Saab just unveiled its attempt to outdo the F-35

[anonymous2]

EU is an endangered species especially after BEXIT. There are no ideals or principles in the international politics.

On the contrary, Brexit has made EU stronger, and has presented it with a chance to become a genuine political union. UK was a torjan horse of US in EU to ensure that EU does not become too strong.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Sure but Gripen fares better than F-35 in this regard? You expect us to believe an aircraft with every store hanging out its skin has a detectability comparable to F-35? How so? If memory serves me right Gripen was worst performing contender in Swiss fighter replacement competition. Was it not?

No, I don't, but I am not comparing apples with apples.
The question is how close can a Gripen get to its target without beeing detected,
and fire a missile.
For Gripen, I assume radar turned off, and it can fire a Meteor with radar turned off,
and it can still home on the F-35 using a sensor located elsewhere. IRST on this, or another Gripen,
maybe on a drone (in the future) or an AWACS with the datalink.

IRST is supposed to detect fighters before they are within effective AMRAAM (AIM-120D) distance.
If the Gripen E can get off a Meteor before the F-35 can reliably fire an AMRAAM, it should be a win.

RCS of Gripen E unloaded is 0,1m2, and with fighter load, I think I have seen a figure of 1,5m2, but not sure,
so maybe an F-35 can detect the Gripen E with radar, before the Gripen E can detect it,
but if it is not close enough to fire a missile, it does not matter.

Can F-35 fire an AMRAAM without turning on the radar?
Maybe it can, but I have never heard about it.

IRST depends on weather and amount of clouds, so in bad weather for sure F-35 has an advantage.

Gripen WON the Swiss fighter replacement competition.
The evaluation was on Gripen C, but the improvements on Gripen E turned the tide.
The Swiss voters didn't want any aircraft...
Theymight reopen the tender though.

I found some claims on PS/05A radar performance.

PS/05A JAS-39 A/B/C/D Mk. 3: (until 2015)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 9~10 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 27~32 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 48~56 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 72~84 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 85~100 km+

Mk. 4 was released last year.

"The new processor includes a high-capacity, solid-state data recorder and is based on commercial off-the-shelf components. It supports new processing algorithms derived from Saab’s family of Giraffe ground-based radars, including sub-meter-resolution synthetic aperture radar modes and non-cooperative target recognition features. The claimed performance improvement – up to 150 % range increase, or the ability to detect a target with an RCS of 0.1 square meters at the same range at which the Mk. 3 can see a 4-sq.-meter target – points to the use of multi-hypothesis or track-before-detect algorithms to pull targets out of clutter."

The F-35 is supposed to have the RCS of a golfball, or approximately 0,001 m2.
If data are correct, it should be detectable at 20-25km by radar.

 

[war&peace]

Sure but Gripen fares better than F-35 in this regard? You expect us to believe an aircraft with every store hanging out its skin has a detectability comparable to F-35? How so? If memory serves me right Gripen was worst performing contender in Swiss fighter replacement competition. Was it not?

Hey it is just fanboyism and contrary to the facts. Perhaps it is a new Swedish strategy to market it this way... someone believe that keep telling lies until it people believe it but the problem is that it has to be marketed to the airforces which are professional entities. Gripen E is not better than F-16 blk-III in most of the aspects and is still more expensive to own than its true competitors.
RCS it reduced in many ways, the simpliest is reducing the size of all the exposed surfaces, using radiation absorption materials, angling the the surfaces to deflection or dispersal the remainder of the incident radiations at a different angles by shaping and arranging the surfaces, hiding the stores the stores inside the bays as they along with pylons increase the RCS, then cooling the engine exhaust and overall reduction of the thermal signature of the airplane.

i mainly believe north europe is different Germany, Holland and Nordic countries

Would you like to elaborate those principles and especially in lieu to this thread.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Hey it is just fanboyism and contrary to the facts. Perhaps it is a new Swedish strategy to market it this way... someone believe that keep telling lies until it people believe it but the problem is that it has to be marketed to the airforces which are professional entities. Gripen E is not better than F-16 blk-III in most of the aspects and is still more expensive to own than its true competitors.
RCS it reduced in many ways, the simpliest is reducing the size of all the exposed surfaces, using radiation absorption materials, angling the the surfaces to deflection or dispersal the remainder of the incident radiations at a different angles by shaping and arranging the surfaces, hiding the stores the stores inside the bays as they along with pylons increase the RCS, then cooling the engine exhaust and overall reduction of the thermal signature of the airplane.


