as they typically had nuclear weapons or were allied to countries with nuclear weapons. North Korean and Chinese pilots were also competent during the Korean war, albeit only latter could really match the USAF.

    Chin inlets are irrelevant, engines are far more relevant, and wing response to control surface inputs even more than engines.

    Only if close coupled.

    Inlets are comparably irrelevant as they are close to the centerline anyway and are not particularly heavy.

    As for others, Gripen has advantage in all characteristics required for high roll onset rate:
    Smaller fin - advantage Gripen
    More centralized mass - advantage Gripen
    Wing response to control surface inputs - advantage Gripen
    Control surface efficiency at high AoA - advantage Gripen

    More centralized mass is a direct consequence of both size and single-engined layout.

    No, I'm telling you old things you continue to ignore solely because you don't like them.

    Long arm canard does not reduce drag compared to standard tailless delta. Close coupled does, yet somehow it drags more?

    And reduced static instability is more than compensated for by dynamic instability provided by the close coupled canards.

    J-20 is not an air superiority fighter, it is actually designed primarly for ground attack:
    Stolen F-35 Secrets Now Showing Up in China's Stealth Fighter | Washington Free Beacon

    "One of its most significant weapons enhancements is a new electro-optical targeting system under its nose."

    Yes, Eurofighter Gmbh has far better financial backing so they can outbribe the competitors.
     
  9. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,946
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    You have no proof of this. The higher TWR helps with turning since a component points in the turn direction, whereas a component of lift points in the drag direction. By going faster at higher altitude, due to lower drag, the Typhoon can attain the same lift or higher in a turn of given radius. Roll doesn't lose enemy fighters or evade missiles BVR, even if you are correct as regards roll rate but personally I'm yet to see the difference.

    No you only proved that an aircraft can have a shit load more wrong with it, so much so that engine failure becomes secondary, in the case of the Gripen.

    Already have done. The F-104, F-16 and MiG-21 were all terrible wrt loss rate.

    Yes, because I already know how. The Gripen is a complete oddity as a single-engined air superiority fighter.

    Yes but if you have more thrust and less drag, that time lasts longer and becomes more frequently repeatable. You don't bleed airspeed as fast despite have a lower ITR.

    Which still has the affect of getting you out of one enemies HUD temporarily but the energy lost makes it unsound. So too for intense ITRs.

    The only aircraft currently in service that are optimised for interception are MiG-25s and MiG-31s.

    No, they just crash a shit load instead.

    They could still have used CCC with the chin inlet, why couldn't they? Rafale and Gripen ruled out the LCC by using side inlets, meaning that LCCs would be in the way of the inlets. Basically Gripen ruled out chin inlets because it's so small and the only worthwhile hard points it could have, needed to be under the fuselage.

    The CCC effects add more lift but also add more drag by increasing both lift-induced drag and skin friction drag. CCC actually does the exact opposite, it forces the CoP to be nearer the CoG because the correcting moment is smaller for a given canard size. As a result CCCs are usually larger and run less instability to make up for this.

    Wrong. Chin inlets are far better for high AoA engine performance, as required for sustaining turns and maximising ITR potential.

    How are they at a high angle relative to the airflow in side-slip. The inlet lips adjust for AoA changes too.

    The strake couples the canards to the wing, achieving a simply effect.

    Come now, you can tell by the condensation that the Typhoon is manoeuvring and the Gripen isn't in those shots.

    So you keep saying but pictures demonstrate the opposite and the larger instability margin means that less lift is required.

    A Soviet-backed 3rd world country with USSR flags everywhere and Soviet training. A lot of the pilots were Soviet. You should check out stats on how many Soviet military personnel have died in wars they were never actually in. So in your book all statistics are irrelevant until NATO has an air war against Russia. Thanks, very helpful to military planning that.

    But you're failing to recognise the affect of a lot of things in unison. Less, drag, higher TWR, faster in turns at given radius increasing lift, more thrust pointing in lift direction. Engine performing better at high AoA adds to the above. Instability allows the aircraft to turn easier.

    Nope, the larger pitching arm gives more control and allows more instability in the design.

    The weight is significant, as is the extra rolling drag created.

    Typhoon has a smaller fin that Rafale. More centralised non-lifting mass, advantage Typhoon with chin inlet a la F-16. Less rolling drag, advantage Typhoon. Larger rolling moment due to larger wing-span, advantage Typhoon. Rolls don't get you out of the way.
     
  10. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,946
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Shame about the inlets though.

    Because they're incorrect.

    LCC does reduce drag because it allows for greater instability.

    Except it isn't because the canards still have to act to balance aircraft pitch in a turn, so the dynamic instability claim is false.

    Oh give up dude. Please! J-20 a ground attack plane? It wouldn't have canards at all if that were the case. Why employ canards and deteriorate stealth for manoeuvrability that you aren't using? F-22 can carry JDAMs and SDB and is due an EO upgrade before 2020, does that mean it's a ground attack plane too?

    Yeah, which is why they're reduced the MRCA bid to 17.5bn Euros, 2.5bn below the Rafale bid, at fixed cost. A simple bribe would only have cost a few million.
     
