Anuncio

Colapsar
No hay anuncio todavía.

Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

Colapsar
Este es un tema pegajoso.
X
X
  • Filtrar
  • Tiempo
  • Mostrar
Limpiar Todo
nuevos mensajes

  • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

    Saab ofrece a India la producción conjunta de la versión naval del Gripen



    Saab ofreció desarrollar conjuntamente una versión naval de su avión de combate Gripen con transferencia de tecnología.

    "Tenemos una gran oportunidad para la transferencia de tecnología", dijo Ulf Nilsson, jefe de la división aeronáutica de Saab, según fue citado por la agencia Press Trust of India Sunday.

    En la actualidad, la Organización de Investigación y Desarrollo de Defensa está desarrollando la versión naval del avión de combate ligero (LCA) Tejas.

    Al respecto de quién va a pagar por el costo de desarrollo de la versión naval del Gripen, Nilsson dijo, "Hay un costo para todo. Pero siempre se puede hablar de diferentes instituciones de inversión. Si usted ve que hay otros potenciales clientes ... usted puede hacerlo de forma conjunta con Brasil. Tailandia es también un cliente potencial para Sea Gripen ".

    Mientras que la Armada de la India apoya la versión naval del LCA Tejas, que a su vez está preocupado por la incertidumbre sobre el compromiso de la Fuerza Aérea India (IAF) por el LCA Mk2. Este proyecto se ha topado con retraso, y es también la base para el LCA naval.

    La IAF anunció recientemente pedidos por 120 ACV, con tres modificaciones a la versión existente de Tejas, que están por debajo del estándar de LCA Mk2.

    Sin embargo, no está claro si el LCA naval estará listo para entonces
    "Antes sacrificaría mi existencia que echar una mancha sobre mi vida pública que se pudiera interpretar por ambición".José de San Martín

    Comentario


    • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

      Saab Contract With Brazil For Operational Capabilities On Gripen NG Comes Into Effect
      Written by thomas · Filed Under Aeronautics News
      January 6, 2016
      thomas
      On 24 April 2015 Saab announced the conclusion of a contract with the Brazilian Ministry of Defence, through the Aeronautics Command (COMAER), concerning acquisition of external stores for Gripen NG. This contract has now come into effect as all required conditions have been fulfilled. Today, the order value of approximately USD 245 million is booked by Saab as order intake.
      The order includes deliveries of external stores by Saab and suppliers who have been selected by the customer for the Brazilian Gripen NG programme. Deliveries will be made in connection with deliveries of the Gripen NG aircraft to the Brazilian Air Force.
      The contract supplements the existing contract with Brazil concerning development and production of 36 Gripen NG, which was announced on 27 October 2014. Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024.

      Fuente: Saab Contract With Brazil For Operational Capabilities On Gripen NG Comes Into Effect | Revista Aérea

      Comentario


      • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

        SAAB's Gripen NG Fighter Has An Awesome Way To Make Its Radar More Capable
        39,27123




        Tyler Rogoway
        Filed to: RADARS11/21/15 3:01pm

        AESA radars have changed aerial combat, offering a quantum leap in range, resolution, fast scanning capabilities, stealthiness and reliability among many other advantages. But, an AESA’s somewhat narrow field of view can still be an issue. SAAB has come up with a ingenious solution to this problem—spin an angled AESA radar array around on a platter.

        Vídeo ilustrativo : SAAB's Gripen NG Fighter Has An Awesome Way To Make Its Radar More Capable

        This system, which is called a repositioner, is ingenious as it allows the Gripen NG’s Raven ES-05 radar to gain another 40 degrees of scanning ability to either side of the aircraft’s nose. This is in addition to the 60 degrees AESA radar sets typically provide (120 degrees combined).

        The ability to take a beyond-visual-range missile shot, then turn 90 degrees, while still providing mid-course updates for the missile fired and keep situational awareness at its peak is a great thing, and it opens up many tactical advantages for Gripen NG crews.

        This system will allow beaming into the enemy’s radar notch without losing track of the bad guys. Beaming is when a fighter turns around 90 degrees away (perpendicular) from the enemy’s pulse doppler radar array. Because these types of radars use doppler shift to gauge a target’s relative velocity, and as such they filter out low relative velocity objects, especially ground clutter, the beaming fighter, which is not moving to or away from the enemy radar much while beaming, can enter the enemy radar’s notch.

