F-16.net

Caprice wrote:

dwightlooi, that was my quote not Corsair1963.

Isn´t it hard to say for sure today what capabilities F-35 will have in ten years from now, some of the planned stuff may not be implemented...and are every aircraftsystem non american automaticly inferior? Of course other counties don´t have the financial resources so they must sometimes find other ways witch may, or may not, be on the same level in the end.

Remember a "story" told when swedish pilots talked with US ditto about data links in the beginning and got the polite answer: "interesting system, but we don´t need that".

Corsair1963 (forgot to answer in my last post), as dwightlooi has said, had SAAB joined F-35, that would probably have killed them off.

Guess South Korea is somewhat in the same position now - join the F-35 project and manufacture some parts (if they get the contracts) witch will drain their own aircraft industry or partner with someone else and develop a competing solution, even if the end result is 90-95% of F-35 capability (witch is debatable) and preserve their industry? Not sure it will cost $20 billion and $75million/airframe either if they do as mentioned above.

Regarding joining the Typhoon programme, I think SAAB today is glad they didn´t...

I think you are grossly underestimating how difficult it is to get to 90~95% of the F-35's A2A capabilities even if they forgo the big bays and huge range. The performance is hard to match, the sensors are even harder to match and the VLO airframe is something which will take more than a dabbling in stealth here and there to put together. L-M had the F-22 under its belt and they have a hard time making the F-35 light and as high performance as it is even the cost targets.

I just don't see how the Swedes can do better on much less money, with much less experience with VLO, an inferior starting point on the internal systems and with an even tighter cost target.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

Quote:

I think you are grossly underestimating how difficult it is to get to 90~95% of the F-35's A2A capabilities even if they forgo the big bays and huge range. The performance is hard to match, the sensors are even harder to match and the VLO airframe is something which will take more than a dabbling in stealth here and there to put together.

Maybe, but at the same time you may underestimate what knowledge/capability SAAB has in that area? Remember they are part in the Neuron project, not a fighter but the calculations and testing procedures should be similar. But I could be wrong?

Quote:

L-M had the F-22 under its belt and they have a hard time making the F-35 light and as high performance as it is even the cost targets.

I think F-35 special requirements - three versions plus a big fuel fraction and internal bomb bays for both strike weapons and air to air - made that extra hard. SAAB's SFX seems to be simpler in that way; with "only" internal bays for air to air weapons and more "normal" fuel fractions? But again I could be wrong.

Quote:

I just don't see how the Swedes can do better on much less money, with much less experience with VLO, an inferior starting point on the internal systems and with an even tighter cost target.

We don´t know yet what systems transfered from a Gripen NG would be, to classify them as inferior from the start seems a little premature, according to SAAB they will at least ~match F-35, believe it or not. F-35 system are fixed since a number of years back - Gripen NG/a possible South Korea's FSX would have things onboard with a date post 2010? And finaly, historically SAAB seems quite good at cost control comparable with others manufacturers, I see no reason for that trend to stop.

Certainly no expert in this field but if they transfer as much technology as possible from the Gripen project, that could probably cut cost a lot? Wich in turn would make room for commitment in the stealth and other areas?

All fair points, Caprice and well stated. Although SAAB can arguably bring to the table for any co-development partner one heck of an attractive proposal, my gut is personally wagering for a domestic F-50 and ultimate F-50XL progression selection, as well as possible further F-15K block III.

Of course, my gut is no more revealing than the next guys on this subject. Regards to Korea and Sweden.

Caprice wrote:

L-M had the F-22 under its belt and they have a hard time making the F-35 light and as high performance as it is even the cost targets.

I think F-35 special requirements - three versions plus a big fuel fraction and internal bomb bays for both strike weapons and air to air - made that extra hard. SAAB's SFX seems to be simpler in that way; with "only" internal bays for air to air weapons and more "normal" fuel fractions? But again I could be wrong.
[/quote]

Part of the paradigm of stealth is a big fuel fraction. Because, unlike 4th generation types you cannot depend on internal fuel. Tanks mean the loss of stealth, not lugging tanks and having Rafale or Typhoon class fuel fractions means that you have half the range of 4th gen types. The burden of stealth is that you have to envelop everything that you typically need to fly on and fight with.

But, let's assume that they go for a very short range specifications and have basically Rafale class fuel fractions and int4ernal bays for a modest load of say 4~6 A2A weapons only. The performance gain is going to be in the order of Mach 0.2~0.3 optimistically. Agility is going to be Typhoon class or there abouts. Cruise speed may be Mach 0.2 faster than the F-35. That does not add up to much. The way I see it, an F-35A without stealth is not really outclassed by a Typhoon for instance. It'll be a close fight with the Typhoon having a slim advantage in kinematics and close in agility, whereas the F-35 has superior afterburner time (form is almost double fuel load) and having superior sensors and situational awareness interfaces. An F-35A with no stealth vs a Typhoon is going to be close to a 1:1 IMHO.

