Sea Gripen - MERGED

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 13,433

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.

Sorry, I can't have made it clear enough. I meant to support your post, not criticise it. I agree completely with what you wrote.
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 13,433

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


Internal fuel is given by SAAB as about 3.3-3.4 tons. You say 'only', but that's about the same as Rafale or Typhoon in proportion to empty weight. Don't forget that Gripen is smaller & lighter.

SAAB are saying that catapult launch would allow Gripen to take off at the same maximum weight as on land, i.e. 16.5 tons (it's been increased by 500kg since the release of the figures you give). That gives a maximum external load (assuming full internal fuel) of about 6 tons for the land based version, & 5.5 tons for Sea Gripen.

Total external load + internal fuel is about 9 tons for catapult launch. For STOBAR, at 13.5 tons MTO, it's 6 tons. With full internal fuel, that allows 2.6 tons external. If it's going to top up after launch, it could take off with reduced internal fuel, & increased external load.

Member for

10 years

Posts: 243

Internal fuel is given by SAAB as about 3.3-3.4 tons. You say 'only', but that's about the same as Rafale or Typhoon in proportion to empty weight. Don't forget that Gripen is smaller & lighter.

SAAB are saying that catapult launch would allow Gripen to take off at the same maximum weight as on land, i.e. 16.5 tons (it's been increased by 500kg since the release of the figures you give). That gives a maximum external load (assuming full internal fuel) of about 6 tons for the land based version, & 5.5 tons for Sea Gripen.

Total external load + internal fuel is about 9 tons for catapult launch. For STOBAR, at 13.5 tons MTO, it's 6 tons. With full internal fuel, that allows 2.6 tons external. If it's going to top up after launch, it could take off with reduced internal fuel, & increased external load.

Thanks for the explanation!

So for a STOBAR carrier the payload of Sea Gripen could be less than half of the land based Gripen NG. Is safe to assume that the difference between LCA and N-LCA payload could be the similar?
How useful will it be then, or what role do you see for N-LCA if it is even more limited than the Sea Gripen?

Profile picture for user Gerard

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 3,049

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

Sorry to interrupt your discussion. What about the Hawk / T-45? It just crossed my mind. :) OK it's not supersonic. :D

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 1,577

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...

The thing is you never read up, it kind of annoying..

The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one. Its allready there!?...so its 400-500kg of structural changes, defined at high level in posts in this thread.

READ UP or STOP ARGUEING without the information at hand.

Profile picture for user Hammer

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 742

Sorry to interrupt your discussion. What about the Hawk / T-45? It just crossed my mind. :) OK it's not supersonic. :D

The T-45 is totally differnent case from all the other recent examples cited before because it has never been intendes for the use as a full naval fighter aircraft so id doesn`t have many of the more fragile and complex avionics items that make ub the modern naval fighter and at the same time is NOT fitted to do take-offs and landings while carrying armament (missiles and bombs as some of the other hawk derivatives have.

Regards,

Hammer

Profile picture for user Arka_Voltchek

Member for

10 years 3 months

Posts: 91

The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one.

I don't think you (and saab, if they are serious about it) realise how big are the requirement for a navy fighter...

@+, Arka

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 13,433

I find it odd that so many amateurs think that they know more about what is needed for a naval fighter than SAAB. Do they think that SAAB engineers & management (people who spend their whole lives working on, & studying the requirements for, aircraft) have not spent any time examining what changes need to be made? Do they think SAAB has done no modelling of the stresses on airframes of catapult launches & arrested landings? No analysis of what that would do to a Gripen airframe?

From what some people here are saying, they appear to believe that nobody in SAAB has ever looked outside their factory walls.

Now, I don't know if Sea Gripen will ever be built - and I think the odds are that it won't - but if it is, I expect SAAB to do a proper professional job, & approach it with eyes wide open, knowing what they're getting into. I don't expect some half-arsed not thought out bodge.

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 1,577

I don't think you (and saab, if they are serious about it) realise how big are the requirement for a navy fighter...

@+, Arka

without knowing, from the ideas started, the have seen at least requirements from 3 different countries... so i think they know what it takes. And hopefully they do that sincerly...
If theres a problem SAAB i a firm that handles risks well, probably the hire some good people externally that are competent on the subject.. They have tackled problems before, and gotten out on top.

Member for

10 years

Posts: 3,259

The thing is you never read up, it kind of annoying..

The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one. Its allready there!?...so its 400-500kg of structural changes, defined at high level in posts in this thread.

READ UP or STOP ARGUEING without the information at hand.

yeah sure.. whatever... :rolleyes:

Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 4,948

With proper shipboard tankers you could takeoff with minimal fuel reserves and load more underwing. The usefulness of any stobar aircraft will be a factor of this kind of support. The safety factor increases linearly when you steer well below the maximum weight allowances.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 3,614

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

North American? FJ-2 (from Sabre).

Ummm I wouldn't call that successful... the USN decided it would stick with the lower-performing, but more carrier-suitable Grumman F9F-6 Cougar instead.

Most of the 200 FJ-2s built went to land-based Marine Corps units, with the F9F-6s going to carrier-based units. Very few FJ-2s ever went to sea.

It was not until the FJ-3 Fury, with its more powerful J65 engine replacing the J47 of the F-86/FJ-2 and with more modifications, that it was considered "satisfactory".

