F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2008, 22:09
by lamoey
I recently had the opportunity to ask the Norwegian ambassador to the US about the official view of the Norwegian government on the upcoming fighter purchase. The only useful peace of information he was able to give, beyond that he could lose his job in less than 5 seconds if he did not answer with care, was that the decision would be made before the year (2008) ends.

With two competitors left, the LM F-35A and the SAAB Gripen NG, the battle is raging in the Norwegian press. So how do these two jets objectively compare?

RE: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2008, 23:16
by Maks
I can't imagine that the Norwegian government will decide in the next two months what they are going to do. At the moment there are more pressing things to be taken care of. In the course of 2009 (after the summer) seems to be more realistic to me.

RE: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2008, 23:46
by lamoey
The ambassador was actually quite firm on that. Perhaps the decision has been made already, but they are waiting to announce it.

As late as today a former government minister and high level labour party person came out in defense of the F-35, so who knows...

RE: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
by pushoksti
I think that Norway will follow suit and choose the F-35, along with the rest of NATO.

RE: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2008, 06:53
by geogen
lamoey,

Maybe he answered your question correctly in saying: that before end of 2008, the govt would have an official 'view' with regards to the future purchase??

Knowing how politicians speak, perhaps he was leaving open the door that within a short time the Nor Govt would have an official view as to when the purchase decision would be made and perhaps after a fly-off of production models?

My personal view is either aircraft have excellent capability potential. It would have to come down to more detailed testing/evaluation and financial (although weigh in favor of reliability and capability), imo. That's how I'd play it if I were the noble King of Norway!

Re: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2008, 07:30
by dwightlooi
lamoey wrote:I recently had the opportunity to ask the Norwegian ambassador to the US about the official view of the Norwegian government on the upcoming fighter purchase. The only useful peace of information he was able to give, beyond that he could lose his job in less than 5 seconds if he did not answer with care, was that the decision would be made before the year (2008) ends.

With two competitors left, the LM F-35A and the SAAB Gripen NG, the battle is raging in the Norwegian press. So how do these two jets objectively compare?


The F-35A is the superior aircraft for ALL missions -- A2A, A2G or simply recon. A few magnitudes less detectable, superior tactically achievable performance, longer range, better sensors, better UI, etc. However, these days a lot of times a fighter aircraft is not bought as a tool of defense. Sometimes they are bought as a job creation program. The Gripen NG offers significantly more technological and industrial offsets. So who knows...

RE: Re: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2008, 16:10
by Meteor
In purely technical and combat capability terms, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Gripen. The competition is not even close. However, the F-35 is also a lot more expensive, a lot noisier, consumes more fuel, and likely will be more expensive to maintain. It also comes from a rather politically unpopular USA.

I somehow doubt that Norway will be going to war anytime soon against the UK, Sweden, or Russia. Norway also does not seem to be too interested in deploying it's armed forces overseas in support of the many UN missions or Middle Eastern wars. When Norway joined in the multi-nation F-16 buy several decades ago, there was an active threat to Norwegian sovereignty from the Warsaw Pact. That threat no longer exists.

I suspect that the Norwegian fighter buy will not be made on technical grounds. The fighter buy will be mostly symbolic. They will probably buy about 36-48 fighters in order to patrol their own skies. Either the Gripen or the F-35 can easily accomplish that mission. The decision will come down to what message the Norwegian government wants to project. If they want to show a Euro-centric and Scandinavian solidarity, they'll probably buy the Gripen. If they want to show a US-centric orientation with the capability to integrate and deploy around the world, they'll probably choose the F-35.

Bottom line: The Norwegian decision will reflect the desires of the Norwegian people, not the EU or NATO commanders wishes.

Re: RE: Re: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 03:16
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:In purely technical and combat capability terms, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Gripen. The competition is not even close. However, the F-35 is also a lot more expensive, a lot noisier, consumes more fuel, and likely will be more expensive to maintain. It also comes from a rather politically unpopular USA.