        This is a blind spot where the radar’s velocity gate, which acts like a filter, sees a target at low enough speed from its perspective that it discounts it. So even though the fighter may be moving at 500 mph, the right angle to the radar makes it only detect maybe 60 mph of closure, as such it throws this information out as it would ground clutter. This is an especially useful tactic when the enemy fighter is above you, and trying to lock you up in the look-down-shoot down scenario.

        The issue is that with a typical fixed AESA radar array, pulling off such a maneuver means the fighter doing so will lose its radar picture and lock on the enemy it is trying to evade. Without third party sensors feeding this data to the beaming fighter via data-link, its pilot will become blind to the tactical situation when it matters most.

        Now, with a system like SAAB’s repositioner, the radar can be rotated to gain the extra azimuth to continue scanning the area over 90 degrees off its nose. As such, the pilot will not lose situational awareness and their missiles can continue to get mid-course updates as they fly towards their targets. Paired with low-probability of intercept mode, where the AESA radar uses very directed beams of radar energy in quick succession, and while hopping frequencies, the fighter that is beaming can be hard to detect even by passive sensors, such as radar warning receivers.

        With new missiles that have extreme ranges, like MBDA’s Meteor, a Gripen NG could fire these missiles at enemy fighters at long-ranges, and then jump into the enemy’s doppler notch to hide while still guiding its missiles. This could put the Gripen NG beyond the reach of the enemy’s infrared search and track system (IRST) that is impervious to jamming or beaming tricks during the entirety of the engagement, as well as the enemy’s radar for much of it. As such, the enemy fighters would not be able to detect the Gripen even while its missiles are well on the way. First shots, first kill.

        Other solutions to this problem have been designed into other fighters. The F-22 Raptor was supposed to have AESA radar arrays on both sides of its nose in order to give the jet more radar coverage at extreme angles. Sadly, the equipment was never installed due to budget reasons. Still, the F-22, with its low observability (stealth) really has less a need for such a system than less stealthy aircraft.

        Unlike the F-22, Russia’s T-50 has side-mounted AESA arrays, which may be necessary due to the aircraft’s less stealthy design when compared to the F-22. The Eurofighter consortium also has an answer to this problem with their swashplate design tied to the CAPTOR-E radar, which is very similar to SAAB’s repositioner.

        Vídeo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYvkL6_wTEY

        With the 4.75 generation fighter marketplace looking to be stable much longer than originally anticipated, AESA radar upgrades breathe new life into not so new designs. The Gripen NG in particular packs a ton of capability into a small package, and it will be interesting to see how the jet does once it becomes operational.

        Currently, Brazil has an order for 36 of the jets (24 single-seat Gripen Es and 12 two-seat Gripen Fs) that should begin being delivered by 2019, and Sweden will order 60.
        Editado por última vez por Brasil; https://www.aviacionargentina.net/foros/member/1271-brasil en 28/01/2016, 16:02.

        Comentario


        • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

          OPINION

          American Gripen: The Solution To The F-35 Nightmare

          Posted By David Archibald On 5:36 PM 01/22/2016

          One thing that has helped keep the F-35 program going is a perception that there is no ‘Plane B.’ As Margaret Thatcher famously said,“There is no alternative.” No matter how bad the F-35 is, it is going to be built because the U.S. Air Force needs something to replace its worn-out fighters. That appears to be the fallback position in Lockheed Martin’s marketing plan for the F-35. The Department of Defence though is fully aware of the extraordinary cost of the F-35 relative to its performance and is looking to scale back its procurement. That could result in a death spiral as falling numbers send unit costs through the roof.

          This figure shows U.S. Air Force fighter and light bomber procurement from 1975 with a projection to 2030:



          Most of the fighter fleet was built in the fifteen years from 1977 to 1992. Then the F-22 came along a decade ago. While it is a fabulous fighter when it is flying, it is too costly to fly. The F-22 takes 42 man-hours of maintenance for each hour in the air. About half of those maintenance hours are taken with repairing its radar-absorbent-material (RAM) coating. Availability has risen to 63 percent. F-22 pilots are restricted to 10 to 12 hours in the air per month due to an operating cost of $58,000 per hour, the Air Force simply can’t afford more than that. Ideally pilots would get at least twice that amount of flying time in order to be fully proficient in their weapon system.