On the other hand, the radar is probably inferior, there probably won't be enough R&D and production budget for the DAS/EOTS/HMD/AESA/all planar array com suite package. Because it is a smaller jet, there may also only be room and thermals for a 500mm class radar (ala Gripen) instead of the 700mm class in the F-35/Typhoon.

dwightlooi wrote:

Caprice wrote:

dwightlooi, that was my quote not Corsair1963.

Isn´t it hard to say for sure today what capabilities F-35 will have in ten years from now, some of the planned stuff may not be implemented...and are every aircraftsystem non american automaticly inferior? Of course other counties don´t have the financial resources so they must sometimes find other ways witch may, or may not, be on the same level in the end.

Remember a "story" told when swedish pilots talked with US ditto about data links in the beginning and got the polite answer: "interesting system, but we don´t need that".

Corsair1963 (forgot to answer in my last post), as dwightlooi has said, had SAAB joined F-35, that would probably have killed them off.

Guess South Korea is somewhat in the same position now - join the F-35 project and manufacture some parts (if they get the contracts) witch will drain their own aircraft industry or partner with someone else and develop a competing solution, even if the end result is 90-95% of F-35 capability (witch is debatable) and preserve their industry? Not sure it will cost $20 billion and $75million/airframe either if they do as mentioned above.

Regarding joining the Typhoon programme, I think SAAB today is glad they didn´t...

I think you are grossly underestimating how difficult it is to get to 90~95% of the F-35's A2A capabilities even if they forgo the big bays and huge range. The performance is hard to match, the sensors are even harder to match and the VLO airframe is something which will take more than a dabbling in stealth here and there to put together. L-M had the F-22 under its belt and they have a hard time making the F-35 light and as high performance as it is even the cost targets.

I just don't see how the Swedes can do better on much less money, with much less experience with VLO, an inferior starting point on the internal systems and with an even tighter cost target.

Necessity is the mother of invention. I believe that a small design house like SAAB can in fact do better than LM provided they are offered the challenge. We've become complacent fat cats with far too much money and too little inventiveness. Here in the U.S., we would be a lot better off if instead of just LM and Boeing, which is all that we have left in terms of defense companies that can actually design and build a fighter, we had a bunch of little SAABs. We are the fattest nation on earth in more ways than one - fat, stupid, arrogant and inflexible... At least that's how our military industrial complex operates these days.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

Thanks geogen, SAAB is a relatively small player in comparison with the big boys, so they must offer something unique, remains to se if they succed... the chance are probably slim but miracles has happened before. Wink

How Gripen will sell in the future will also influence I guess.

dwightlooi wrote:

Part of the paradigm of stealth is a big fuel fraction.

F-35 is ~40%, if I remember right. Hasn´t, F-22 a more "normal" fuel fraction - around 30% or so?
SAAB says in the first picture that this aircraft would have "range and endurance", Guess that could mean a fuel fraction slightly above that, say 33-34% maybe? Since strikes (low threat) would be with external tanks and UCAV handles the high threat that would seem to be a god compromise.

dwightlooi wrote:

On the other hand, the radar is probably inferior, there probably won't be enough R&D and production budget for the DAS/EOTS/HMD/AESA/all planar array com suite package. Because it is a smaller jet, there may also only be room and thermals for a 500mm class radar (ala Gripen) instead of the 700mm class in the F-35/Typhoon.

Today US (AESA)radars are superior, but isn´t Europe catching up, with big efforts (moneywise) like the Korregan project (T/R modules) etc.? Who knows what the situation is around 2020 or so when the European multichannel AESAS are operational with these modules (SAAB's partner is SELEX, I think)?

BTW, Gripens antenna is 600 mm. Have heard that antenna size is not so crucial on AESA radars compaired to pulse dopplers, is that right?

"Full HMD" is planned for Gripen NG plus IRST, probably not HUDless cockpit (if that is a handicap?) MAW, new advanced EW, single big display plus other things...F-35 may have systems like EOTS and so on...but IMHO it´s to early to judge the effectiveness overall, that it would better than than Gripen in some areas (stealth) is certain but how much in others, let´s wait and see.

obamanite, don´t know if you are right, but a starving cat can claw, that I know. Wink

Two things:-

(1) F-22A is about 35~36% Fuel Fraction. F-35A is about 39~40%.

(2) AESA radars have a higher power density than PESAs or MSAs, they also have instantaneous beam steering and the ability to form multiple beams simultaneously. However, size still matters in that you still have a certain kW/mm^2 output which you can get from the AESA and bigger means you can get more output. The area difference between a 600mm unit and a 700mm unit is about 36%, between a 700mm and a 1000mm is about 100%.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

1. That was more than I thought (F-22). but quite possible the same fuel fraction as SAAB's aircraft discussed here. don´t you think?