I somehow doubt that Norway will be going to war anytime soon against the UK, Sweden, or Russia. Norway also does not seem to be too interested in deploying it's armed forces overseas in support of the many UN missions or Middle Eastern wars. When Norway joined in the multi-nation F-16 buy several decades ago, there was an active threat to Norwegian sovereignty from the Warsaw Pact. That threat no longer exists.

I suspect that the Norwegian fighter buy will not be made on technical grounds. The fighter buy will be mostly symbolic. They will probably buy about 36-48 fighters in order to patrol their own skies. Either the Gripen or the F-35 can easily accomplish that mission. The decision will come down to what message the Norwegian government wants to project. If they want to show a Euro-centric and Scandinavian solidarity, they'll probably buy the Gripen. If they want to show a US-centric orientation with the capability to integrate and deploy around the world, they'll probably choose the F-35.

Bottom line: The Norwegian decision will reflect the desires of the Norwegian people, not the EU or NATO commanders wishes.



Remember, modern fighters stay in service for decades. So, the Gripen would be obsolete shorty after it entered service. If, Norway selected the type.......Personally, my money is on the F-35A.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 06:16
by geogen
Meteor: Warsaw pact threat no longer exists, obviously and thankfully, but to consolidate all future oriented defense deterrence to an assumption that Norway will not go to war against UK or Sweden?!? Huh??

You don't conceive of anything in the 'derivative' periphery there, which might demand a concerted effort for modern deterrence and capability per the main focus?

Corsair:

Gripen NG as it currently looks, will not be obsolete as much as Mig-35, Su-30/34, F-15SG, EF tranche III, or F-16 block 60 will be obsolete.. Sure, you have to deal with unknown numbers of Su-35BM, Mig-31+, and some PaK-FA over the next 20 yrs, but Gripen NG will not be obsolete as you seem to imply. However, it will greatly come down to how platforms will be upgraded and most importantly, armed, over the next 15 yrs... including with passive sensors, networked communications, active anti-missile capability, anti-missile decoy/CM and of course, long-range/stand-off, multi-mode guided air-intercept and attack weapons.

If one can't afford the fast paced demand for upgraded sensors/CM/weapon upgrades in near-future, then IMHO it's best to fly Home defense sub-sonic trainers and just go with SAM, cruise and tactical ballistic missiles for deterrence.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35A vs Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 18:17
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:Meteor: Warsaw pact threat no longer exists, obviously and thankfully, but to consolidate all future oriented defense deterrence to an assumption that Norway will not go to war against UK or Sweden?!? Huh??

You don't conceive of anything in the 'derivative' periphery there, which might demand a concerted effort for modern deterrence and capability per the main focus?

Corsair:

Gripen NG as it currently looks, will not be obsolete as much as Mig-35, Su-30/34, F-15SG, EF tranche III, or F-16 block 60 will be obsolete.. Sure, you have to deal with unknown numbers of Su-35BM, Mig-31+, and some PaK-FA over the next 20 yrs, but Gripen NG will not be obsolete as you seem to imply. However, it will greatly come down to how platforms will be upgraded and most importantly, armed, over the next 15 yrs... including with passive sensors, networked communications, active anti-missile capability, anti-missile decoy/CM and of course, long-range/stand-off, multi-mode guided air-intercept and attack weapons.

If one can't afford the fast paced demand for upgraded sensors/CM/weapon upgrades in near-future, then IMHO it's best to fly Home defense sub-sonic trainers and just go with SAM, cruise and tactical ballistic missiles for deterrence.


Clearly, the Gripen would have a much harder time vs the Su-35 or even Mig-35. (let alone PAK-FA or J-XX) Also, with all do respect the Gripen will become obsolete as more and more 5th Generation Types enter service. While today the threat appears low. If, we've have learned anything from History. Is that times change and so do threats. Let's also not forget that everyone must share the collective burden. We all do respect purchasing the Gripen doesn't support that aim..........

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 20:34
by f-15eagle
I think the F-35 would be better but thats just my opinion. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 21:16
by lamoey
Have anybody done a side-by-side comparison of the known figures of these two fighters?

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 22:20
by Meteor
I don't think that there is any doubt that the F-35 is a much superior fighter to the Gripen, and I don't think that anybody here has argued that. The question is; Is the F-35 or the Gripen the optimum fighter for Norway today?