  11. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
  12. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,860
    Likes Received:
    3,021
    Sustained turn, mostly.

    Actually it does. Sustained turn is irrelevant because the enemy pilot (or missile) will adapt, and when that happen you have to quickly change direction of turn. Which requires quick roll onset.

    In case of Gripen, and any other aircraft flying. Accepting lower combat performance for sake of higher theoretical survivability, when number of engines is not a major factor even in peacetime survivability any more, is not a very smart idea.

    Due to factors unrelated to number of engines.

    You think you do.

    Indeed. Typhoon went for thrust while Gripen went for drag reduction (since thrust was set).

    Not necessarily. First, it doesn't improve instantaneous turn rate, and aircraft shows far more resistance to initiate a turn since thrust component keeps pointing in direction of flight for longer. Second, energy loss is far greater than it is with instantaneous turn which means that it can't be used anywhere as often.

    So would have Typhoon had it been introduced at the same time as Rafale and Gripen. Looks like development hell is not always a bad thing.

    Far greater supersonic drag (which was a primary design point) coupled with reduced lift benefits.

    They never even considered LCC because CCC gives far better maneuvering performance.

    Indeed. But it still improves lift/drag ratio, meaning that you incur less drag penalty for same lift (and thus same turn rate).

    Shielded side inlets as used in Rafale are almost as good, and even typical side inlets are acceptably good.

    Angle of attack is not a one-dimensional thing, you know? During sideslip, aircraft moves sideways which adds angle of attack from side to any angle of attack already present.

    No, it doesn't. It is there for directional stability, and it might offer some improvement in body lift, but that's it.
    [​IMG]

    Take a look at vortexes originating from Gripen's wing tips, you can clearly see that Gripen is at maybe 5-10* AoA. But point is that in both cases canards are at cca 0* AoA, which is a position meant to minimize drag.

    You can better see it here:
    http://www.gaust.com/india/images/aeroindia/P1010085.JPG
    gripenaoa.jpg Photo by robban75 | Photobucket

    If you have any show them, but so far you have been hiding them like a snake legs.

    Oh, wait, looks like I did your work for you. This is X-31 at AoA
    Transonic aerodynamic loads modeling of X-31 aircraft pitching motions - ResearchGate
    Page 7. At 25* there is virtually no interaction between wing and canard vortices, and at all AoA shown vortex interaction only reaches areas that wouldn't have stalled anyway,

    thus providing no lift benefit.

    Not necessarily. Only requirement is that the opponent is well-trained and relatively well equipped. Vietnamese were relatively well trained and had good, if not top-rate, equipment.

    So are you.

    And better lift-to-drag ratio means that aircraft can sustain same turn rate with lower thrust-to-weight ratio, vortices energizing wing means that less control surface deflection is required to achieve and sustain same turn rate thus reducing drag and improving lift-to-drag and thrust-to-drag ratios.

    But it doesn't improve lift, and close coupled canard reduces trim drag by improving wing response to control surface inputs.

    Not as significant as two engines.

    Gripen's air intakes do produce lift thanks to canard root vortex going over the top of them. Combined with a single engine and smaller vertical fin, it means that Gripen has far more centralized non-lifting mass than Typhoon.

    Wrong.

    Also larger roll inertia due to larger wing span and two engines.

    But they do make you less predictable.

    Shame abour Typhoon's second engine, far larger wing span and greater height.

    Keep up self-delusion, you're doing it well.

    Instability is not the only thing influencing drag, and no LCC does not necessarily mean greater instability. Typhoon is only slightly more unstable than Gripen.

    They have to, yet they don't do it? Funny, why don't you go and tell Saab and Dassault that they're doing it wrong?

    In your dreams.

    There are many reasons. If aircraft is stable then a lifting canard can provide upload during level flight, improving L/D ratio. Regardless of wether it is stable or unstable, canard still improves takeoff and landing performance.

    What else got reduced along with it?
     
  13. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,946
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Actually no, STR uses more moderate AoA. ITRs use higher AoA and bleed energy, so in ITR TWR will pay even more dividends.

    Not if your STR is better. You're yet to prove this whole CCC roll advantage too. We pulled up video stills last time and a Typhoon made 3 full 360deg rolls in 3s (240deg/s), whereas the Rafale video only showed 180deg/s. All just conjecture.


    TWR is also higher though. Radar is longer range, more electrical power for jamming since it's generated off the engines in-flight.

    No, partly related to the single engine. A two-engined fighter with an engine failure can fly home, whereas a single-engined plane with an engine failure is just a very bad glider.

    Since you proved you don't understand the affect of air density on lift, I think you should avoid questioning other people's knowledge.


    What? By having two side intakes for one engine and massive canards. Way to reduce drag.


    Quicker you achieve AoA, the faster you get into the turn and the more unstable the aircraft the lower the thrust required to overcome the induced drag.

    What!? Typhoon has done more flying hours than either in less time.

    Yeah, so you've just proved my point.

