Sea Gripen - MERGED

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 3,259

yeah, right... there's only a minor thingy named "aircraft carrier" that SAAB never made anything to operate from... piece of cake...

be my guest :D

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 11 months

Posts: 1,577

yeah, right... there's only a minor thingy named "aircraft carrier" that SAAB never made anything to operate from... piece of cake...

be my guest :D

yes, exactly, piece of cake, when you fit the recuirements :)
read up please

Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 4,951

On that note - has the C-2 ever been trialled or used as a tanker for the USN?

I don't believe they use it because it's cruise speed is just over a couple hundred knots. Too slow and vulnerable. The S-3 Viking ended it's career playing some of that role. But apparently buddy packs and ARF from landbased assets are all the rage since retiring KA-6 and S-3.

Profile picture for user Hammer

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 742

yeah, right... there's only a minor thingy named "aircraft carrier" that SAAB never made anything to operate from... piece of cake...

be my guest :D

Thank god Dassault never thought the way you do here because it would never have developed the original Etandart... Good for them. ;)

Regards,

Hammer

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 3,259

Thank god Dassault never thought the way you do here because it would never have developed the original Etandart... Good for them. ;)

Regards,

Hammer

seems I don't speak english around here... or people just don't take time to read what I say... :confused:

I never said it's impossible to make "a carrier aircraft for the first time"

I said that making a carrier aircraft which is first such aircraft for the company and adapted from a terrestrial version and best performer and cheap and almost identical to the terrestrial version all at the same time is nonsense...

Nobody ever succeeded in doing so, even nations that had much bigger experience and budgets to do so, never

Etendard was a nice aircraft, but as Dassault made it, the US carriers were receiving stuff besides which the etendard looked as a little toy (Phantoms II, Crusaders, A-6s... Last thing, the Etendard has been built from the beginning with possible navalization in mind, which helped bringing it to the carriers. In the end, it was the first dassault carrier aircraft, but it wasn't a world beater as what gripen PR pretend to build..

So, one last time: you can make a first carrier aircraft, but you won't make it at the same time cheap, easy, best aircraft, etc...

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 11,742

To the point. In general it is the other way around. See the F-4 about that.

Profile picture for user Arka_Voltchek

Member for

11 years

Posts: 91

To the point. In general it is the other way around. See the F-4 about that.

F4 was build for aicraft carrier, and latter "adapted" for terrestrial operation, not exactly the same thing...

@+, Arka

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 3,259

that's what he said: "the other way around" :D

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 155


I said that making a carrier aircraft which is first such aircraft for the company and adapted from a terrestrial version and best performer and cheap and almost identical to the terrestrial version all at the same time is nonsense...

...In the end, it was the first dassault carrier aircraft, but it wasn't a world beater as what gripen PR pretend to build..

So, one last time: you can make a first carrier aircraft, but you won't make it at the same time cheap, easy, best aircraft, etc...


Just because no one has ever done a "successful carrier aircraft" from a "terrestrial aircraft" "the first time" they tried, isn't valid as an argument. No one had been to the moon before Armstrong went there. That wasn't reason enough to say he couldn't do it.

Will you please quote a Saab official saying that the Sea Gripen will be "cheap, easy AND the best aircraft". The only reference to the price I've seen is Peter Nilsson saying that "there are no affordable option to the Rafale, SH and F-35 today". I don't think that anyone is questioning that the Gripen is cheaper than the above mentioned.

As for "easy", the Gripen is already easy to maintain. Beefing up the airframe and landing gears won't change that.

And last, no one has ever said that the Sea Gripen would be "the best". Saab PR department isn't trying to market the Sea Gripen as a "world beater". You're making things up.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 3,259

well, we'll see :rolleyes:

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 156

Scooter, is that you?

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 11,742

Just because no one has ever done a "successful carrier aircraft" from a "terrestrial aircraft" "the first time" they tried, isn't valid as an argument. No one had been to the moon before Armstrong went there. That wasn't reason enough to say he couldn't do it.