We could argue that the F-22 is superior to the F-35, so obviously Norway should buy F-22s. We know that will not happen because of two things; Norway can't afford F-22s, and the US won't sell Norway F-22s. Those two reasons have nothing to do with combat capability. Rather, those are economic and political decisions.

The same will happen with the F-35 v Gripen decision. If it were left to a bunch of Norwegian fighter pilots to make the decision, I'm pretty sure that they would select the F-35. But they won't make the decision; Norwegian politicians will. And the politicians will do what governments all over the world do; They will balance military, economic and political benefits. As an example, witness the A400 mess in Europe. Although there was already an airlifter in production (the C-17) with far greater capabilities than the A400 will ever have, the politicians made a political and economic decision that building their own transport was the better move. The same will happen with the F-35 vs Gripen decision. Which of the two candidates makes the best technical, economic, and political case?

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 23:16
by Casey
Meteor wrote:I don't think that there is any doubt that the F-35 is a much superior fighter to the Gripen, and I don't think that anybody here has argued that. The question is; Is the F-35 or the Gripen the optimum fighter for Norway today?


The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.

Meteor wrote:We could argue that the F-22 is superior to the F-35, so obviously Norway should buy F-22s. We know that will not happen because of two things; Norway can't afford F-22s, and the US won't sell Norway F-22s. Those two reasons have nothing to do with combat capability. Rather, those are economic and political decisions.

The same will happen with the F-35 v Gripen decision. If it were left to a bunch of Norwegian fighter pilots to make the decision, I'm pretty sure that they would select the F-35. But they won't make the decision; Norwegian politicians will. And the politicians will do what governments all over the world do; They will balance military, economic and political benefits. As an example, witness the A400 mess in Europe. Although there was already an airlifter in production (the C-17) with far greater capabilities than the A400 will ever have, the politicians made a political and economic decision that building their own transport was the better move. The same will happen with the F-35 vs Gripen decision. Which of the two candidates makes the best technical, economic, and political case?


The A-400 is a totally different class of aircraft as the C-17. It's smaller an lighter, much less expencive, cheaper to operate, and can operate from airfields that are smaller than the C-17 needs. So your comparison is incorrect.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2008, 23:41
by SpudmanWP
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.
Welcome to the boards.. but your way wrong.

The F-35 will be replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, and others. Did you notice all the fighters that it will be replacing?

While the US will be using it in a secondary role (like the F-15 / F-16 roles), all the international partners, with the possible exception of the UK, will use it as their top of the line A2A fighter. It will be able to do anything a F-16 can do... only better.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 00:19
by outlaw162
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft.



:shock:

regards, OL

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 01:24
by Casey
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.
Welcome to the boards.. but your way wrong.

The F-35 will be replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, and others. Did you notice all the fighters that it will be replacing?

While the US will be using it in a secondary role (like the F-15 / F-16 roles), all the international partners, with the possible exception of the UK, will use it as their top of the line A2A fighter. It will be able to do anything a F-16 can do... only better.


It's going to replace F-16, that is the F-16's that has been performing ground attacks, the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft as is the AV-8B, it's replacing the Strike Eagle (F-15) (ground attack). F-22 will be the Us choise for a fighter. The problem with the F-35 is that it can't climb, can't turn, can't run.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 01:36
by Conan
Casey wrote:
It's going to replace F-16, that is the F-16's that has been performing ground attacks, the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft as is the AV-8B, it's replacing the Strike Eagle (F-15) (ground attack). F-22 will be the Us choise for a fighter. The problem with the F-35 is that it can't climb, can't turn, can't run.


A fan of the Air Power Australia school of thought are you?

Still your facts are wrong. It is not replacing the F-117. The F-22 has.

It is not replacing the Strike Eagle. Nothing is yet.

And it can climb, turn and run as well as any 4th Gen fighter. Just because Dennis Jensen and Peter Goon say it can't doesn't make it so.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 02:20
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
Meteor wrote:I don't think that there is any doubt that the F-35 is a much superior fighter to the Gripen, and I don't think that anybody here has argued that. The question is; Is the F-35 or the Gripen the optimum fighter for Norway today?