    Nah, it's because side intakes free up the fuselage for stronger hard points and the whole omni-role thing.

    Except it doesn't:

    [​IMG]

    No they aren't. F-16s and F-18s and Suknois and MiGs all use inlets under the wing or something solid for this reason. Others fighters meeting stealth requirements use inlets that are canted forward on a slope, like F-22, F-35 and J-20.

    And during side-slip a fuselage will tend to block one side-inlet.


    Your picture actually proves you wrong. And as I think Bismarck or vstol pointed out your definition of long arm is incorrect. The Typhoon still qualifies as CCC technically anyway, it just uses a longer separation for instability benefits.

    For a start the first picture actually seems to be showing smoke from streamers added for display benefits. The second picture shows nothing different to what the real picture of the Typhoon shows.

    You've already shown one yourself.

    Can't access page 7. X-31 != Typhoon.

    Or the technology gap hadn't grown much at that point in time.

    As a systems engineers I assure you I'm not.

    Except it doesn't yield a better lift-to-drag as the graph above shows.

    No but it means you need less of it and it reduces drag.

    Engines typically have a TWR of ~9:1 so the extra weight is well worth it.

    They also produce drag. Not relative to its weight it doesn't.

    Right!

    Everything is relative to proportion, the larger wings provide more rolling torques.

    Not really because a good pilot will watch for an enemy rolling

    Everything is relative to proportion, the larger wings provide more rolling torques.

    Says the guy who believes that all of the world's most sophisticated airforces are wrong. Radars are bad. BVRAAMs are a waste of time. Guns are most important. Stealth doesn't work. Etc. etc.

    You can prove that can you? Again, see graph.

    Show me an unstable aircraft with no tailpane or canards.

    No it's just false. Amusing though, when a guy who doesn't understand the impact of air density on lift starts talking about dynamic stability. Only on the internet ladies and gentlemen, only on the internet. In a crowded lecture theatre, a person who made such a claim would blush and remain attentive and in absolute silence for the remainder of the time, with their hand partially over their eyes in case anyone puts a face to stupid.

    So would a different wing design. The wing planform is hardly designed for ground attack either.

    Maintenance costs probably. Development work already done.
     
  14. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,946
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  15. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,042
    Likes Received:
    5,844
    Country Flag:
    France
    Saab and Brasil sign contract for Gripen NG.

    Gripen NG
    27 October 2014
    Defence and security company Saab has signed a contract with the Brazilian Federal Government (Ministry of Defense through the Aeronautics Command, COMAER) covering the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion. Saab and COMAER have also signed an Industrial Co-operation contract to deliver substantial technology transfer from Saab to Brazilian industry.
    On 18 December 2013 Brazil selected the Gripen NG to be its next-generation fighter aircraft, through the F-X2 evaluation programme. Since then all parties have negotiated to finalise a contract. Today’s announcement marks the successful conclusion of that process.
    Saab and COMAER have signed a contract for the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft, plus related systems and equipment. The programme comprises 28 single-seat and eight two-seat Gripen NG. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion.
    Saab and COMAER have also signed a contract for industrial co-operation projects, including technology transfer to Brazilian industry, to be performed over approximately ten years.
    “We are proud to stand side-by-side with Brazil in this important programme. There is already a long and successful history of industrial co-operation between our two countries, and this historic agreement takes that partnership to a new level”, says Marcus Wallenberg, Chairman of Saab’s Board of Directors.
    The contract with COMAER for Gripen NG and the associated Industrial Co-operation contract will come into effect once certain conditions have been fulfilled. These include, among others, the necessary export control-related authorisations. All of these conditions are expected to be fulfilled during the first half of 2015. Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024.
    “The contract with Brazil validates Gripen as the most capable and modern fighter system on the market. It solidifies Saab’s position as a world-leading fighter aircraft producer and strengthens our platform for growth,” says Håkan Buskhe, President and CEO of Saab.
    The contract with Brazil strengthens the ties between Saab and Brazilian industry. Embraer will have a leading role as the strategic partner in the F-X2 programme. As part of the technology transfer plan, Brazilian industry will have an important role in the development of, and be responsible for, the production of the two-seat Gripen NG variant for the Brazilian Air Force.
    Brazil joins Sweden in becoming the launch customer for the next-generation Gripen, which shares the same smart design and innovative technology as today’s Gripen versions. Gripen aircraft are currently in operational service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African and Royal Thai Air Forces, and also with the UK Empire Test Pilots’ School (ETPS).
    The next-generation Gripen meets the market’s demand for a sophisticated and flexible combat aircraft with sustainable costs. The aircraft provides more thrust, extended range and endurance, expanded weapons capacity, new sensors including an advanced AESA radar, highly effective electronic warfare systems and multi-function communications.
    The Gripen NG for Brazil and Gripen E for Sweden share all the attributes of the next-generation Gripen design, but are also tailored to each country’s specific national requirements. The commitments by Sweden and Brazil secure Gripen’s industrial and operational future into the 2050 timeframe.

    Saab and Brazil sign contract for Gripen NG
     

Share This Page