Forum: F-35 Lightning II

For a normal fighter, a brake chute is indeed not a problem, just increase a fairing to take it.

But for a internal weapon carriage, Stealth aircraft it is. A solution has to properly thought out and is alot more complex. You have to make sure that the chute fairing and door mechanism do not compromise the RCS of the aircraft, as every angle and panel is designed to lower the rcs of the aircraft, not just the RAM coatings. And there has been no public announcement (nor that i can find) stating that a chute can be fitted to the aircraft. Also, it would mean more weight (however small it is).

Its not clutching at straws, it is a specific requirement of Norway that the selected aircraft must be short field capable. No brake chute on an aircraft like the F-35A means it can't use them!

As I said, the Gripen is the likely winner.

And again, most european nations, when it comes to air defence their primary mission in Air Intercept not offensive air. And if you are going to the length of purchasing a Stealth aircraft, you are going to want to use its stealth operationally most of the time (as the UK have said they will with the F-35) or it becomes a waste of time especially with active cancellation technologies coming available now, making virtually any aircraft fitted with them LO, especially to missiles.

Now, putting aside all the wishful thinking about more weapons being carried inside the aircraft, the maximum internal official figure is 4 missiles. In the intercept role, especially for smaller countries they only have a few aircraft on alert at any one time. Usually between 2 and 4. So for example the UK, at any one time there are 4 aircraft on alert to cover the entire British Isles. In that role you need aircraft that can carry alot of firepower to deal with a threat that greater outnumbers them. Also, needs to be able to get their fast. In that situation, and alert force of 4 F-35s has the capability without using its guns of taking down 16 aircraft at most. It is safe to say that no modern aerial attack has ever been carried out by "just" 16 aircraft. So what do you hit? The attack contingent or the escort fighters, as soon as you light up your systems or fire a missile they are going to know your direction and come hunting for you. Therefore to maintain a same standard of defence, you are going to have to keep more than 4 aircraft on alert at any one time.. which means more aircraft, more manpower, more overall cost when counting in crew salaries.etc. For a small european country a stealth interceptor does not make economical sense as on paper you will need more aircraft to do the same job!

Now JAS-39N, may not be the fastest of the bunch but it still can carry 10 missiles (4x dual Meteor launchers, 2x IRIS-T) and still carry external fuel; couple that with a short field capability. Each aircraft on paper (and remember thats how politicians work... on paper) can shoot down 150% more aircraft than an F-35 using missiles alone. It is also the cheapest of all three options. Hence why its going to be the one chosen. So in the 4 aircraft scenario, thats 40 aircraft the alert aircraft can shoot down ON PAPER, again a 150% increase on paper, to gain that amount of missile kills it would require 10 F-35s when flying in stealth configuration.

And Typhoon, for intercept air defence it is also the better choice. Depending on loadout (each time carrying 3 external tanks) it can carry between 10 and 12 missiles (6 meteor + 6 asraam/iris-t OR 8 meteor + 2 asraam/iris-t) hell with just a single tank, the loadout is between 12 and 16! (10 meteor + 2 wvr OR 8 meteor + 6 wvr OR 6 meteor + 10 wvr!). Now working on a typical intercept loadout of 2 tanks (increased range without refuelling then) then you would probably see a loadout of 10 missiles aswell. Its the fastest aircraft here even with that loadout (remember, they will be tranche 3 with the ej220 greatly uprated engine) however, just as effective as the JAS-39N ON PAPER for getting intercept kills. But would still be a more expensive option than the JAS-39.

That is why I don't think the Typhoon or F-35 will be chosen. The primary role of any european single-type air force is always going to be intercept but still has to be multirole as Europe fights as a unit now not just alone anymore. The vast majority of work carried out by smaller air forces is the defence of their own airspace from incursions; not going off to far flung places to fight in coalitions (although yes it has happened). That is something that the JAS-39N will be more than capable of fulfilling for the lowest cost. Some nations will use the external stores on the F-35, but on the most part they will want the stealth advantage over it so I cannot see it being used so much. Alot of nations are too small to afford a large multi-type airforce such as the USAF, even the RAF (which will eventually be 2-type) isn't big enough. And therefore adopt their defencive strategies. Lets not forget afterall, the F-35 is primarily being designed to the US's needs and not someone elses.