The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.

Meteor wrote:We could argue that the F-22 is superior to the F-35, so obviously Norway should buy F-22s. We know that will not happen because of two things; Norway can't afford F-22s, and the US won't sell Norway F-22s. Those two reasons have nothing to do with combat capability. Rather, those are economic and political decisions.

The same will happen with the F-35 v Gripen decision. If it were left to a bunch of Norwegian fighter pilots to make the decision, I'm pretty sure that they would select the F-35. But they won't make the decision; Norwegian politicians will. And the politicians will do what governments all over the world do; They will balance military, economic and political benefits. As an example, witness the A400 mess in Europe. Although there was already an airlifter in production (the C-17) with far greater capabilities than the A400 will ever have, the politicians made a political and economic decision that building their own transport was the better move. The same will happen with the F-35 vs Gripen decision. Which of the two candidates makes the best technical, economic, and political case?


The A-400 is a totally different class of aircraft as the C-17. It's smaller an lighter, much less expencive, cheaper to operate, and can operate from airfields that are smaller than the C-17 needs. So your comparison is incorrect.



Sorry, the F-35 is not a attack aircraft like the A-7 for example! Its a Strike Fighter much like the F-16 Viper or F/A-18 Hornet. As for the A-400 I would agree that it is cheaper to own and operate than the C-17. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 02:23
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.
Welcome to the boards.. but your way wrong.

The F-35 will be replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, and others. Did you notice all the fighters that it will be replacing?

While the US will be using it in a secondary role (like the F-15 / F-16 roles), all the international partners, with the possible exception of the UK, will use it as their top of the line A2A fighter. It will be able to do anything a F-16 can do... only better.


It's going to replace F-16, that is the F-16's that has been performing ground attacks, the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft as is the AV-8B, it's replacing the Strike Eagle (F-15) (ground attack). F-22 will be the Us choise for a fighter. The problem with the F-35 is that it can't climb, can't turn, can't run.



...........and how would you know if the F-35 can't climb, can't turn, or can't run???? Sorry, that doesn't seem to be the consensus of the people who know. :idea:

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 04:37
by Meteor
Casey; If you have some inside information that the F-35 is a bomb truck that needs a fighter escort to enter contested airspace, that it can't turn, climb, or run, and that it is only a replacement for the F-117 (which by the way could and did repeatedly enter contested airspace without a fighter escort), then you need to do a better job getting the word out. There are many nations around the world (including the Israelis) who are apparently under the mistaken impression that they are getting a stealthy, supersonic, 9G fighter with the latest AESA radar and other fighter systems. If they have been mistaken in their multi-year, multi million dollar analysis, then I'm sure that they would appreciate you enlightening them.

As to the A400 v C-17 comparison; First of all, my point was not an aircraft to aircraft technical comparison. My point was that there are three factors in purchasing any military aircraft: Capability, economics, and politics. You can replace my mention of "C-17" with "C-130J" and my point would be the same. You can make the same point with "Sikorsky S-72 v US101 presidential helicopter competition", or "A330 vs 767 tanker competition". In each case, the aircraft were substantially different, and economic and political factors were major factors. My point (which you apparently misunderstood) is that in the F-35 v Gripen competition, or in the A400 v C-17/C-130J competition, the aircraft were not identical, and economic and political factors often trump technical capabilities.

As to the C-17 needing much longer runways than the A400; We don't really know what the A400 capabilities will be, because it hasn't flown yet, and because Airbus is currently negotiating to reduce the performance requirements for the A400. Similarly, we don't know the cost, because none have been delivered yet and Airbus is asking the purchasing nations to renegotiate the price. It's also hard to make a C-17 v A400 price comparison sice the dollar v euro rate has fluctuated wildly between 1:1.6 and 1:1.2 recently.

