F-16.net

Caprice wrote:

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

Really, the way you have to think about the U.S. vs. the rest of the world in weapons technology is analogous to Germany vs. the rest of the world during WW II (with the exception of the then-U.S. lead in nuclear weapons technology, thanks, principally, of course to a German scientist Wink

). Regarding that last 5% to 10% in RCS you refer to, that's what makes all the difference, as when you're talking about real RCS reductions, as opposed to the sort of RCS reduction that nets you a maybe 5 or 10 mile range deduction as in the EF and Superbug, you're dealing with magnitudes of difference in that last 5% or 10% effort (think of the Richter Scale, for instance, and the difference between a 5.9 and 6.0 magnitude quake). Have you ever played the game "Civilization"? I've often thought of the U.S., at least in regards to military technology, in those terms. For the first couple of thousand years, you and your oponents are pretty close to parity. But then at some point, you reach a tipping point (at least I do, I'm pretty good Wink

) and the next thing you know, a 100 years go by and you have stealth fighters and your opponents are just discovering chivalry, if that. This happens when your economic and social resources are such that you can afford to exponentially increase your science output. That's how I kick a$$ in Civ, and that's how the U.S., techonologically, at least, is kicking a$$ these days.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

DA,

'Design cycles' will get incredibly scary in perhaps 10-15 yrs with advent of new gen nano-tech applications? Probably won't be any 'wide gaps' in tech in that arena, imo. Another 5+ yrs beyond that, the said tech should be totally hectic.

I guess I'm more careful 'riding the absolute tech-gap wave' temptation though. If the gap ever becomes too great for any side, there would inevitably be some semblance of an asymmetrical counter deterrence developed? But I absolutely could envision a certain breakthrough some day (maybe 50 yrs out) of some future super-tech, which if even for a period of 6 months without equal parity, could render all competition benign if the button were to be pushed.

Let's just hope the global arms races will finally be over by then and the modern age adapted.

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

Obamanite wrote:

Regarding that last 5% to 10% in RCS you refer to, that's what makes all the difference...

Those numbers did I take from the South Korean requirements, they seem to think that that level of signature reduction (radar) is sufficient for their needs.

That, I think, is not a argument to say a European corresponding fighter absolutely must be on the same level. All depends on the threat, if that rise (Russia starts to rattle and have a modern "F-22 clone") I´m sure funds will be available.
I don´t buy that European stealth tech by nature will be worse than the competition in around ~2020 (If it´s still a viable system then as today which is also debatable). Can't prove it of course, just a hunch.

Sorry havent played Civ.

Caprice wrote:

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

Lockheed Martin is hardly simply pouring money into a project. They have thousands of operational hours and combat experience with the technologies that they are putting into the f-35. It is hardly too early to judge the plane. It is not necessary to know the actual specific performance of the aircraft. Just look at the requirements. It is the only aircraft in the world capable of meeting those requirements.

Yes the system is always what matters. However, in the event of a war on the Korean peninsula, will the Swedish be able to rush men and material to South Korea? Will the aircraft integrate seamlessly with the US coalition logistics system? Will the communications architecture be compatible with the Department of Defense command control and communications systems? If so will the Swedish develop and integrate these capabilities independently or will they have to subcontract key components of the avionics system potentially increasing costs?

It is indeed about the system.

-DA

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

Ok, should perhaps have used another word than "pouring" but I get the impression that, given the US situation with often a abundance of money for the defence sector contracts, that you sometimes are a little too "generous" with the funds, perhaps in a subconscious way?

Requirements are one thing, final product another, if they they are set too optimistic it´s not certain that they will be met. Aren´t there still high risk areas in the JSF programme that need to be developed further?

If US still see South Korea as an ally I don´t consider integrate US communication equipment for a possible non US fighter as a problem. You could refuse to sell it ( and get a weaker partner) but is that wise? Buying such products "off the shelf" is also probably cheaper for SAAB than to develop in house.

Compatability problems? That argument popped up in the Gripen competitions and didn´t hold ground. System integration is one of SAAB's strong points, in this case (partly) dependent on US willingness to cooperate (to let the equipment be available).

