Gripen NG vs Su-35

[gigz-on]

How about a new theme called "5th generation planes"?

[topol-m]

You didnt even read the article at all or read my post properly. Then talk about women logic.

 

I said DEVIDED BY 2 ENGINES DUH... :P

 

you rushed and tripped yourself

 

OK a little on topic and off topic comment here. It`s pretty early to compare in such details an aircraft that hasn`t been presented officially. Comparing just the thrust is not of much use. The Thrust/Weight ratio is much more significant. The su-35 has 1.1 T/W ratio and the mig-29 has also similar (1.1) value while the F-35 may have the most powerful engine but still has 0.8-0.9 ratio. It is expected that Pak-FA will be more similar to mig-29 in terms of size, weight... But the extended use of composite materials and more powerful engines in theory could result in even better trust/weight ratio. Oh and about the many weapon pylons resulting in no-stealth. They may be 12 but not all of them are going to be external. F-22 also has 4 external pylons which when not carrying something do not disrupt its stealth capabilities, expect the same for the Pak-FA.

Edited June 9, 2009 by topol-m

[gigz-on]

Some info about these engines from the official site of manufacturer:

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/index.php?slang=1 ( english )

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/index.php?pid=51 ( russian )

[topol-m]

Some info about these engines from the official site of manufacturer:

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/index.php?slang=1 ( english )

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/index.php?pid=51 ( russian )

 

Thanks for the links. 5th gen engine is coming from NPO Saturn :thumbup:

[gigz-on]

The russian plane also contemplates 12 hardpoints wich makes me believe stealth is not russias main concern.

 

You didnt even read the article at all!:lol:

 

It's a very large study of aerodynamics of the aircraft, all weapons will be placed inside the fuselage," - said Chief of Russian Air Force Army General Vladimir Mikhailov.

[GGTharos]

OK a little on topic and off topic comment here. It`s pretty early to compare in such details an aircraft that hasn`t been presented officially. Comparing just the thrust is not of much use. The Thrust/Weight ratio is much more significant. The su-35 has 1.1 T/W ratio and the mig-29 has also similar (1.1) value while the F-35 may have the most powerful engine but still has 0.8-0.9 ratio.

 

About 0.95 when the F-35(shall we say A) is FULLY loaded. This is full fuel (18500 lbs, which is more than that of an F-15 with an extra fuel tank!) plus 4 AIM-120.

 

Further, it flies clean in this configuration which means you don't have to remove any of this thrust due to extra drag.

 

Once you burn off 8000lbs of fuel, you're looking at a TWR of 1.15 - and you can still go places and fight, because you have 10000lbs of fuel hanging around still.

 

So, while the Su-35 has MORE TWR, the F-35 isn't doing too bad considering that it is a single-engine aircraft. Also consider that the Su-35 is an air superiority fighter with the ability to carry A2G weapons, while the F-35 is primarily an attack aircraft - a bomb truck :) It has stealth as its advantage, and it has good characteristics for fighting air to air, but it's not meant to be an air superiority fighter.

 

And at this point, I'm not certain how the Gripen can even attempt to compete against Su-35s.

Edited June 9, 2009 by GGTharos

[gigz-on]

Also swedish says that Gripen is a 5th generation fighter...:music_whistling:

[topol-m]

 

And at this point, I'm not certain how the Gripen can even attempt to compete against Su-35s.

 

Neither am I. Maybe such tests are to be made by some independent party. Not that it is easy to find one nowadays. :)

[X-man]

And at this point, I'm not certain how the Gripen can even attempt to compete against Su-35s.

It seems a bit odd yes, but we have to keep in mind the the article said Gripen NG, which has many improvements over the current version and is not yet out.

 

But where does Saab get its data on the Su-35 from? I guess it's just guesses...

[Pilotasso]

You didnt even read the article at all or read my post properly. Then talk about women logic.

 

I said DEVIDED BY 2 ENGINES DUH... :P

 

you rushed and tripped yourself

 

I've read your post. Point is, the PAK FA is going to be equipped with AL-41F engines whose rack thrust is 40,000lb class, while from your words it's 17,000. So it's someone else who've "rushed&tripped".

 

 

While the math is still wrong, the Raptor's engines are tuned to 39000lbs thrust a piece.