          So restarting the F-22 production line to make good the fighter aircraft shortfall is not the ideal solution. Arguably the cost of the F-22 has wiped out half of the U.S. fighter fleet even before the Russians or Chinese have had a chance to attack it. Simply due to its cost, what was to be a 750-strong fleet stalled at 187 aircraft; of that number, only 123 are ‘combat-coded.’ After the 63 percent availability figure, that means that there is one modern fighter per every 4.1 million Americans. Of course that is not enough. The U.S. Air Force is considering buying more F-16 and F-15 fighters. That is not a solution either. As General Mike Hostage, former commander of Air Combat Command said,“If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade.”

          The U.S. Air Force has been worshipping at the altar of stealth for over three decades, since the F-117 became operational in 1983. It was considered such a wonderful thing that it was deployed to South Korea in secret, only flew at night and so on. The F-117’s promise was borne out by its performance in Desert Storm in 1991. But things had changed by the end of that same decade. In Operation Allied Force against Serbia in 1999, one F-117 was shot down by a SAM battery and another was mission-killed by the same battery. The stealthy F-117 had a higher loss rate in that conflict than the F-16. It could only operate when it was protected by a pack of other aircraft.

          Shaping provides 90 percent of the stealth of the invisibility cloak of a stealth aircraft with the remaining 10 percent coming from the RAM coating. The operational doctrine of the F-22 is based on the F-22 flying around without its radar on and not making any other electronic emissions either. At the same time it is vacuuming up the electronic emissions of enemy aircraft, triangulating their position and then pouncing at a time of its choosing. The world has moved on from that. Stealth, as practiced by the F-22 and F-35, is optimized on radar in the X band from 7.0 to 11.2 gigahertz. Detection in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum has improved a lot over the last twenty years. Chief of these is infrared search and track (IRST) which enables an F-35 to be detected from its engine exhaust from over 60 miles away. The latest iteration of the Su-27 Flanker family, the Su-35, has IRST and L band radar on its wings. L band and lower frequency radars can see stealthy aircraft over 100 miles away. So an Su-35 can see a F-35 well before the F-35 can detect it. Stealth, as an end in itself, has outlived its usefulness, and maintaining that RAM coating is killing the budget for no good reason.

          Right at the moment the U.S. Air Force is heading for a repeat to the start of World War 2 when its fighters got shot down by far better Axis aircraft. The qualitative edge in the small number of F-22s won’t save the day because they will be overwhelmed by the sheer number of Chinese Flanker variants, as per the RAND study of 2008. There is a solution but it means going overseas to get it. That has been done before. In the 1950s, the U.S. Air Force had the English Electic Canberra bomber built under license in the U.S. as the Martin B-57. It was a great design, illustrated by the fact that one B-57 was resurrected after 40 years in the boneyard in Arizona and used for battlefield communications in Afghanistan. Thirty years after the B-57, the Marine Corps fell in love with another UK aircraft, the Harrier, and had it built in the U.S. from 1985 as the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B.

          The first F-35 to come off the assembly line was in 2006. That was ten years ago and, even though the F-35 is still years of from going into full production, it needs a $2.6 billion modernisation to upgrade its combat power. The solution to the F-35 nightmare first flew in 2008. This is the Gripen E of Saab in Sweden, updated from the original Gripen A of 1988. It is a delta wing with canards, likely the ideal planform for a single-engine air-superiority fighter. The last time the US Air Force had a delta-wing fighter was the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, retired in 1988. A promising effort that might have resulted in another delta-wing fighter was the F-16XL, a stretched version of the F-16 with a far greater range and bomb load. The F-16XL was sacrificed for the program that ultimately became the F-22.

