SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 6,983

the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 2,014

MiG-31, without doubt.. F-22, too.. But F-111 and F-15, how did you come to that conclusion?

F-15 = variable intake
F-111 = variable intake, variable geometry wing, load of fuel

That alone does not matter.. It all depends on if it's sufficiently easy to perform so that it can be used regularly.. With the F-35 I strongly suspect that you need to use a lot of burner to crawl through the transonic region to M1.2 and

Su-27 with 4 aam take around same time as F-35A to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2
then after switching it off the speed slowly degrades to M1.0 which takes those mentioned 150 miles. If that is true, then it's not an operationally viable capability which saves fuel or increases range, just an useless PR stunt....

you would be surprised that apart from SR-71, Mig-25/31, concorde , others aircraft doesn't stay in supersonic for long, even F-22 only include supersonic leng of 100 nm in its mission profile

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 2,014

I don't believe this means what it sounds like: aircraft accelerates to M1.2 then maintains M1.2 in level flight on dry thrust for 150 miles. I see no reason why it should only be capable of maintaining M1.2 for 150 miles flying level. That suggests that the range of F-35 is 150 miles @ M1.2 + distance required to reach M1.2 and that does not add up to me.

Or may be that flying supersonic consump alot of fuel so only a tiny bit are included in mission profile, F-22 itself only include 100 nm supercruise in its combat radius

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

Supercruise is just a marketing gimmick, a leftover from the Raptor times where it was presented as the end goal in order to highlight its kinematic abilities. But in reality, supercruise is just a tool to achieve more supersonic range.. That is the parameter which should be considered decisive..

Despite the trumpeted unparalleled kinematics, the F-22 is not the king of cruisers.. MiG-31 is.. right, it can't supercruise... but it can do 720 km @ M2.3+. With or without burners is of secondary importance.. Of course, there is the question of IR signature but IMO, the aerodynamic friction kind of balances that out... plus the fact that interception of a target soaring at M2+ would be an exclusive domain of radar guided missiles, anyway..

I remember a quote which stated that the F-35 had roughly the same range at M1.5 as the F-22 (in the ballpark of 100 nautical miles).. That the F135 soaring at full burner would be only marginally less fuel efficient than a twinpack of F119s at full military thrust.. In my eyes, that does not make the F-35 kinematically impressive rather than makes the F-22's speed advantage much less practical than originally thought.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 3,156

MiG-31, without doubt.. F-22, too.. But F-111 and F-15, how did you come to that conclusion?

Probably the same method you use...

Member for

8 years

Posts: 3,156

the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles

We have "troll pilots" now? That is really a new low, even for you.

Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

Probably the same method you use...
Ah, you mean the same method you use when talking about F-35's unparalleled situational awareness? :eagerness:

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 2,626

Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.

Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?

Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..

Member for

8 years

Posts: 3,156

Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.

Given that the F-35 can sustain M1.2 with an internal load.... not sure the point you are trying to make.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 3,156

Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?

Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..

Not sure which stats you are looking at.... as usual.

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

Supersonic range.. did you even care to read the discussed topic?

Member for

7 years 2 months

Posts: 147

Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..

Interesting way of thinking about it.

Incidentally, every 1.3kg of Rafale costs the same as 1kg of gold. I'm sure if they keep escalating the price they can reach parity.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 3,156

Supersonic range.. did you even care to read the discussed topic?

... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?

Member for

8 years

Posts: 3,156

Interesting way of thinking about it.

Incidentally, every 1.3kg of Rafale costs the same as 1kg of gold. I'm sure if they keep escalating the price they can reach parity.

So like MSphere to invent a fanboy measure of aircraft cost without considering that it makes his favorite planes look bad...

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?
We have discussed that quite extensively.. the Swiss eval scenario using Gripen D..

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 3,280

... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?


Company test pilot Magnus Ljungdahl says the aircraft was flown to a speed of more than Mach 1.2 at 28,000ft (8,540m) above the Baltic Sea, and adds: "Without using afterburner I maintained the same speed until I ran out of test area."

From: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-celebrates-supercruise-test-success-for-gripen-321428/

The Gripen Demonstrator has demonstrated the capability to supercruise at Mach 1.2, and exceed Mach 1.6 on afterburner. Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-gripen-saab-executives-say.html?_sm_au_=iMVS4R6FJjP4QV5T

Anyway; why do we care? supercruise is probably not very useful... nuff said.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 3,106

From: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-celebrates-supercruise-test-success-for-gripen-321428/

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-gripen-saab-executives-say.html?_sm_au_=iMVS4R6FJjP4QV5T

Anyway; why do we care? supercruise is probably not very useful... nuff said.

For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 3,280

For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.

Gripen E does not fly yet, so the Demo is the closest we get for the time being. According to the latest rumors E will be somewhat heavier than the Demo, on the other hand:


Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 121

@hopsalot ".. and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?"

http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174315/reaktionsmotor-12---bade-vacker-och-stark

According to this article Gripen c dry thrust is 1.2kg/s and afterburner is 4kg/s. Ill give you the engine burn times dry and wet Measured on rm12 but with the gripen E's fuel(internal).
This is only theoretical max burns. And with not exactly (but very close to, engine).
Full dry thrust maximum burntime = 1.2kg/s*60=72kg/min. Internal tank on E version is 3400kg/72kg=47,2 minutes
Full wet thrust maximum burntime= 4kg/s*60=240kg/min. 3400kg/240=14,16 minutes

Ill give you an example......
Now if you max dry thrust a gripen e , it will fly somewhere between mach 1.1 mach 1.25 depending on load of stuff BUT having started with say two droptanks (subsonic), which where dropped before engagement and returning back with pretty much full tank.
It is very likely that Supercruising back for say 47,2 minus 12 minutes for safety ...35minutes would be quite possible. With the result in a quick and IR-low return and rearm. The range with mach 1.2 (having left the battle and all) is converted to 1468kph.
So 35 minutes would be 856,3km flown. Super cruise on internal one direction.

Now it could be used to get close without being seen and with a very low reaction time for the enemy and a whole lot of other type of tactics.... I am not a pilot, but to be able to get out without using the burner to maintain high speed, just has to feel good. Leaving the sound behind makes the overflight dead silent until they already passed, making it harder to position.

Talking super cruise in general the only speed that is worth anything, is a usefull one an that would be a cruise for most fighters between 1-1.3 where 1+++ is rafale eurofighter and gripen e and the 1.3 might be f-22. F-22 get bingo fuel in no time, maxing out its dry thrust. Unfortunately that is true for most "high" powered aircrafts.
Max speed super cruise is nothing to look at. Check the fuel and just use math and you will see that only lower speeds are useful.