MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Valiant1 on September 19, 2006, 10:11:42 PM
-
I love the Gripen, I think it's a wonderful fighter, as I have stated in one of my posts - a beautiful and graceful get powerful airplane. I like the F-18 Hornet, but I think it could have been built better. It's still fairly a new plane, considering nowadays.
The problem with both these fighters, the Hornet and the Gripen, I believe, are the engines, the General Electric F404. I don't know the Swedish company that was subsidized by GE to build the engine for the Gripen. First of all, I think the F404's thrust factor stinks. Yes, it is a very reliable engine as I've watched and read from crew chiefs, and yes, the F404 will push the Gripen to Mach 2, but why not the Hornet, and it has 2 of them?
I think this a good reason why the Hornet is not a GREAT dogfighter, just a good one - it has mediocre thrust-to-weight ratio. Look at the current F-16s - they're pushing 29,000 lbs of thrust from GE's F110 engines. Every F-16 pilot will tell how powerful that engine is. You don't hear that from Hornet pilots.
I think the F-18C & D model would greatly benefit from engines that get at least 20,000 lbs of thrust. It would make the fighter faster and more maneuverable especially in dogfights. The jet already has exceptional low-speed agility; it needs an exceptional high-speed punch. There's no need to retire these aircrafts so soon - look at the Eagle, it's still serving as a front line fighter for over 30 years. The Hornet is only around 20 years old but has newer technology than the Eagle.
As for the Gripen, I think implementing the F-16's GE F-110 engine would make the Gripen a phenomenal fighter, giving the fighter over 10, 000 lbs more thrust. Of course we all know this is with the afterburners on. Supercruise would be a great addition. Additionally, the Gripen's fuselage would have to be enlarged to accomodate the new engine. Possibly one of the Eurofighter's engines would fit nicely? And one more thing - it would be a shame if England, Germany and Italy retire the absolutely marvelous Tornado, both ground attack and interceptor. That would truly be a waste.
-
To answer one of your questions about the engine. Volvo Aero Corporation. The engine (GE F-404-400 ) has the designation "RM12" in Sweden. Approx 18,000lb of thrust is sufficiant for a light fighter as Gripen. Dont know the exact weight. I think they choose that engine because of operating costs, they want to keep it down to a minimum.
There where rumours of a "SuperGripen" last year (a larger model with a more powerful engine). But thats all it was, no truth behind those facts. Just wishfulhinking. :)
-
The Gripen is a small fighter, probably no bigger than an F-5 Tiger II, which by the way, I think the US Air Force should have implemented their stock of F-16's with F-20 Tigershark II that WAS powered by the GE F404, but managed to outperform the F-16 in just about every category. Unfortunately for Northrop, the design of the F-20 came from the F-5, which was a dated design, but I believe they could have remedied that with the addition of a delta wing configuration that would have given the F-20 double the range, the payload and better performance. Too bad.
-
I think if an export customer would request the EJ200 (Eurofighter's engine) - Gripen combo, it will be possible. So for the Swedish it might be wishful thinking, but it's not impossible.
Because of the F404 engine I have not as much faith in the Gripen. Like you said, the F-16 outperforms the F/A-18 when it comes to power, and the F/A-18 has got two of these. I guess it is better and improved than those of the original F/A-18s, but I think it is the weakest point of the design of both jets, although the Gripen clearly has the light weight factor to make up for it.
But it's all about economics for most air forces, which makes the Gripen a success on the export market, for its price (including operating costs) it is the best choice, and you can count on it that Sweden will keep improving it over the years. But new engine, I don't think so, probably just upgraded versions of the F404.
I am not sure the F-110 will fit the Gripen. The F404 and EJ200 are more compact designs. But yeah, maybe some other GE engine!
Having said all this, I don't want to take anything away from the F404, I think it is a very good engine.
About the Tornado and wishful thinking, think about this, the Tornado powered by two EJ200s. That would be interesting! Don't worry by the way, those Tornado strike versions will stay in service for quite some years to come.
-
Webmaster, the F404 was chosen because of the only strength it has - reliability. That's great because we definitely would like to see our Hornet drivers come home safely. BUT in a dogfight against a Flanker driver, pilot and AA weapons being equal, the Hornet driver better buzz away, whatever nationality is flying it. GE should build a more powerful version of the F404, in the 20,000-25,000 lb. thrust class, at least. As I have said, the Gripen's fuselage would have to be redesigned to accomodate GE's F110 engine.