Caprice wrote:

Ok, should perhaps have used another word than "pouring" but I get the impression that, given the US situation with often a abundance of money for the defence sector contracts, that you sometimes are a little too "generous" with the funds, perhaps in a subconscious way?

While I don't deny that there is considerable waste in US defense spending. The same could be said of any major defense contractor. Look at Typhoon. Even the Swedish are not immune to this. That is just a part of the game. The difference is the United States is often pushing the very edge of what is technically possible. There are certain costs associated with being the first to develop the capability.

Quote:

are conducteded are one thing, final product another, if they they are set too optimistic it´s not certain that they will be met. Aren´t there still high risk areas in the JSF programme that need to be developed further?

Whenever a new program is initiated, assessments are done to determine the feasibility of overcoming technical hurdles. The f-35 is not an experiment. It's being asked to do things that are known to be possible within the timeframe and budget allocated for the program.

Quote:

If US still see South Korea as an ally I don´t consider integrate US communication equipment for a possible non US fighter as a problem. You could refuse to sell it ( and get a weaker partner) but is that wise? Buying such products "off the shelf" is also probably cheaper for SAAB than to develop in house.

It isn't a problem, it's a complication. One that can increase costs or cause delays. All of that could potentially open the door for the f-35.

Quote:

Compatability problems? That argument popped up in the Gripen competitions and didn´t hold ground. System integration is one of SAAB's strong points, in this case (partly) dependent on US willingness to cooperate.

What exactly are you talking about? These are different platforms. The South Koreans already operates a wide variety of aircraft. The last thing they need is another logistics pipeline. Particularly one that is not originating from the United States. Only the United States can guarantee the security of the logistics flowing in and out of South Korea. Sweden, cannot stand up to the Japanese, Chinese, Russians nor can they sustain the flow of supplies necessary in a conflict with North Korea.

The Indian Air Force has learned painful lessons logistically speaking with regard to operating to many different platforms. And by two different, I mean non-American in the context of South Korea.

-DA

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

DarthAmerica wrote:

What exactly are you talking about?

You asked if the communications suite would be compatible, my answer was that it would be dependant on US willingness to export those system. A non US fighter would probably still contain a significant proportion of US parts. You mean that import of those (on US protected vessels?) to SK could not also contain non US spare parts?
I don't think the Indian nightmare is direct applicable on SK - plus some areframes (F-4) will be gone at the time KFX is supposed to go operational. Finally, logistically even US have had problem with some customers (F-16) if I remember right, and that´s in peacetime.

Edit: Added quote.

Caprice, I happen to agree with many of your arguments.

Sweden builds to NATO spec. Especially with SAAB and their sub-components. Sweden can easily integrate with any modern friendly infrastructure if necessary and at a competitive price. I think it's not fair to pick on South Korea and SAAB in this case, if one has some agenda to favor F-35 sales alone. I'm a yank, but I favor any friendly country to choose the best system for their overall decided needs. Yes, even if it's not US primary contractor or F-35! Very Happy

Sure, I have a bias with Swede tech and especially SAAB even though I'm not Swedish heritage. I just respect it from it's proven capability and history.

The problem with the F-35 marketing for SK now, imo, is that it's such a dominant, threatening psychological weapon platform, which imo should be rewarded to SK only AFTER a non-aggression pact and truce with NK is made. (Incentive based).

US has a lot of political capital to reward the F-35 for modern, historic peace-making initiatives. Same goes for India with Pakistan, Israel with Syria and Japan with China. Where are these countries going to get their F-35s?? Mars? US has monopoly. Perhaps a US leadership can exploit that for supplemental global interests in peace-making? That's my vote.

With regards to South Korea however, I'd deduce a domestic F-50 to F-50XL type progression and F-15K block III type moves. IMO. Cheers-

geogen wrote:

LMAggie wrote:

This may sound odd from me, but this is kind of exciting. I'm a sucker for new jets.

Why do I get the feeling if LMAggie learned swedish in the next 12 months, he could be hired away for a handsome sum Very Happy

JK... thanks for your profession and service, sir.

Haha, tempting but no.