The JAS-39N is designed to Norways needs, no-one elses.

Andy

F-16.net Sponsor

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

There is an unidentified faring on the F-35A which, on the C-variant holds the tail hook. That can be used for a chute.

But the other thing is integrated air-brakes. The F-22A has demonstrated that avionics designed to control the control surfaces, can in fact be a highly effective air brake.

Maybe the F-35 will have similar performance and may not even need a brake chute.

boff180 wrote:

Also it may have the most benefits for the Norwegian industry, a customised machine means the Norwegians can specifiy who supplies what on top of the bog standard kit. They would also get a workshare on future orders. Its also from a neighbouring nation which is very very good for local politics and easy maintenance arrangements. The F-35 will only have 1 european maintenance hub and that is expected to be in the UK.

Andy

There will be also a maintenance hub for the F-35 in Woensdrecht (Netherlands) were the are planning to build "Maintenance Valley".
There is going to be a lot of maintenance facilities,factory's and company's around the military airstrip on the airbase and Fokker Services plant.

Well the decission will come down to this: politicians who have no clue what they're deciding between.

Just yesterday some dutch parliamentarian came back from lockheedmartin: We have found one more bennifit of the F-35 it will cause much less noise pollution. So ok thats a good one then I asked why is that? This is what I read: Because of the fact that the F-35 Engine is much stronger and thus requires no AB takeoffs.

Im Just thinking...:
First of all, all dutch AF bases have enough runway length to facilitate a takeoff at only 95% power with a few hundred meters to spare. So first of all ABs arent needed. They only use them when they require to because of a particulare mission/training (mostly the same thing Razz

) or QRA. Its going to happen just as often.
Second of all, the guy sayed it himself the engines heavier/bigger/stronger. Which means louder. Its not like this thing is isnulated like a F-117. So all the non-AB takeoffs will also be much louder.
Finally, Even if the runway lengths required F-16's to use AB. the F-16 Thrust to weight ratio is a tad better meaning the F-35 will also need to use AB.
Lockheed just "conviniently" forgot to tell that along with a stronger engine thered also be more weight to push forward.

This is just one small thing because well noise pollution isnt our biggest concern, but it happens to all factors. It will not come down to which plane the experts say is the best, because in Europe parliaments never ever ever ever really listen to the military experts. Its going to come down to which Company can make it SOUND the best.

Boff-Andy,

you are singularly ill-informed.

Officially F-35 can carry 2 missiles internally. Any chitcat on a number great that this is pure internet speculation.

This year the JSF partners have been negotiating their individual F-35 specifications with the US. In press conferences over here, the Norwegian unique requirements have been stated as including a chute and possibly an anti-ship missile.

The UK MoD annual report of development projects quite clearly states that Typhoon has missed its short field landing requirement. At the time there was significant discussion of this item in the technical press. The reason was money.

The Norwegian goverment has made it crystal clear (to at least me) that the number 1 criteria for its fighter selection will be the amount of benefit to its defense industry. As an aircraft fan you might not like it but that's what they've said.

RonO wrote:

Boff-Andy,

you are singularly ill-informed.

Officially F-35 can carry 2 missiles internally. Any chitcat on a number great that this is pure internet speculation.

UK MoD: 4 missiles, got told that by an RAF pr officer at Farnborough.

Quote:

This year the JSF partners have been negotiating their individual F-35 specifications with the US. In press conferences over here, the Norwegian unique requirements have been stated as including a chute and possibly an anti-ship missile.

Are these online anywhere? As I said I have never seen anything officially stating this. I have tried researching hard, and I haven't seen anything in academic articles.

Quote:

The UK MoD annual report of development projects quite clearly states that Typhoon has missed its short field landing requirement. At the time there was significant discussion of this item in the technical press. The reason was money.

Can you point me to this source please? This may be with a max warload; I have seen with my own eyes a Typhoon F.2 loaded with 2 Asraam, 6 Amraam, 1 Fuel... stop in a very short distance using control services and its brake chute. It was certainly less than a Tornado using full reverse thrust (and that braking distance is very short aswell)... anyone at Coningsby who ever saw an F-3 do a "short stop" landing knows how short i mean.