2. Yes, but there also are "tricks" to increase power output without increasing diameter or cooling:

Quote:

This invention concerns a procedure and device for the control of a radar
unit in such a way that the performance of the radar unit is increased and
as a result an increase in the range of the radar unit can be achieved.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5907301/description.html

Difficult to say, I guess, how common such techniques are among radar manufactures?

Caprice wrote:

1. That was more than I thought (F-22). but quite possible the same fuel fraction as SAAB's aircraft discussed here. don´t you think?

2. Yes, but there also are "tricks" to increase power output without increasing diameter or cooling:

Quote:

This invention concerns a procedure and device for the control of a radar
unit in such a way that the performance of the radar unit is increased and
as a result an increase in the range of the radar unit can be achieved.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5907301/description.html

Difficult to say, I guess, how common such techniques are among radar manufactures?

Of course, but the same technologies applied to a larger unit still yields more output power don't you think?

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

Yes, but are others using this technique besides SAAB? Probably something that´s kept in tight wraps and laymans as my self only can speculate about... The patent text mentioned some similar american patents that apparently had some drawbacks so it´s uncertain if US have just that operational, you could of course have something else..?

Newbie Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 8 Status: Offline

That is the problem, they can't it keep under wraps if they want to sell it. Smile

it seems to me, that everybody takes technology and capabilities behind the Raptor, lightning and Super Hornet for granted. As if all the other defense aviation manufacturers are simply just a pen stroke away from creating superior alternatives. This is despite the fact that Europe and Russia's most powerful design houses pushing the limits of technology in funding available to them have only managed to produce Euro canards and the flankers. And then only after a very long gestation! I am in no way denigrating these magnificent aircraft. But truth be told they are only just barely reaching parity in a few areas with our latest legacy aircraft. The previously mentioned fifth-generation aircraft, and super hornet for those who do not consider it the fifth generation even though it is replacing the fourth-generation Hornets and is an entirely new design, simply outclassed the competition by leaps and bounds.

Again, I would expect nothing less than great things from such a reputable design house but let's be realistic.It's almost like people are at the edges of their seats waiting for the F-22/35 to be outclassed. If so it will not be a simple matter and in all likelihood will involve some major tech breakthroughs.

-DA

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

No doubt that US has a lead in major areas such as radar and signature reduction tech. But I don´t think that Europeans and others are sitting in stone age caves and rolling their thumbs, as some seems to think. And the "catching up race" is on, in certain fields, as we have realised that getting the latest radarantenna technology (crucial) from US, to take one example, is not an option. Therefore major European company's commitment to be selfsufficient. The knowhow for the rest (software) is there, we often just don´t have truckloads of money to get the final product. On the other hand we don´t design million dollars luxury pods for the top brass either. Wink

And why the defensive stance everytime competing (affordable) stealth solutions are discussed, as if US self image of superiority are threatened if someone else could manage to design such a thing, or is it something else?

Nor do I think it would need to cost the astronomical sums that USA have poured into their programs, ~if we skip the last 5-10% RCS levels that seems hardest to implement.

Regarding "only managed to produce Euro canards and flankers", aren´t the designcycles a little out of sync to be comparable? The next "round" could be different (depending on threat level)?

I could, of course, be totally wrong as I have no "real insight" other than written material here and there.
-----------------------
Skyward: Don´t the possible customers have to sign NDA? Smile

Caprice wrote:

Regarding "only managed to produce Euro canards and flankers", aren´t the designcycles a little out of sync to be comparable? The next "round" could be different (depending on threat level)?

I could, of course, be totally wrong as I have no "real insight" other than written material here and there.
-----------------------
Skyward: Don´t the possible customers have to sign NDA? Smile

No, the design cycles are not out of sync. The lightning And the Super Hornet you could argue. But all these other aircraft were developed during the later stages of the Cold War. The F-22 is developed right alongside. That is where the state of the art was during the end of the Cold War. Today, we're testing direct energy weapons, space weapons and hypersonic unmanned aircraft. The gap hasn't gotten closer, it's actually widening. It is very unlikely that a relatively small company with considerably less resources is going to usurp the f-35 on the fly. It would be like a small mom-and-pop store putting Wal-Mart out of business. There are benefits to a near $14 trillion economy.

-DA

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 09, 2006 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

Have never claimed that SAAB would put Lockeed Martin out of business just that there´s often more than one way to skin a cat. Just pouring lots of money into projects don´t always necessarily lead to successful/superior products as history has shown. You MAY be right but it´s too early to judge the F-35 capability ~2015 albeit impressive on paper now?

Personally I think USAF superiority (historically) is/was dependent not so much on individual platform level capability, instead the bigger picture - situation awareness(AWACS), tactics, training, numeral and weapon system etc. - played/playing the biggest part.

Have no comment on Buck Rogers weaponary. Wink

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Saab Offers Supercruising Stealth to South Korea