Would you like to elaborate those principles and especially in lieu to this thread.

Maybe You should explain what an F-16 Blk III is ...
Don't think anyone here has heard about it.

 

[gambit]

RCS it reduced in many ways,...

I have explained this a long time ago: The greatest contributor to overall RCS is the original airframe and its shaping.

Unless you have a technological breakthrough in absorber, no amount of absorber can make a 'non-stealth' airframe into a 'stealth' airframe. Not 'Chinese physics'. Not 'Russian physics'. Not 'Indian physics'. And I have seen all three. Oddly enough, the Pakistanis on this forum seems to have more respect for real physics than the Chinese, the Russians, and the Indians do. So please do not embarrass your fellow countrymen.

In shaping for 'stealth', the corner reflector is a huge no-no...

You can find this structure, large and small, on just about everything. The next time you go out to your car, take a few minutes to see if you can find the corner reflector and how many.

If your airframe have this structure, like a huge one created by the vertical stabilator and the horizontal stabilator, like on the F-15 and F-16, any absorber would have to be %100 effective so you do not have that double bounce. No such absorber exists today.

The point is that there is a limit on how much you can reduce the RCS of a 'non-stealth' airframe. If your 'non-stealth' airframe can be detected at 200 km out, and you worked real hard to re-shape that airframe to reduce that distance down to 195 km, you just wasted your money. In combat, that 5 km distance is practically nothing considering how fast jet fighters fly.

You want to be really effective and tactically worthwhile ? Then you must reduce that distance by at least %50. In other words, whatever you do to your airframe, the new version must be detectable at 100 km. No more. If your airframe is not 'non-stealth' from paper, then you have a lot of research work to see if re-shaping is feasible. If it is so easy, we would have seen plenty of re-shaped MIG-21 or Dassault Mirages. But it is not easy to re-shape. The most the world have seen is the F-15 Silent Eagle in terms of re-shaping an existing airframe to reduce RCS.

 

[Taygibay]

distinctive delta wing design

No offense to our Swedish friends ( hello Richelieu ) nor Danish in this case but I stopped reading
when this phrase :

and distinctive delta wing design

made it clear the opening piece was an advert bit.

With all respect due to SAAB's brilliant expertise in deltas, Mirage III ( Pk ), Tejas & M2000 ( IN )
Rafale or Typhhon ( as more direct competitors ) and the list goes on all share ⏃ wings.

So much for distinctive, huh?

Just sayin', Tay.

 

[war&peace]

And I have seen all three. Oddly enough, the Pakistanis on this forum seems to have more respect for real physics than the Chinese, the Russians, and the Indians do. So please do not embarrass your fellow countrymen.

Hey Mate,
That's condescending and factually incorrect. I just outlined all the methods which can be employed in increasing the stealthiness of an object. I did not give weightage to any method and especially I did not say that's an absorber can do the 100% trick otherwise show me from my comment. Also it is noteworthy no of the methods alone can make airplane totally stealthy not even all combined at the current state of technology. For example shaping ( which I also mentioned in my post) the surfaces may result in drastic RCS reduction but if the engine is spewing hot jet, it will still be visible in infrared part of the spectrum so that also needs to be reduced but it has limitations. Previously, it was difficult to design both an aerodynamically efficient and a stealthy aircraft. Example F-117 nighthawk is a stealthy aircraft with a lot of sharply angled surfaces but aerodynamically inefficient airframe so much so that it could fly at subsonic speeds only. However F-35 and F-22 have, thanks to the advanced computational power and algorithms, both the stealthiness and the aerodynamically efficient design so both can super-cruise.

