What if Sweden/Saab went for a different set of design criteria for the Gripen

[BonPlan2]

Again, the F-16C is not heavier than the Gripen E for CAP missions, and has 7000lbs more thrust to deal with any increased drag.

Same weight, 7000lbs more thrust.

OK, but F16C has the same wings studied for the lighter F16A.
More weight (than F16A) on same wings => more AoA to sustain the flight than F16A => more drag than F16A => the interest to have a more powerfull engine is reduced or vanished.

 

[Scott Kenny]

OK, but F16C has the same wings studied for the lighter F16A.
More weight (than F16A) on same wings => more AoA to sustain the flight than F16A => more drag than F16A => the interest to have a more powerfull engine is reduced or vanished.

We're not comparing F-16C and F-16A. We're comparing F-16C and Gripen.

​

Lift​

Drag <+> Thrust

Weight​

​

Lift overcomes Weight, Thrust overcomes Drag. As Lift increases, so does Drag.

Let's be lazy and assume that Gripen and Charlie Falcon require the same amount of thrust in lbs to fly in their CAP loadout that we've been discussing. The two planes are at the same weight, and carry the same payload of 2x WVRAAMs and 4x BVRAAMs. They even carry the same amount of fuel! The F110 engine has a lower TSFC than the F414, ergo the F-16C will burn less fuel per hour of patrol in this example.

But where the 7000lbs extra thrust really matters is when the fight goes WVR and you start pulling Gs. The F16 will be able to add a lot more energy back in after a turn than the Gripen can. It will also matter for sheer acceleration, of course.

 

[BonPlan2]

We're not comparing F-16C and F-16A. We're comparing F-16C and Gripen.

​

Lift​

Drag <+> Thrust

Weight​

​

Lift overcomes Weight, Thrust overcomes Drag. As Lift increases, so does Drag.

Let's be lazy and assume that Gripen and Charlie Falcon require the same amount of thrust in lbs to fly in their CAP loadout that we've been discussing. The two planes are at the same weight, and carry the same payload of 2x WVRAAMs and 4x BVRAAMs. They even carry the same amount of fuel! The F110 engine has a lower TSFC than the F414, ergo the F-16C will burn less fuel per hour of patrol in this example.

But where the 7000lbs extra thrust really matters is when the fight goes WVR and you start pulling Gs. The F16 will be able to add a lot more energy back in after a turn than the Gripen can. It will also matter for sheer acceleration, of course.

OK, I explained it in long and large. You don't want to understand so I stop here with you.

 

[Scott Kenny]

OK, I explained it in long and large. You don't want to understand so I stop here with you.

You are absolutely correct that an F-16Charlie will have more drag than an Alpha.

But that was never the point of comparison.

 

[IRT]

We're not comparing F-16C and F-16A. We're comparing F-16C and Gripen.

​

Lift​

Drag <+> Thrust

Weight​

​

Lift overcomes Weight, Thrust overcomes Drag. As Lift increases, so does Drag.

Let's be lazy and assume that Gripen and Charlie Falcon require the same amount of thrust in lbs to fly in their CAP loadout that we've been discussing. The two planes are at the same weight, and carry the same payload of 2x WVRAAMs and 4x BVRAAMs. They even carry the same amount of fuel! The F110 engine has a lower TSFC than the F414, ergo the F-16C will burn less fuel per hour of patrol in this example.

But where the 7000lbs extra thrust really matters is when the fight goes WVR and you start pulling Gs. The F16 will be able to add a lot more energy back in after a turn than the Gripen can. It will also matter for sheer acceleration, of course.

Why compare to a 90's Charlie Block 50?
Compare to a Block 70 and you have added another 1500lbs of weight to that Block 50 cause of all the new stuff needed to stay somewhat technologicaly relevant today.
So basicly the F16 is 2700 lbs heavier than the Gripen E. Still lacking the IRST, MAWS, swashplate mounted AESA of the Gripen E.


Thats about 4500 extra lbs over the F16A.. still the same wing. Doubt it is significantly more fuel efficient than the Gripen E with that small wing, it needs way more thrust to stay in the air.

