100% agree and in 1/48
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
100% agree and in 1/48Which major model manufacturer will step-up and produce a well-engineered, accurate model of the Gripen E/F? After all the 1:1 version has been in service since 2016. Now with other nations looking for alternatives to the F35, this has become a more significant subject. We really don't need anymore Mustangs, FW190s or 109s.
Jager
What a bunch of crap. Everything they talk about is already done by the F-35, arguably better) and they certainly don't explain how stealth has failed.
More hyperbolic garbage. Don't get me wrong. I like the Gripen - arguably it should be the F-5 of the 21st Century - but these videos come across as fanboy wanking, acting as though no other platform has the capabilities they credit, and fawn over, for the Gripen.
The F-35 radar (be that the original AN/APG-81 or the newer AN/APG-85) is an extremely advanced sensor and one that incorporates low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) measures to avoid detection by passive radar detection. Arguably it is far in advance of the Raven ES-05 being planned for the Gripen E/F, let alone the PS-05/A in earlier versions.There are some fanboys out there!
As good and nice the '39 is, I'm a '35 Draken fanboy!
As for the stealth failing, I think that they explained it with the F-35 using its radar if I heard it right....
....and still, neither has a kettle in it for coffee or tea!The F-35 radar (be that the original AN/APG-81 or the newer AN/APG-85) is an extremely advanced sensor and one that incorporates low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) measures to avoid detection by passive radar detection. Arguably it is far in advance of the Raven ES-05 being planned for the Gripen E/F, let alone the PS-05/A in earlier versions.
Hmmm...let me introduce you to the F-35B. Also, even if you buy into the Saab sales pitch, remember that other aircraft can do what the Gripen does re road runways - see below for example:An F-35 airfield can not be fixed in hours and to damage every Gripen runway in an area is impossible.
Yes, the same would apply to the Gripen and every other platform these days.Repairing an F-35 that is shrapnel damaged is not an overnight task using semi skilled labour and duck tape tho the same probably applies to the Gripen.
Don't take the Saab sales pitch too literally... Plus air forces these days pretty much have multiple well trained technicians so it is essentially a moot point.To maintain an F-35 takes a cast of dozens of fully trained experts but for the Gripen just conscripts.
Both the Swiss and Finnish authorities, as part of their respective competitions, argued that the F-35 was the best cost/benefit investment, if its full life-cycle economics were taken into account. Moreover, the Finnish Government's report on the HX competition, where Girpen E participated and Lightning II won, states that no bid was significantly less expensive than others in terms of operation and maintenance costs.For the cost of building a new airfield to support the F-35 you can buy a squadron of Gripen's and probably have a lot of change left over. and the cost of maintaining an F-35 will always be far higher than maintaining the Gripen.
A = AsphaltF-35A equals Air Force
F-35C equals Carrier
F-35B equals Boingy boingy boingy
That's how I remember them.
It's hard to say because the data on the Eurojet (not RR) EJ230 is very limited. It was offered to the Indians for a development of the HAL Tejas but not taken up. The public data I have seen is that it is basically an uprated EJ200 with thrust vectoring ability. I have seen it mentioned to have maximum wet thrust of approximately 102 kN and Dry thrust is around 72 kN. Comparing to the F414, we get 97.9 kN and 57.8 kN respectively. Thus on just thrust it is roughly comparable. To have a full comparison though, one needs to also know the dimensions, weight and SFC. Using that known for the EJ200 and F414 we get:How does the Rolls Royce EJ230 compare to the GE F414G?
| EJ200 | F414 |
|
|
Thanks for this but I have to say that the difference in dry thrust seems very significant and aircraft spend the vast majority of their time on dry.It's hard to say because the data on the Eurojet (not RR) EJ230 is very limited. It was offered to the Indians for a development of the HAL Tejas but not taken up. The public data I have seen is that it is basically an uprated EJ200 with thrust vectoring ability. I have seen it mentioned to have maximum wet thrust of approximately 102 kN and Dry thrust is around 72 kN. Comparing to the F414, we get 97.9 kN and 57.8 kN respectively. Thus on just thrust it is roughly comparable. To have a full comparison though, one needs to also know the dimensions, weight and SFC. Using that known for the EJ200 and F414 we get:
EJ200 F414
- Length: 398.78 cm (157.00 in)
- Diameter: 73.66 cm (29.00 in)
- Dry weight: 988.83 kg (2,180.0 lb)
- Air mass flow: 75–77 kg/s (165–170 lb/s)
- Specific fuel consumption: 21–23 g/(kN⋅s) (0.74–0.81 lb/(lbf⋅h)) and 47–49 g/(kN⋅s) (1.66–1.73 lb/(lbf⋅h)) (with reheat)
- Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6.11:1 and 9.17:1 (with reheat)
- Length: 154 in (391 cm)
- Diameter: 35 in (89 cm) overall, 31 in (79 cm) inlet
- Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight
- Air mass flow: 170 lb/s (77.1 kg/s)
- Specific fuel consumption: 23.9 g/kN⋅s (0.840 lb/HR/lb) (w/o afterburner); 49.3 g/kN⋅s (1.850 lb/HR/lb) (with afterburner)
- Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.3 and 9 (with reheat)
Now if the EJ230 has added thrust vectoring one might reasonably assume that that comes with some additional weight. Similarly, extra thrust usually comes with extra fuel burn. Thus overall, I would say the engines are roughly comparable. That said, it is all theoretical until someone actually does it...and pays for it.