Stealthiness is not an absolute, but it is relative to the current detection technologies. Today's stealthy aircraft may not be so invisible for tomorrow's radar and race between stealth technology and the detection technology will continue.

 

[maximuswarrior]

http://www.businessinsider.com/saab-f-35-competitor-gripen-e-2016-7

Saab/YouTube





A couple of weeks ago, Saab unveiled its next-generation fighter. Dubbed “The Smart Fighter,” it’s aimed at markets not yet cleared to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as reported by the Daily Mail.

With its fly-by-wire avionics and distinctive delta wing design, the Gripen E is similar to its predecessors. The difference is in its increased fuel capacity, 20 percent more thrust, extra pylons for carrying more weapons, and advanced electronics that feed tactical information to the pilot and co-op forces at all times.

It’s also designed for quick and efficient maintenance, Saab claims the turnaround time between missions is 10 minutes and that the entire engine can be replaced in an hour.

At $85 million apiece, the Gripen E is significantly cheaper than the F-35, making it an attractive alternative for any military.

Some other Saab Gripen E features:



View As: One Page Slides



The fighter’s Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) antennas—called elements—work together or independently to track different targets.

Saab

Its Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system looks for heat emissions from other aircraft, helicopters and from objects on the ground and sea surface without giving its position away.

Saab

Its Electronic Warfare system alerts the pilot when it has been detected by radar, warns for incoming missiles, and used for electronic attacks.

Saab

The pylons give it the flexibility to carry an array of weapons, making it deadlier than previous versions.

Saab

The Gripen’s multi-frequency data links provide situational awareness to other fighters.

Saab

Its Radar Warning Receiver and Missile Approach Warning systems increase the Gripen’s survivability in combat.

Saab

Now watch the fighter’s unveiling on 360 video:

It remains to be seen whether this technology would be nearly as effective as stealth technology. The concept sounds good on paper. This fighter cannot offer a superior alternative to F-35 though. That is for sure. It only offers a cheaper alternative. The Swedes are renowned for their innovative electronics and radar tech, but this fighter has certain vital components incorporated from other vendors/nations. This fighter is more suited to nations which aren't sanction prone and have a smaller budget for the air force. That's actually how it is being advertised by SAAB.

Saab claims the turnaround time between missions is 10 minutes and that the entire engine can be replaced in an hour.

That's a pretty hefty claim to be honest. The question is what engine this fighter uses. These estimates also depend on how trained, knowledgeable and experienced the ground crew is.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It remains to be seen whether this technology would be nearly as effective as stealth technology. The concept sounds good on paper. This fighter cannot offer a superior alternative to F-35 though. That is for sure. It only offers a cheaper alternative. The Swedes are renowned for their innovative electronics and radar tech, but this fighter has certain vital components incorporated from other vendors/nations. This fighter is more suited to nations which aren't sanction prone and have a smaller budget for the air force. That's actually how it is being advertised by SAAB.

Saab claims the turnaround time between missions is 10 minutes and that the entire engine can be replaced in an hour.

That's a pretty hefty claim to be honest. The question is what engine this fighter uses. These estimates also depend on how trained, knowledgeable and experienced the ground crew is.

Swedish Fighter aircraft are traditionally designed to be handled by conscripts.
To reduce cost, the conscript army was replaced by a professional army less than 10 years ago.
(After Gripen was inducted). Before that happened, Gripen was serviced by conscripts.
The ordinary conscript got 9 months training, and rehearsal once every few years.
I got 9 months training, and that included training in how to fix the cross-country ambulance
I was driving.
Swedish conscript battalions in UN service always get high grades,
because they are filled with people who are educated and/or have professions
which are useful.