          Simulation has the Gripen E shooting down the Su-35 at almost the same rate that the F-22 does. The Gripen E is estimated to be able to shoot down 1.6 Su-35s for every Gripen E lost, the F-22 is slightly better at 2.0 Su-35s shot down per F-22 lost. In turn the Su-35 is better than the F-35, shooting down 2.4 F-35s for each Su-35 shot down. The Su-35 slaughters the F-18 Super Hornet at the rate of eight to one, as per General Hostage’s comment. How that comes about is explained by the following graphic of instantaneous turn rate plotted against sustained turn rate:



          Turning, and carrying a gun, remains as important as it has ever been. Most missiles miss in combat and the fighter aircraft will go on to the merge. Assuming that pilot skill is equal, a 2° per second advantage in sustained turn rate will enable the more agile fighter to dominate the engagement. A high instantaneous turn rate is vital in being able to dodge the air-to-air missiles in the first place.The aircraft on the upper right quadrant of the graph will have a higher survival rate. The ones on the lower left quadrant will produce more widows.


          The Gripen E has a U.S.-made engine, the GE F414, which is also the engine of the F-18 Super Hornet. The Swedish Air Force is buying its Gripen Es for $43 million per copy, less than one third of the price of the F-35. Its operating cost per hour is less than a tenth of that of the F-35’s. In fact it is the only aircraft that meets the selection criteria of the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program that spawned the F-35: that the acquisition and operating costs be not more than 80 percent of that of legacy aircraft.

          Saab’s partner in the U.S. is Boeing, which will be without a fighter offering of its own once the F-18 Super Hornet production line in St Louis closes. It would be surprising if the two companies haven’t discussed bringing the Gripen to America. That would be good news for U.S. power projection in the Western Pacific, and for the families of U.S. airmen.

          The story doesn’t end there. At the moment the Su-35 is the fighter to beat. It is almost as large as the F-22, with an empty weight of 18.4 tonnes and a maximum takeoff weight of 34.5 tonnes. Its fuel fraction of 38 percent gives it a combat range of 1,000 miles. The argument for having a large fighter aircraft is that physics makes larger aircraft more capable. Assuming that a smaller aircraft and a larger aircraft have a very similar lift to drag ratio, cruise at the same Mach number and have the same specific fuel consumption, the larger fighter will have about 40 percent better range. An inevitable consequence of the physics of flight is that long range aerial combat demands larger airframes and two engines, all other parameters being equal.

          There is a role for a large, agile, twin-engined fighter aircraft in the Western Pacific. Apart from providing air superiority, such a platform would be ideal for delivering long range anti-ship cruise missiles. But this should not be a resurrected F-22. The F-22 program dates from 1991 when its prototype, the YF-22 produced by Lockheed Martin, won the fly-off competition against the YF-23 produced by Northrop, though the YF-23 was faster and stealthier. The U.S. Air Force awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin because it thought that Northrop would not be up to building the B-2 bomber and the new fighter at the same time. Given that the avionics of the F-22 are now over 25 years old, it would be a better outcome from here, for the long term, to go back to the YF-23 airframe and update its engines and avionics. This would produce an aircraft with a weight, acquisition cost and operating cost similar to that of the F-15. It would be as stealthy as possible from shaping without the expense, logistic footprint and low availability of maintaining a RAM coating. Northrop has been awarded the Long Range Strike Bomber program of 80 aircraft at $550 million each. Northrop’s bomber offering is an enlarged, subsonic YF-23. We also need the updated fighter variant.

          David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery)

          Article printed from The Daily Caller: The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller features breaking news, opinion, research, and entertainment 24 hours a day.

          URL to article: American Gripen: The Solution To The F-35 Nightmare | The Daily Caller

          Comentario


          • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

            Si no entendí mal, el autor propone dejar el F-35, producir Gripens construidos por Boeing y abrir la producción del YF-23.
            Según el gráfico, el gripen es el avión con mayor maniobrabilidad ??
            No quiero ser malo, pero me parece que esta fumado o algo el autor.
            Editado por última vez por mauri; https://www.aviacionargentina.net/foros/member/3101-mauri en 28/01/2016, 23:40.

            Comentario


            • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

              Originalmente publicado por mauri Ver Mensaje
              Si no entendí mal, el autor propone dejar el F-35, producir Gripens construidos por Boeing y abrir la producción del YF-23.

              Según el gráfico, el gripen es el avión con mayor maniobrabilidad ??
              No quiero ser malo, pero me parece que esta fumado o algo el autor.
              En la verdad el F-35 es un pesadillo logistico hoy. son problemas atras de problemas. Sobre el YF-23, la historia y los fatos demuenstran que era mejor en muchos quesitos, y mas simple, solo dice que seria bueno una nueva version actualizada.