That being said, we know exactly what the C-17's capabilities are. The C-17 has been landing on short gravel airstrips, at night, in the mountains, in hostile conditions, for a number of years now. A quick check of the USAF website shows that a C-17 can operate off of a 1064m (meter) airstrip. A quick check of the Airbus A400 website

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

shows an advertised (unproven) ability to operate off a 914m runway. The C-17 has an 85 ton max payload. The A400 has an advertised (unproven) max payload of 37 tons. I doubt that either aircraft can operate off of that short a runway with a max payload, but it is fair to say that the C-17 can carry over double the payload of the A400 on a given runway. And it only needs 150m more to do it.

Although price comparisons are very hard to do, Boeing has recently been delivering C-17s at about $200 million per copy. We really don't know what the A400 price will be, especially is US dollars, but the numbers that I've been seeing are in the $130-150 million range.

So if the Europeans had opted for the C-17 a decade ago instead of deciding to build the A400, they would currently be operationally flying them, (like the UK, Canada, and Australia), it would fly further / faster / higher /and with more than twice the payload, it would operate on a runway only slightly longer than the A400, and it would cost about 25% more. Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff, if you ask me. But there were other economic and political factors. And that's why they didn't...

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 04:49
by F16guy
Casey...Mighty Casey at bat...Swing and a miss x3.

Wow three posts and you come up with the F-35 is not a fighter? Please introduce yourself and how you came up with that conclusion. I've at least flown in the sim's and I was under the distinct impression it was a fighter. I'd love to hear how I'm wrong.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 05:29
by geogen
LMAO,

Conan and Casey, BOTH of ya are wrong!

F-35 is NOT a replacement for F-117 as F-35 will not be operational for another 6 years!

And F-22 is currently NOT a replacement for F-117! That is, until it finally gets it's long-awaited FLIR/laser designator it was designed for.. If you concur however, that F-22 should be funded for this long-awaited upgrade, then I'll give you the comparison.

But perhaps all of us can agree that F-117 not only should have NOT been retired as it was, but in fact should have actually continued in production (VERY CHEAP units), and further upgraded with off-the-shelf tech as it was originally designed with for economical, fast development! Wow!

Heck, perhaps today such an expanded production fleet of F-117s could have even been updated for future UCAV duty, thus saving an additional $20-30 billion R&D for future LO UCAV substitute?!?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 06:30
by f-15eagle
LOL holy sh*t whats with the retard saying the F-35 is not a fighter? I guess he forgets the F-16 and F-18 are FIGHTERS and unless the air force gets more F-22s it will replace most of the F-15s as well which are also fighters. The F-35 will be 400% more effective in A2A than any current fighter including the latest Sukhoi.

Too busy reading Air Power Australia I'm afraid. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 08:18
by Prinz_Eugn
geogen wrote:LMAO,

Conan and Casey, BOTH of ya are wrong!

F-35 is NOT a replacement for F-117 as F-35 will not be operational for another 6 years!

And F-22 is currently NOT a replacement for F-117! That is, until it finally gets it's long-awaited FLIR/laser designator it was designed for.. If you concur however, that F-22 should be funded for this long-awaited upgrade, then I'll give you the comparison.

But perhaps all of us can agree that F-117 not only should have NOT been retired as it was, but in fact should have actually continued in production (VERY CHEAP units), and further upgraded with off-the-shelf tech as it was originally designed with for economical, fast development! Wow!

Heck, perhaps today such an expanded production fleet of F-117s could have even been updated for future UCAV duty, thus saving an additional $20-30 billion R&D for future LO UCAV substitute?!?


Not really that cheap. At least not considering the absolute maintenance nightmare of an airplane it was. I remember as a kid getting a tour out at Holloman and seeing the chunks of RAM that had flaked off everywhere in the hangar.

The F-117's performance was also not very impressive (4,000 lbs?), and I'm skeptical about it's RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35- there was only so much you could do with computers back in the day.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 18:59
by Casey
Conan wrote:
A fan of the Air Power Australia school of thought are you?

Still your facts are wrong. It is not replacing the F-117. The F-22 has.

It is not replacing the Strike Eagle. Nothing is yet.

And it can climb, turn and run as well as any 4th Gen fighter. Just because Dennis Jensen and Peter Goon say it can't doesn't make it so.