 

Gaaaaaaaaaah! LB's versus KG... nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :D

 

 

You didnt even read the article at all!:lol:

 

the 12 hardpoint stuff is in there search or it. Furthermore theres a remark that trap doors might are being studied to avoid damage the aircraft. It apears both statements contradicts themselves in the article meaning the design is still open but it is clear to me that Suckoi is not going to stuff 12 missiles inside a bay.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

[

OK a little on topic and off topic comment here. It`s pretty early to compare in such details an aircraft that hasn`t been presented officially. Comparing just the thrust is not of much use. The Thrust/Weight ratio is much more significant. The su-35 has 1.1 T/W ratio and the mig-29 has also similar (1.1) value while the F-35 may have the most powerful engine but still has 0.8-0.9 ratio. It is expected that Pak-FA will be more similar to mig-29 in terms of size, weight... But the extended use of composite materials and more powerful engines in theory could result in even better trust/weight ratio. Oh and about the many weapon pylons resulting in no-stealth. They may be 12 but not all of them are going to be external. F-22 also has 4 external pylons which when not carrying something do not disrupt its stealth capabilities, expect the same for the Pak-FA.

 

F-35's T/W ratio varies between 0.9-1.4

 

It is highly variable just like all flanker series. except it carries all or partialy internal weapons and not so much drag, wich is much more of a stopping factor for a fighter kinetics than weight.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Vault]

Does anybody have an official or reliable wing load figure for the NG?

[Pilotasso]

If you have a reliable value for versions A and C then you can multiply the factor of increase (Weight new/weight old) by the previously known wing loading. Since area didnt change you should have a precise aproximation.

[JaNk0]

Here's a little info

 

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/1FC115DD-4C07-4D49-B69E-FA52496DCF02/0/Factsheet_NG_090325_web.pdf

 

Wiki info

Gripen NG

 

A two-seat "New Technology Demonstrator" has been built,[14] and was presented on 23 April 2008. It has increased fuel capacity, a more powerful powerplant, increased payload capacity, upgraded avionics and other improvements. The new aircraft is also referred to as the "Gripen Demo".[15][16]

The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the GE/Volvo Aero F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will produce 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles.[17]

Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900–35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A radar adds a new AESA antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009.[17]

Gripen Demo's maiden flight was conducted on 27 May 2008. The test flight took about 30 minutes and reached a maximum altitude of about 6,400 meters.[18] On 21 January 2009, the Gripen Demo flew at Mach 1.2 without reheat to test its supercruise capability.[19][20]

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2009 by JaNk0

[Pilotasso]

Excellent plane for many european countries, although expensive for its size, it pays back for maintenance and wepons slection, being the meteor the most apealing stick it has.

[mikoyan]

Still the f-22 is going to be superior everything; even superior to the enterprise from Star-trek and the UFOS from MARS (being sarcastic here)

[-Bazong-]

I believe the strength of the Gripen is in the ability to be stored in a shack then be armed and ready by a few people and a few minutes, then takeoff on 500 meters of road to fly it's mission.

It's made for a defence in depth of northern Sweden I thinks..

[EtherealN]

Also swedish says that Gripen is a 5th generation fighter...:music_whistling:

 

Most of the times I've seen references to "generations" in swedish media and communiques it is in the sense of a generation being a type of product capability made by the industry. The official papers I have seen are mainly talking about being first in a "new generation of multi-role aircraft" and such.

 

I have not seen anything official stating that it's a 5th gen aircraft.

 

I have seen regular news reporters say that - but don't take the ill-informed ignorance of regular news reporters with no background in the subject as a general statement of what "swedish says".

[gigz-on]

Most of the times I've seen references to "generations" in swedish media and communiques it is in the sense of a generation being a type of product capability made by the industry. The official papers I have seen are mainly talking about being first in a "new generation of multi-role aircraft" and such.

 

I have not seen anything official stating that it's a 5th gen aircraft.

 

I have seen regular news reporters say that - but don't take the ill-informed ignorance of regular news reporters with no background in the subject as a general statement of what "swedish says".

 

These words are incorrect, I could say "Swedish newspapers and TV says that..."

Gripen is fourth generation aircraft, but with "+"! ;)

[EtherealN]

The point I'm making is that there is nothing explicit in the official material (as far as I have seen) that says they're talking about the same kind of generation.

 

All that's there is standard market-speak saying "new generation of multi-role aircraft". It doesn't say "first 5th generation multirole".

 

The concept of a "generation" of aircraft can be used in a multitude of ways, but you are isolating the word into meaning only one thing and reading it into something that it doesn't necessarily mean.

 

I read it as simple marketspeak. They need to say it's new and awesome in a good soundbyte, so they slap on "new generation" because it sounds good. (NOT "5th generation". Find me an official document that says that it is a 5th generation and I'll be more impressed.)

 

There are people who think the Gripen is just as modern as anything else out there, but those are invariable (the ones I've seen, at least) people that have no clue and have no official connection to the aircraft.

[gigz-on]

Don't be so angry my swedish friend!;)

Newspapers are bad things...:)