              En la verdad el Gripen es el avion con mayor taja de giro dentre todos. El A ya demonstrava esta capacedad en varias evaluaciones. Nunca fue segredo. Ahora no confundir maniobrabilidadde a bajas velocidades con las turn rates ejecutadas en combates aereos reales.

              Algo mas sobre, hablando del Gripen A

              A few years ago, SWAF made an interesting comparison among JAS-39A, F-16C/D Block40/42, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5:
              Gripen’s acceleration in sub-sonic and trans-sonic domains: faster than F/A-18C/D and M2000-5, but slower than F-16C.
              Gripen’s instaneous turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
              Gripenss sustaneous turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.
              The Gripen achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees during the flight test, but due to the reason for flight safety, the normal setting of the upper limit of the AoA for the Gripen?s FCS is 50 degrees now.
              Gripen’s frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D’s, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42’s, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5’s.
              Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
              While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:
              JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
              M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
              F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
              F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.
              Maintenance of GRIPEN:
              The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.
              The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
              The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD[/b]
              Sweden has been participating more and more in international excersises, flying with/against U.S, Norweigan and Finnish airforces. The outcome has proven that the Gripen far exceeds the capabilites of earlier generation fighters such as the F-16A/B/C/D and F/A-18C/D. There has been WVR dogfights aswell as BVR engagements. I’ve had the great opportunity to meet and talk to several Gripen pilots during the summer and all of them say the same thing(although not in the excact same words). In WVR combat against F-16’s the Gripen showed to have no problem in position itself on the tail of the F-16, and the F-16 could not match the superb manouverability of the Gripen, offered by its unstable delta/canard configuration. The Gripen cannot match the T/W ratio of the U.S fightes but the Gripens more modern aerodynamic design allows it to pull tighter turns witout losing momentum. In the words of one of the Gripen pilots: “If the F-16 and Gripen would both excecute a 9G turn, the F-16 would lose alot more airspeed in that turn than the Gripen”. In BVR there was no contest at all.
              In excersises with Finnish F/A-18’s the Gripen won ALL of the WVR and BVR fights. The TIDLS proved to be a superior tool in the BVR fights. The F/A-18’s were hit with multiple simulated AMRAAM shots, before they even knew that the Gripen fighters were present. The Gripen pilots said in WVR dogfights the F/A-18 became easier to take out the lower they went, and at 2000m, there was simply no contest.
              F-16.net


              Ahora imagine el NG, mas aerodinamico y maniobrable, con mas soluciones tecnologicas y un motor 40% mas potente. Junte esto a la tecnologia swashplate y listo.


              Saludos

              Comentario


              • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                Hablando de maniobrabilidad:


                Comentario


                • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                  Una vision que tendremos proximamiente por aca:

                  Comentario


                  • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                    Son ruidosos! Compro!

                    Z.-
                    Nec temere nec timide

                    Comentario


                    • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                      Originalmente publicado por Zaky Ver Mensaje
                      Son ruidosos! Compro!

                      Z.-
                      Tiene un sonido muy particular

                      Comentario


                      • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                        RollOut

                        Comentario


                        • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                          Originalmente publicado por Brasil Ver Mensaje
                          RollOut

                          Qué buena onda!

                          Z.-
                          Nec temere nec timide

                          Comentario


                          • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                            Originalmente publicado por Brasil Ver Mensaje
                            RollOut

                            Gran noticia , estimado @Brasil .


                            Sólo agregando la fuente .

                            (...) Defesa Aérea & Naval » » 18 de maio de 2016: Rollout do Gripen NG

                            Comentario


                            • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                              Este es más agudo pero su silbido me recuerda el sonido de los reactores J79 de los F-104

                              Comentario


                              • Re: Novedades Gripen (NG/BR/ E-F)

                                Originalmente publicado por Tiburón Ver Mensaje
                                Este es más agudo pero su silbido me recuerda el sonido de los reactores J79 de los F-104
                                Es más parecido al A-4 qué al M3 (salvando las distancias de nivel de ruido). En las pasadas, se lo nota nervioso -por así decir- cómo el A-4.

                                Z.-
                                Nec temere nec timide

                                Comentario

                                Trabajando...
                                X