Nope, I'm not an Aussie. The F-22 can't replace the F-117, its systems are not suited to ground attack, and it can't take enough bombs to function as well in the bomber role as the F-35. When the F-35 is available, it will take over the F-117's tasks. The Strike Eagle wil of course be in operation for many years, but the F-35 will take over some of the more demanding tasks.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 19:07
by Casey
f-15eagle wrote:LOL holy sh*t whats with the retard saying the F-35 is not a fighter? I guess he forgets the F-16 and F-18 are FIGHTERS and unless the air force gets more F-22s it will replace most of the F-15s as well which are also fighters. The F-35 will be 400% more effective in A2A than any current fighter including the latest Sukhoi.

Too busy reading Air Power Australia I'm afraid. :lol:


The F-35 has significantly poorer performance than most modern fighters. Accelleration and climb rate are poor compared to all modern fighters. And it seems it can't climb to altitudes you expect from a modern fighter.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 19:19
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
f-15eagle wrote:LOL holy sh*t whats with the retard saying the F-35 is not a fighter? I guess he forgets the F-16 and F-18 are FIGHTERS and unless the air force gets more F-22s it will replace most of the F-15s as well which are also fighters. The F-35 will be 400% more effective in A2A than any current fighter including the latest Sukhoi.

Too busy reading Air Power Australia I'm afraid. :lol:


The F-35 has significantly poorer performance than most modern fighters. Accelleration and climb rate are poor compared to all modern fighters. And it seems it can't climb to altitudes you expect from a modern fighter.



..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!! :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 20:01
by SpudmanWP
Casey wrote:The F-22 can't replace the F-117, its systems are not suited to ground attack, and it can't take enough bombs to function as well in the bomber role as the F-35.
The F-22 is getting a present, a 1000 lb class special purpose penetrating GPS guided bomb. Think SDB on steroids. This, along with the normal SDB capacity, will more than makeup for the loss of the F-117s. Remember that the F-117s had no radar and had to have clear weather in order to bomb. The F-22s are getting ground attack modes for it's radar so it can operate in adverse weather conditions and in daylight hours. Last, but not least, the F-22 has much better RSC numbers than the F-117, so it can go in places that the F-117 is in more danger of.

Casey wrote:When the F-35 is available, it will take over the F-117's tasks
Mostly true primarily because the F-22 is too valuable when there will be a more numerous, more capable, and cheaper option in the F-35.

Casey wrote:The F-35 has significantly poorer performance than most modern fighters.
Where are you getting this??? Both the USAF and LM have stated, and it is stipulated in the contract, that the F-35 has to meet or beat the flight characteristics of the F-16. The only thing ever published about that "can't climb, can't turn, can't run", was a backup slide to a RAND study that had nothing to do with A2A combat.

The USAF and LM put out a Press Release thoroughly debunking that report.

Now, who do you trust?? The people who, on a daily basis, have hands-on knowledge of the F-35's ability, or a blogger who has a personal grudge?

When the first USAF pilot got a chance to fly the F-35, he called the handling phenomenal :) That does not sound like "can't climb, can't turn, can't run" to me.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 20:50
by Casey
Corsair1963 wrote:

..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!! :twisted:


Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 20:59
by SpudmanWP
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really.... :roll:

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 21:08
by f-15eagle
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!! :twisted:


Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!


Bullshit your just making that up because you can't make any good arguments. Especially when all air force and navy documents say the F-35 is better than current fighters. If I were you I would lay off the drugs.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 21:35
by Casey
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really.... :roll:

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.


Did I really mention Rand at all?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 21:38
by einstein
I´m a retired hydraulic type used to millisecond fast servovalve controls as in Gripen, F-16 etc
However, the conventional fast controls in X-32 were changed to Electro Hydrostatic Actuators in F-35, a package with an electric motor driven pump

My point is that efficiency for a motor is about 90%, for a pump also about 90%
Working together efficiency will be 0,9x0,9 = 0,81 i.e about 80%

20% of the considerable input effect will be heat, then comes further heat losses in hydr valves etc

Problem is this heat can´t be circulated to a fuel cooler as in a conventional central
hydraulic system and to me it means:

The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
and respons at starting the motor will be slöwer than for a conventional servo valve

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 21:46
by SpudmanWP
einstein wrote:The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
Oh please, you betray your namesake by making such a statement while having absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 21:54
by SpudmanWP
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really.... :roll:

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.


Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.

Why pick on one word? Why not answer the question?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 22:16
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!! :twisted:


Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!




Would you care to elaborate??? Regardless, I doubt your sources are anyway associated directly with the JSF Program. :?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 22:18
by einstein
SpudmanWP wrote:
einstein wrote:The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
Oh please, you betray your namesake by making such a statement while having absolutely NOTHING to back it up.


It´s just basic, you have a heat loss and have to cool it in some way
(36 years with aircraft hydraulics)

or take it easy, to avoid that heat loss

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 22:18
by Casey
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
Really.... :roll:

Considering your quote came straight from that THOROUGHLY debunked RAND backup slide and all the blogs that bowed at it's feet, I have to wonder at the truth in that statement vs all the documentation and interviews given by people who have ACTUALLY flown the F-35 from something other than their armchairs.


Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.

Why pick on one word? Why not answer the question?


1. What question?
2. Do you have a history of attacking persons instead of debating the case?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 22:58
by SpudmanWP
Casey wrote:1. What question?
My implied, and other's, question is that you back up such an statement with CREDIBLE sources.

Casey wrote:2. Do you have a history of attacking persons instead of debating the case?
I think you have me confused with someone else. If you have read my posts, I take a lot of time searching the net for CREDIBLE sources for what I say and I provide those links for other to read.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2008, 23:25
by SpudmanWP
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.
I hereby retract my retraction :)

It was a RAND study, weather you said it or not.

The study is downloadable here and there is an article from Flightglobal where RAND says the following:
Rand has disavowed the critical remarks about the F-35 as not intended for public release and, unlike the main presentation, not peer-reviewed. Additionally, Rand says: "Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from Rand were involved. Those reports are not accurate. Rand did not present any analysis at the wargame relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by Rand in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 01:05
by SpudmanWP
rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 01:19
by SpudmanWP
Image

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 01:52
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.



Excellent read..............Great insight from a test pilot involved in both the F-22 and F-35 Programs. Just think of a Hi/Low Mix of Raptors and Lightnings! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 02:38
by LowObservable
einstein is right

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 03:10
by Conan
geogen wrote:LMAO,

Conan and Casey, BOTH of ya are wrong!

F-35 is NOT a replacement for F-117 as F-35 will not be operational for another 6 years!

And F-22 is currently NOT a replacement for F-117! That is, until it finally gets it's long-awaited FLIR/laser designator it was designed for.. If you concur however, that F-22 should be funded for this long-awaited upgrade, then I'll give you the comparison.

But perhaps all of us can agree that F-117 not only should have NOT been retired as it was, but in fact should have actually continued in production (VERY CHEAP units), and further upgraded with off-the-shelf tech as it was originally designed with for economical, fast development! Wow!

Heck, perhaps today such an expanded production fleet of F-117s could have even been updated for future UCAV duty, thus saving an additional $20-30 billion R&D for future LO UCAV substitute?!?


Whether one AGREES with the idea or not, the F-22 HAS physically replaced the F-117 within USAF...

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2040.html

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 03:12
by SpudmanWP
LowObservable wrote:einstein is right
No he is not... and for several reasons:

1. He has no experience with the hardware on the F-35
2. He has no idea how the F-35 handles cooling issues
3. He assumes that LM would bet the farm on technology that it had not thoroughly tested under flight conditions
4. He provides ABSOLUTELY no sources that state the F-35 is having any kind of heat-related control issues, or any other kind of control issues.

Oh yeah... one final thing. The EHAs in the F-35 are production units. That means FULLY tested to perform in all the aspects of the flight envelope.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 03:16
by Conan
Casey wrote:
Conan wrote:
A fan of the Air Power Australia school of thought are you?

Still your facts are wrong. It is not replacing the F-117. The F-22 has.

It is not replacing the Strike Eagle. Nothing is yet.

And it can climb, turn and run as well as any 4th Gen fighter. Just because Dennis Jensen and Peter Goon say it can't doesn't make it so.