Caprice wrote:

Sorry havent played Civ.

....well I hope our generals have!

Ok, let's start....

Obamanite wrote:

Some even retracted their gear and went supersonic in their first flight.

The X-35 retracted its gear during its first flight. It was in the test cards for AA:1 first flight, but they had to cut the flight short. Keep in mind, a lot of test aircraft were wasted and test pilots were killed. Its called learning from the past, not repeating it.

Obamanite wrote:

Sure, we had some duds, but the cutting edge and the state of the art was never advanced as quickly - and excitingly - as it was then.

The funding was endless and aviation was still very uncharted. Both things have changed. And what makes you think you know exactly what's going on in the industry? The F-117 was kept a complete secret...do you think that was the only secret program? Furthermore, universities are researching wild and crazy things too.

Obamanite wrote:

The F-35's flight test program is proceeding unbelievably slowly.

The flight test dept just got their first SWAT bird!!! And its been flying at a good pace since then.

Obamanite wrote:

Program managers, it seems, have become a bunch of pu$$ies, not willing to countenance even the slightest failure or malfunction so everything has to be scrutinized to death and to paralysis.

Those "pu$$ies" make life and death decisions. The real "pu$$y" is the ignorant fool who considers his pilots and test aircraft as expendable. Also, most of these investigations are required by the DCMA. So if you would like to risk the pilots' lives, write your congressman.

Obamanite wrote:

I would have a bunch of F-117-style and -size programs producing a whole buch of airframes and concepts and ideas

Programs are expensive. That is the whole concept behind the Joint Strike Fighter.

Obamanite wrote:

And that's why I like Saab; they've turned around and created a next-gen Gripen in what, like two years from program start?

Concepts are easy...prototypes are hard. Skunkworks has this down to an art. Lets wait and see what they come up with first.

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

geogen wrote:

With regards to South Korea however, I'd deduce a domestic F-50 to F-50XL type progression and F-15K block III type moves. IMO. Cheers-

We'll see next year when, AFAIK, the decision about KFX or not is to be taken, if there´s no delays? Should be interesting to see what they chose, if any....

Cheers (Skål) in return!

Obamanite wrote:

The F-35's flight test program is proceeding unbelievably slowly.

I think one has to understand that there is no purpose in aggressively testing the AA-1. The X-35 has already proven the basic airframe layout. Outer flight envelope limits exploration using the AA-1 is pointless because the AF-1 airframe has had a structural overall. What is left really is putting the subsystems through their paces and uncovering little things like the electric actuator short problem and getting successive software builds flying on the Lightning.

If you are looking for tests to see how hard the aircraft can turn or how fast it can fly maxed out, those tests will be done on the AF-1 because doing it on the AA-1 is pointless.

dwightlooi wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

The F-35's flight test program is proceeding unbelievably slowly.

I think one has to understand that there is no purpose in aggressively testing the AA-1. The X-35 has already proven the basic airframe layout. Outer flight envelope limits exploration using the AA-1 is pointless because the AF-1 airframe has had a structural overall. What is left really is putting the subsystems through their paces and uncovering little things like the electric actuator short problem and getting successive software builds flying on the Lightning.

If you are looking for tests to see how hard the aircraft can turn or how fast it can fly maxed out, those tests will be done on the AF-1 because doing it on the AA-1 is pointless.

An aircraft is developed according to requirements (turn radius, range, speed, ROC, etc). Requirements can be officially "achieved" via several methods: analysis, mock-up testing, and flight testing (often the only way). The X-35 and F-35 are two completely different birds, inside and out. So you cannot consider your requirements "achieved" based on the testing of a different bird. So you still have to start out with a tiny flight envelope and methodically test your way out of it. AA:1 is still very usefull for flying qualities testing and envelope expansion to a certain degree. It has already proven subsystems such as the IPP, fuel dump system, and refueling system. When they bring AA:1 over to EAFB for airstart testing it will be very aggressive. You are right that there is little benefit in max speed or turn radius tests on AA:1, but there is a lot to do before you even get there that can be done by AA:1. Needless to say, the party's just getting started.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Saab Offers Supercruising Stealth to South Korea