randomradio
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
Gripen e numbers are not correct when you look at the * sign you will understand ..
e.g gripen states the payload is at 50% fuel which is stupid..while simultaneously quotes the range being empty.. ...
A better number which cannot be messed up with is MTOW
which gripen E is 1600kg and F16E is 21000kg almost 35% difference
All max ranges, also called ferry range, are without weapons payload, at best 2 AAMs, but nothing more than full fuel.
Also, you generally can't carry max fuel and max payload at the same time. MTOW is always less than structural limit. Not to mention, it's practically impossible to reach max payload anyway. For example, even though the MKI has been advertised to carry 8T, it can realistically only carry 6T at max, whereas lighter aircraft carry only 2T at best, without counting fuel.
MTOW isn't a good indicator. For example, the 16.5T Gripen E comfortably beats the 22.5T Mig-29K in range. Yeah, the Mig-29K carries more fuel, but it's all burnt away faster than in the Gripen, not counting the cost associated with operating the Mig-29.
The Gripen has been designed in such a way that it can carry the same payload to the same distance as the F-16. For example, the internal fuel load of the Gripen E is 3400Kg feeding a 98KN engine, while the latest B70 carries only 3200Kg of fuel and feeds a 145KN engine. This compensates for the lack of CFTs on the F-16. And the weapons layout design on the Gripen E is better than on the F-16.
So, depending on how you design the aircraft, the JF-17 will comfortably be able to match the F-16 B50 with just a 100KN engine.
But of course, there's always the J-10, shortcut to the same capability as the F-16 with minimum investment.