Quote:

The Norwegian goverment has made it crystal clear (to at least me) that the number 1 criteria for its fighter selection will be the amount of benefit to its defense industry. As an aircraft fan you might not like it but that's what they've said.

As I have said repeatedly. Politicics politics politics. Looking good (ie. good for norwegian economy/industry) is politics. It will always come down to that. F-35 offers workshare, if orders are made. Typhoon, they already have a workshare and are guarranteed if they make an order they will become a full partner with a large assembly role on future export sales. JAS-39N? They get to specifiy who supplies what parts; which is excellent news for their Industry.

So we all have to wait and see.

Regardless, the UK is sitting pretty on this one...
F-35A - BAE heavily involved as are MBDA (weapon clearence) and Martin Baker.
Typhoon - MBDA, Rolls-Royce, BAE, Martin Baker.etc
Gripen - BAE, Martin Baker.

Andy

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 621 Status: Offline

Norway's Air Force says F-35!

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 621 Status: Offline

Corsair1963 wrote:

Norway's Air Force says F-35!

Norway clearly want's the F-35! I have a question and answer article regarding the F-35 and not the Typhoon. Yet, I can get it to add my attachment to go thru..............to bad its very intesting!

Quote:

F-35 offers workshare, if orders are made. Typhoon, they already have a workshare and are guarranteed if they make an order they will become a full partner with a large assembly role on future export sales

Diversify. If they already have a Typhoon workshare, why wouldnt they go for getting some F-35 workshare?

That way they get the workshare for both.

No. Norway clearly wants the best deal for its aircraft industry. Labelling that as politics doesn't make any sense. If several aircraft are suitable, then why not pick the one that benefits your indutry the best.

Boff-Andy, I can't be responsible for your ignorance or what you have or have not been told or seen. Check the facts yourself.

idesof wrote:

Driver wrote:

Plus Norway has much more need for a fighter who is better at Air to Air then at A-G which is the case with the Griphen and EFA and the other way around with the F-35. Now Im not saying the F-35 isnt good at A-A and I believe its better in A-A then what the USA is saying it will be. BUT Still... And It's stealthy but not THAT sthealthy. It's not like the F-35 wont be detected when its target is in weaponsrange. It will be seen way before that the only advantage I believe it has is that the warning time is shorter.

There are indications the F-35 will have better frontal stealth than the F-22. It will certainly be more stealthy than any manned aircraft flying with the possible exception of the Raptor. As for your truly ignorant contention that it will be detected by the time it is within weapon's range of its adversary, an aircraft like Typhoon will not detect the F-35 until it is well within the latter's Sidewinder range. Obviously, the Typhoon will be within the F-35's Amraam range dozens of miles before it is itself detected.

Quote:

I feel this doesnt just go for Norway but for all Small European nations alike (NL, Belgium, Denmark, Norway). But in my opinion this is the only factor holding the other nations back from going European built: All these nations work with American jets and have American maintanance tools and techniques etc. If they went European they'd have to replace all that which costs €'s. Ok that's something that all the nations can afford so thats not directly the problem, the problem is that the USA has proven that it will continue to build replacement jets as thats what they've been doing for years. Europe on the other hand has just recently jumped into the buisness. Yes they had the tornado but the tornado and EFA arent anything alike. So from the past there's no guarantee there'll be a multi-role mainly A-A fighter after the EFA or the Griphen. While there is in the USA as the USA builds a jet for every role. Meaning that if Europe would quit those nations will be stuck because then they'd have to switch to American stuff again. And doing that twice within a short time span (relatively) can become a fiscal problem that could very well be upheld by parliaments meaning that if Europe were to quit making followup jets... The Smaller airforces would have to replace their EFAs or Griphens VERY slowly or not at all. Because funding for the military is very hard to obtain in Europe unlike in the USA and large nations like the UK.

So basicly it comes down to this Do the EPAF nations feel its safe to take the risk?

Your arguments are about as good as your English Rolling Eyes

Well Im sorry but we don't all grow up with english as our first language when you learn German Dutch And French aswell as I do then you can complain about my english otherwise shut up.