You see, I'm a hotrodder at heart. I don't necessarily believe in a bigger engine, but a more powerful engine. You can have a car that's an excellent handling machine, but what good is it if you have a weak engine and the competition can just roll right over you?
You're right, it's also about economics. You can't throw all your money into the military. But a little collaboration between GE and Volvo in redesigning the F404 wouldn't cost as much as installing another engine.
-
Im all up for a new engine in Gripen, the EJ200 would be great. But how fuelsufficant are the F-404 vs EJ200 vs F-110?
A complete redesign of the fuselage is probably out of the question, the Gripen is built to be small and light. I dont think they want it to get any bigger then it is, otherwise they just have a new "Viggen".
-
That is a good question - fuel efficiency- we're gonna have to look that up and see what the range of each aircraft (Typhoon, Gripen, Hornet, Falcon) is empty and full combat weight. Obviously, the Typhoon and Hornet would be the heavyweights in this category. Anyone out there a physicist and figure the range of a EJ200 or F110 or a 25,000 lb thrust F404 in a Gripen?
-
How many kNs on the F110?
-
The GE F-110 is quite powerful - it puts out amost 29,000 lbs. of thrust - almost 11,000 lbs. MORE than its little brother, the F404. Imagine the F110 in an F-20 Tigershark, a Gripen or in the Hornet. The enemy would then have a lot to worry about.
-
*choke*
That's one big problem. Aren't the 110s already being used on some F-15 models?
-
Yes, on the Eagles and Fighting Falcons, but why does that pose a problem?
-
If you're going to worry the enemy, you might as well go all the way and threaten to kill them. Anyway, if you're just using it as part of your defensive infrastructure, the enemy might not want to be very worried.
Well, yeah. That means a multi-role fighter better than the Fighting Falcon, doesn't it?
-
I think you need some serious redesigning of the airframe, intakes, restructuring/reinforcing and sort out the balance problems. The difference is too big. The engine is too big for the airframe, and its power will rip it apart. I like the idea, but it's just not feasible. Maybe one F110 instead of the two F404s in the Hornet, but even then you need lots of redesign.
-
Then I would suggest that the US Air Force by the Typhoon's engines, which are definitely more powerful than the F404s plus have the added advantage of supercruise. I feel the EF200's would bring the F-18 Hornet and the Gripen on a whole new playing field.
-
Yeah, i was thinking along the lines of technical problems too. The Gripen is too light a fighter to match against The Fighting Falcon for a pure heavy hardware battle...
-
the Gripen weighs 14,600lbs empty and 18,298lbs full load
its RM12 delivers 80.49KN of thrust
the Eurofighter and Rafale have two engines (Eurojet and SNECMA respectivly) and they are both slower then the Gripen, and the lightweight Gripen can carry the same amout of weapons as the Eurofighter (14,330lb air to air)
compared to the F-16, the Gripen is faster- then again the Falcon was designed for the international market, and the Gripen was built to defend Sweeden and other places in Europe, but as sweeden built it, they only needed a plane to impress their people, not half the world, so it is kind of hard to compare the F-16 and the Gripen- yes they are both fighters, but they were designed for different purposes.
-
Too true. But the F-16 was built as a general purpose plane, not a light multi-role fighter like the Gripen. Again, in a stand-off fight, your Gripen is disadvantaged.
-
Question: Whats the shortest space a F-16 combat loaded can take off in
I know a Gripen can do 800Metres or 2,265ft
F-16s can do it in what?
Repsonse time is important ;)
-
F-16s can scramble on combat-ready mode in a very short time. They can carry out a lot of tasks. From stunt flying to Air-superiority roles. It's a great jet.
-
yes it is, but look at what happened with the Sept 11 attacks, the airforce had F-16s up in the air but they were going the wrong way.
if that happens in combat, no matter who or what they are fighting, i know who would win
-
no comment. Raptor out.
-
I think we got off the subject a bit. I realize it doesn't matter - the US is looking to retire the F-18C & D models anyway because they're being replaced by the F-35. It's too bad, though, the Hornet could be a really great dogfighter, if it were not for the feeble engines.
Like the Super Hornet, the GE F404 was chosing for its maintainability and reliability, not for its power. I think Saab did it better by taking the F404 and improving it by giving the engine an extra 1,000 lbs. of thrust so the Gripen could have an equal thrust-to-weight ratio. Who knows, maybe they're still making improvements on the engine to give the Gripen the edge in combat.