Will you please quote a Saab official saying that the Sea Gripen will be "cheap, easy AND the best aircraft". The only reference to the price I've seen is Peter Nilsson saying that "there are no affordable option to the Rafale, SH and F-35 today". I don't think that anyone is questioning that the Gripen is cheaper than the above mentioned.

As for "easy", the Gripen is already easy to maintain. Beefing up the airframe and landing gears won't change that.

And last, no one has ever said that the Sea Gripen would be "the best". Saab PR department isn't trying to market the Sea Gripen as a "world beater". You're making things up.

When risc and money are no longer main issues many things are possible temporary. For sure is. The market for a Sea Gripen is limited and the resulting product will be expensive and less capable.
By the way it was done before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

Profile picture for user Arka_Voltchek

Member for

11 years

Posts: 91

that's what he said: "the other way around" :D

I need to sleep...

@+, Arka

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 3,259

When risc and money are no longer main issues many things are possible temporary. For sure is. The market for a Sea Gripen is limited and the resulting product will be expensive and less capable.
By the way it was done before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

If you read the link you provided about the F-18 you'd see:

"Since the LWF did not share the design requirements of the VFAX, the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17."

basically, the only thing they kept from the initial aircraft (YF-17) was general configuration and design principles.. there's not one common part between the YF-17 and the F-18 A (not to speak of further evolutions), so the "navalization of terrestrial aircraft doesn't really fit to taht casen but rather "developing a completely new naval variant around the generally similar idea", which is not what SAAB talks about

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 13,432

Just because no one has ever done a "successful carrier aircraft" from a "terrestrial aircraft" "the first time" they tried, isn't valid as an argument. ...

And it has been done, though (disregarding the Russian aircraft) not recently, or with a supersonic fighter.
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 13,432

I don't believe they use it because it's cruise speed is just over a couple hundred knots. Too slow and vulnerable. The S-3 Viking ended it's career playing some of that role. But apparently buddy packs and ARF from landbased assets are all the rage since retiring KA-6 and S-3.

Interesting thing is, there are plenty of S-3s still around, with loads of airframe hours left, & huge stocks of spares. The USA is willing to give them away to friendly countries. You pay for packing, transport, & an initial support contract.

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 2,357

No one has ever done a "successful carrier aircraft" from a "terrestrial aircraft" "the first time" they tried....

Dassault? Etendard.
De Havilland? Sea Hornet (from Hornet). (Then Venom from Sea Venom the first time they tried it from a Jet).
Hawker? Nimrod (from Fury).
MiG? MiG-29K.
North American? FJ-2 (from Sabre).
Sukhoi? Su-27K.
Supermarine? Seafire (from Spitfire).

Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 4,951

S-3's have specialized tf34's; they aren't the same ones used on the A-10. Its a shame they no longer seem to have a role for these jets. They could have been used as more efficient bomb trucks over Afghanistan; 10 hour and 3000-mile endurance at a 400mph cruise speed. They were not difficult (apparently) to convert into bomb range inspectors out on the Pacific range by hanging a LANTIRN pod under a wing.

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 243

Let's go through the figures:

Assume 7.5 tons empty weight
Max T/O 16.5
Difference 9.0
1/3 less = 6.0
STOBAR T/O = 13.5
Internal fuel = 3.36

That leaves 2.6 tons for external loads.

I have some questions about these figures!

STOBAR T/O - fuel - empty weight = payload right?
But wouldn't it be only 4t payload for CATOBAR then and what is the MTOW and the payload for the air force version of Gripen NG?
I found the following specs from Saab, but I have some doubt about them, because MTOW - empty weight - payload would mean only around 3t internal fuel right?

http://taiwanbbs.org/main/uploads/ng_jas39_01_5463.jpg

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 155

And it has been done, though (disregarding the Russian aircraft) not recently, or with a supersonic fighter.

I was just using his own words, showing that his way of reasoning was incorrect. Just because something hasn't been done isn't proof enough that it can't be done.

I don't think I have enough knowledge about previous carrier aircrafts to determine whether it has been done or not, and I apologize if it sounded that way.