And I agree the F-35 will be stealthier then the F-22 but thats also seen on radar before it can shoot on you 50% of the times, plus the USA has in 2003 expressed that the export version norway and all the other non Lvl 1 partners (USA UK) will not be as stealthy.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 621 Status: Offline

Driver wrote:

idesof wrote:

Driver wrote:

Plus Norway has much more need for a fighter who is better at Air to Air then at A-G which is the case with the Griphen and EFA and the other way around with the F-35. Now Im not saying the F-35 isnt good at A-A and I believe its better in A-A then what the USA is saying it will be. BUT Still... And It's stealthy but not THAT sthealthy. It's not like the F-35 wont be detected when its target is in weaponsrange. It will be seen way before that the only advantage I believe it has is that the warning time is shorter.

There are indications the F-35 will have better frontal stealth than the F-22. It will certainly be more stealthy than any manned aircraft flying with the possible exception of the Raptor. As for your truly ignorant contention that it will be detected by the time it is within weapon's range of its adversary, an aircraft like Typhoon will not detect the F-35 until it is well within the latter's Sidewinder range. Obviously, the Typhoon will be within the F-35's Amraam range dozens of miles before it is itself detected.

Quote:

I feel this doesnt just go for Norway but for all Small European nations alike (NL, Belgium, Denmark, Norway). But in my opinion this is the only factor holding the other nations back from going European built: All these nations work with American jets and have American maintanance tools and techniques etc. If they went European they'd have to replace all that which costs €'s. Ok that's something that all the nations can afford so thats not directly the problem, the problem is that the USA has proven that it will continue to build replacement jets as thats what they've been doing for years. Europe on the other hand has just recently jumped into the buisness. Yes they had the tornado but the tornado and EFA arent anything alike. So from the past there's no guarantee there'll be a multi-role mainly A-A fighter after the EFA or the Griphen. While there is in the USA as the USA builds a jet for every role. Meaning that if Europe would quit those nations will be stuck because then they'd have to switch to American stuff again. And doing that twice within a short time span (relatively) can become a fiscal problem that could very well be upheld by parliaments meaning that if Europe were to quit making followup jets... The Smaller airforces would have to replace their EFAs or Griphens VERY slowly or not at all. Because funding for the military is very hard to obtain in Europe unlike in the USA and large nations like the UK.

So basicly it comes down to this Do the EPAF nations feel its safe to take the risk?

Your arguments are about as good as your English Rolling Eyes

Well Im sorry but we don't all grow up with english as our first language when you learn German Dutch And French aswell as I do then you can complain about my english otherwise shut up.

And I agree the F-35 will be stealthier then the F-22 but thats also seen on radar before it can shoot on you 50% of the times, plus the USA has in 2003 expressed that the export version norway and all the other non Lvl 1 partners (USA UK) will not be as stealthy.

Norway will recieve the same F-35A as the USAF.............it will not get a downgraded model! Just politics............. Evil or Very Mad

Newbie Joined: Jun 01, 2006 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

There is no doubt in my mind that the F-35 is going to win the Norwegian contest. The plane is light year ahead of the already obsolete Typhoon.

The Typhoon is all flash, no substance. Each time it was evaluated in lenghty international contests, the jet was kicked out pretty fast. Laughing

It is the first time the Typhoon outlasts the other Euro plane, Congratulations ! Laughing

To add insult to the injury, all its exports have been obtained through discussions (government to government backdoor deal).

Moreover, it has a big RCS and it still operates a mechanical antenna (never heard of Low Probability Intercept ? Multi-mode ?...).

Norway will go for the F-35. My 2 cts.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 915 Status: Offline

Driver wrote:

And It's stealthy but not THAT sthealthy.

And you base that on what?

Guys, guys, guys - stop the Poke

Have any of you thought that maybe, just maybe in a not-too distant future that technology will catch up with both the F-35, F-22 and the EF2000 making any stealth advantage dissappear? It is after all a known fact that every offensive weapon foster the development of a counter weapon, so also with the stealthyness of these fighters!

Sitting and watching these endless discussions and Poke

on which aircraft is better is useless, as most opinions are personal and in most cases it is not up to us to decide which fighter Norway will choose.

The military will make that decision together with the politicians. If you call this politics, well so be it. Its all politics afterall when it gets down to it Shrug

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Norway choses between EF and F-35