I still think the EF200 would be an excellent option IF it has the same dimensions and diameter as the F404 - anyone know if it does? Because, I feel, if it were the same dimensions, it wouldn't require a lot of tinkering with the Gripen's airframe, maybe just where the engine would hook up.
Having said that, and since there's no hope for the F-18 C&D models, maybe the US Navy can provide more powerful engines w/supercruise for the Super Hornet - both Hornets do have excellent maneuverability and low-speed handling, but both lack in the power category.
I feel bad for any US Navy fighter pilot flying the Super Bug against any variant of the Flanker because about the only that may go for the Bug is avionics and pilot skills, but who's to say the Flanker pilot doesn't have any skills?
-
Some of you might not have read a post that was made earlier by Greekpilot in this thread: JA37 Vs JAS39 (http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php/topic,37.30.html).
Eurojet's (EJ200 manufacturer) answer to the question whether there would be the possibility of an EJ200 powered Gripen.
Dear Mr. Ioannidis,
Thank you for your e-mail.
Saab has years ago already investigated the technical and operational
feasibility for re-engineering JAS 39 Gripen with the EJ200 engine.
Both Saab and EUROJET Turbo GmbH concluded that a re-engineering only
shall be considered if there is a customer demand available. From a
technical point of view, the EJ200 engine would fit into the engine bay
of JAS39 Gripen with minor changes applied to the interface connections.
The commercial feasibility of re-engineering JAS39 Gripen would be
supported, if required, by individual business case calculations.
The Thrust vectoring nozzle is offered as an optional item for any of
the EJ200 engine standards.
I hope this answer can help.
Yours sincerely,
Katarina Elbogen
Katarina Elbogen
Executive PR and Political Affairs
EUROJET Turbo GmbH
-
Webmaster, having posted that letter, what do the Swedish fighter pilots think? Are they satisfied with the F404's power or do they feel replacing it with the more powerful EJ200 with the optional thrust vectoring take the Gripen to a whole new level?
Maybe it's the Swedish fighter pilots and those nations who bought the Gripen, who should be the ones to vote whether or not to re-engine the Gripen.
I don't know how many times I've said it but the Gripen is truly a remarkable aircraft - it would be even more with the addition of the EF-200 w/thrust vectoring.
I would lobby for the Gripen to be bought by the USAF if I were the Secretary of Defense. We bought the Harrier, why not the Gripen? Too bad I'm not.
-
lol thrust-vectoring-engined Gripen!!!!! That would be cool! >:D
But it's a pity they hadn't thought about the "weak" engine before. (Now the engines are new for a change, I mean, they haven't been used enough to say they are old) and it would be a pity to throw away an engine that is new :-\
-
I do not know. I am not sure if there is anything published yet about the Gripen in dissimilar counter-air missions. Would be very interesting, but then again even about the Typhoon there is little known yet about its true capabilities, not to mention the F/A-22, the best we get is that both perform beyond expectations and they beat the F-15...well they should do that, don't they.
But last year we interviewed a former Viggen pilot, who now flies the Gripen. I don't know for sure yet, but in cooperation with Patrik (Viggen as you know him) we might be able to ask him some questions about the Gripen in the near future, of course weapon system and performance details can not be revealed. But we might get some answer on what the pilots think about the aircraft's power and manoeuvrability.
It's important to remember the origin of the letter, which is the engine manufacturer, not SAAB, not FMV (Swedish defence material administration). not the air forces operating the type. But the EJ200 on the Gripen is not impossible, we can tell from this, however they need a customer. Valiant1? Gripen? Viggen? Any requirement, guys? What if all three of you start a display team, then we could have at least three EJ200 equipped Gripens in the world. ;D
-
I'm up for it.
The answers were given already - minor modifications to install the EJ200 - already has more power than GE's F404 PLUS the addes advantage of thrust vectoring, which would put the Gripen, as I have said, on a whole new playing level.
Combine that with excellent fighter pilot skills, you would have a fighter that would be near impossible to tangle with.
Yes, it would cost $$$ to modify, but think of the return you get on your investment. Maybe then, we can interest the USAF to acquire some?
-
What if all three of you start a display team, then we could have at least three EJ200 equipped Gripens in the world.
Would you really trust a multimillion dollar project into the hands of a nearly "blind" man? ;)