The only truly "successful" Fury was the FJ-4... which had an all-new fuselage and an all-new wing to go with the J65 engine!

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 1,577

yeah sure.. whatever... :rolleyes:

why, do the usual trolling? when you also can be rude at the same time? :rolleyes:

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 2,616

It sounds to me that Gripen has the right characteristics (short take off / landing and good low speed handling) to be considered for adaptation as a carrier aircraft. It seems to me that SAAB has a good record in developing this aircraft (no big delays / no big budget overruns). On that basis Sea Gripen sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

What is the likely world market (excluding US, Russia, China and France) for carrier-borne fighters in the next 25 years? Could Brazil be involved in Sea Gripen development if it opted for Gripen in the current competition?

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 1,142

It sounds to me that Gripen has the right characteristics (short take off / landing and good low speed handling) to be considered for adaptation as a carrier aircraft. It seems to me that SAAB has a good record in developing this aircraft (no big delays / no big budget overruns). On that basis Sea Gripen sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

What is the likely world market (excluding US, Russia, China and France) for carrier-borne fighters in the next 25 years? Could Brazil be involved in Sea Gripen development if it opted for Gripen in the current competition?

I think all potential customers have been mentioned at some point:

India, Brazil and if all hell breaks loose, the UK. Unless we drop our arms embargoes on China, nowhere else is operating/building flattops large enough for a STOBAR/CATOBAR aircraft.

Member for

1 month 2 weeks

Posts: 3

The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)

In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation 
SAAB Gripen E with 
Digital camouflage urban pattern. 
Understanding Urban Camouflage. 
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.

Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.

After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.

Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo. 
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious. 
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.

Refrences

https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/news/2019-09/saab-announces-new-…

 

https://www.military1st.eu/colours/urban

 

https://www.heddels.com/2015/01/understanding-camo-13-patterns-know/

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/99524-sea-gripen-me…

Attachments

Member for

1 month 2 weeks

Posts: 3

The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)

 

In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation 

SAAB Gripen E with 

Digital camouflage urban pattern. 

Understanding Urban Camouflage. 

Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.

 

Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.

 

After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.

 

Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo. 

MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious. 

The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments. 

It beat ten other patterns (though UCP may still have been adopted without field testing against other patterns because senior military leaders liked it). Its pixelated pattern is similar to the MARPAT and CADPAT camouflage patterns used by the United States Marine Corps and the Canadians, respectively.

dark blue and light blue colors with names and html, rgb, hex codes.

Saab announces new camouflage

 

PRESS RELEASE

05 September 2019

Saab has developed a new type of camouflage called ARCASe (Advanced Reversible Camouflage Screen emissive), with the first briefing on the new product at the annual Barracuda User Group at DSEI, London. 

The ARCASe offers true multispectral protection and gives the user complete protection, even in changeable environments. ARCASe is the first reversible thermal pattern camouflage system from Saab. It protects vehicles or other assets by masking and disrupting their thermal signature to blend in with the background.

The ARCASe’s visible pattern is reversible which means it has different colours on each side allowing the user to choose which is most effective without comprising the thermal protection.

“Saab has a long and distinguished history in development of camouflage systems. The ARCASe is our best camouflage for use in broken terrain and is a valuable addition to our broad camouflage portfolio,” says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.

The world famous multispectral camouflage systems from Saab Barracuda will also be on display at DSEI on various vehicles.

Saab’s advanced camouflage technology products have been exported to more than 50 countries. Saab offers a unique package of camouflage systems and force protection solutions developed to limit an enemy’s ability to detect and engage. Various solutions and configurations are available to protect camps, vehicles as well as individual personnel in any type of terrain or environment.

Attachments

Member for

1 month 2 weeks

Posts: 3

The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)

 

In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation 

SAAB Gripen E with 

Digital camouflage urban pattern. 

Understanding Urban Camouflage. 

Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.

 

Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.

 

After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.

 

Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo. 

MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious. 

The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments. 

It beat ten other patterns (though UCP may still have been adopted without field testing against other patterns because senior military leaders liked it). Its pixelated pattern is similar to the MARPAT and CADPAT camouflage patterns used by the United States Marine Corps and the Canadians, respectively.

dark blue and light blue colors with names and html, rgb, hex codes.

Saab announces new camouflage

 

PRESS RELEASE

05 September 2019

Saab has developed a new type of camouflage called ARCASe (Advanced Reversible Camouflage Screen emissive), with the first briefing on the new product at the annual Barracuda User Group at DSEI, London. 

The ARCASe offers true multispectral protection and gives the user complete protection, even in changeable environments. ARCASe is the first reversible thermal pattern camouflage system from Saab. It protects vehicles or other assets by masking and disrupting their thermal signature to blend in with the background.

The ARCASe’s visible pattern is reversible which means it has different colours on each side allowing the user to choose which is most effective without comprising the thermal protection.

“Saab has a long and distinguished history in development of camouflage systems. The ARCASe is our best camouflage for use in broken terrain and is a valuable addition to our broad camouflage portfolio,” says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.

The world famous multispectral camouflage systems from Saab Barracuda will also be on display at DSEI on various vehicles.

Saab’s advanced camouflage technology products have been exported to more than 50 countries. Saab offers a unique package of camouflage systems and force protection solutions developed to limit an enemy’s ability to detect and engage. Various solutions and configurations are available to protect camps, vehicles as well as individual personnel in any type of terrain or environment.

Attachments