I know that F16 accelerates better than the Gripen E, also burning fuel like crazy to get that acceleration, both have pros and cons in WVR. With the new gen IR missiles WVR is really a knife fight in a phone booth so first look first kill. Slim chance of gunfigts happening in a real war scenario today.

 

[MadRat]

If Gripen was more like a Viggen 2.0 its main niche would be STOL on semi-prepared roadways. Do you aim for the Eurofighter Lite market or compete head to head? Might need another niche, like a focus on ship killer missiles (like SH37 Viggen or the later 1985 F-2A proposals) or sixteen hardpoints (1983 F-16XL). High drag external bomb stores but low drag option of a centerline internal bay? Recessed missiles based around AIM-7/Skyflash or early adoption of AMRAAM? It's 1987, so keep options to that timeframe. So do you stick to the stable cranked arrow or innovate with an aerodynamically unstable design? Oerlikon KCA 30mm cannon or the 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon? Focus on strike or intercept in batch0? Chin-mounted LANTIRN or propriety targeting pod? AN/ALQ-144 or internal SPJ? IRST? Secretly participate with the IAF to see what makes Lavi different? PW1120 of Lavi is a bit light. F100, F110, M53, or pull another off another RM8 using newer technologies? Thrust reverser or equipped with a drogue parachute, or both?

 

[Scott Kenny]

If Gripen was more like a Viggen 2.0 its main niche would be STOL on semi-prepared roadways. Do you aim for the Eurofighter Lite market or compete head to head? Might need another niche, like a focus on ship killer missiles (like SH37 Viggen or the later 1985 F-2A proposals) or sixteen hardpoints (1983 F-16XL). High drag external bomb stores but low drag option of a centerline internal bay? Recessed missiles based around AIM-7/Skyflash or early adoption of AMRAAM? It's 1987, so keep options to that timeframe. So do you stick to the stable cranked arrow or innovate with an aerodynamically unstable design? Oerlikon KCA 30mm cannon or the 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon? Focus on strike or intercept in batch0? Chin-mounted LANTIRN or propriety targeting pod? AN/ALQ-144 or internal SPJ? IRST? Secretly participate with the IAF to see what makes Lavi different?

IIRC, Sweden was concentrating on an interceptor with minor air to ground capabilities. So we're talking Eurofighter Lite.

Centerline internal bay might be an option, but I'd expect recessed missiles and early adoption of AMRAAM or Active Skyflash.

It's an interceptor, but it might be worth going to an unstable design to make it a better fighter...

PW1120 of Lavi is a bit light. F100, F110, M53, or pull another off another RM8 using newer technologies?

I mean, the F110 is basically a CFM56 that got the RM8 treatment. Either an F100 core or the F101/CFM56 core, and then a bigger fan than the F110 for a higher bypass ratio.

Or, if they're happy to use an older engine design. TF41 with afterburner.

 

[Apophenia]

IIRC, Sweden was concentrating on an interceptor with minor air to ground capabilities. So we're talking Eurofighter Lite.

I don't believe so. Flygvapnet requested a combined jakt-, attack- och spaningsflygplan concept from the outset. So too was the Flygbassystem 90 requirement - hence the Gripen's ability to operate from shorter roads (than Viggen which was to Bas 60) and a demand for turn-arounds by five conscripts with hand tools.

Or, if they're happy to use an older engine design. TF41 with afterburner.

In Europe, a "TF41 with afterburner" is called a Rolls-Royce RB.168 Spey 202

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't believe so. Flygvapnet requested a combined jakt-, attack- och spaningsflygplan concept from the outset. So too was the Flygbassystem 90 requirement - hence the Gripen's ability to operate from shorter roads (than Viggen which was to Bas 60) and a demand for turn-arounds by five conscripts with hand tools.

Fair point, though I suspect that it'd be more like a Typhoon in terms of maneuverability with the extra ground attack of the ITTL Gripen.

Not the weak A2G of the actual Typhoon.

In Europe, a "TF41 with afterburner" is called a Rolls-Royce RB.168 Spey 202

The afterburning TF41 is making ~26,000lbs thrust (technically, a TF41 with F100 afterburner), not the ~20,000lbs of a Spey 202.