Nope, I'm not an Aussie. The F-22 can't replace the F-117, its systems are not suited to ground attack, and it can't take enough bombs to function as well in the bomber role as the F-35. When the F-35 is available, it will take over the F-117's tasks. The Strike Eagle wil of course be in operation for many years, but the F-35 will take over some of the more demanding tasks.


Maybe you could mention that to the 7th Fighter Squadron. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear why the F-22 can't replace the F-117...

The F-22 can carry 2x bombs internally, right?

How many bombs internally could the F-117 carry? I'm pretty sure it was two wasn't it?

That's some fine arguing there mate...

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 05:07
by Casey
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:1. What question?
My implied, and other's, question is that you back up such an statement with CREDIBLE sources.

Two officers within the JSF-progrm not credible?

Casey wrote:2. Do you have a history of attacking persons instead of debating the case?
I think you have me confused with someone else. If you have read my posts, I take a lot of time searching the net for CREDIBLE sources for what I say and I provide those links for other to read.


You DEFINETLY have a history of attacking people, insead of sticking to the case!

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 05:09
by Casey
SpudmanWP wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.
I hereby retract my retraction :)

It was a RAND study, weather you said it or not.

The study is downloadable here and there is an article from Flightglobal where RAND says the following:
Rand has disavowed the critical remarks about the F-35 as not intended for public release and, unlike the main presentation, not peer-reviewed. Additionally, Rand says: "Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from Rand were involved. Those reports are not accurate. Rand did not present any analysis at the wargame relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by Rand in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."


I DEFINETLY did NOT mention RAND, my conclusion is based on what I have been told by american officers.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 05:13
by Casey
SpudmanWP wrote:rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.


His job to the public is----MARKETING! Citing LM's marketing people as a credible source?

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 05:14
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:Did I really mention Rand at all?
Sorry... Fat finger. Not RAND.
I hereby retract my retraction :)

It was a RAND study, weather you said it or not.

The study is downloadable here and there is an article from Flightglobal where RAND says the following:
Rand has disavowed the critical remarks about the F-35 as not intended for public release and, unlike the main presentation, not peer-reviewed. Additionally, Rand says: "Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from Rand were involved. Those reports are not accurate. Rand did not present any analysis at the wargame relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by Rand in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."


I DEFINETLY did NOT mention RAND, my conclusion is based on what I have been told by american officers.



What American Officers? :?

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 05:16
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.


His job to the public is----MARKETING! Citing LM's marketing people as a credible source?



Well, what is your source??? :?

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 07:37
by SpudmanWP
Casey wrote: Two officers within the JSF-progrm not credible?
No, not without public statements by those officers. Otherwise, anyone can say anything.

Casey wrote: I DEFINETLY did NOT mention RAND, my conclusion is based on what I have been told by american officers.
I did not say that YOU SAID it was the RAND study, I just stated that the info came FROM the RAND study. You quote of ‘can’t turn, climb or run’ is a DIRECT quote from slide# 80 downloadable here

Casey wrote: His job to the public is----MARKETING! Citing LM's marketing people as a credible source?
No, his job is an USAF officer and pilot. He does not work for LM. Are you saying that all USAF personnel that have worked on the F-35 cannot be trusted? Then how do we trust your un-named and un-quotable USAF personnel?

btw, That RAND study is using Janes info only, no inside information. If you do not mind, I will put my trust in the people who actually fly the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 14:43
by einstein
SpudmanWP wrote:
LowObservable wrote:einstein is right
No he is not... and for several reasons:

1. He has no experience with the hardware on the F-35
2. He has no idea how the F-35 handles cooling issues
3. He assumes that LM would bet the farm on technology that it had not thoroughly tested under flight conditions
4. He provides ABSOLUTELY no sources that state the F-35 is having any kind of heat-related control issues, or any other kind of control issues.

Oh yeah... one final thing. The EHAs in the F-35 are production units. That means FULLY tested to perform in all the aspects of the flight envelope.


I´m right about the simple basic formula fact, that EHA´s produce a lot of heat if operated
as in a fighter and there is no liquid cooling circuit as in X-35
You are right, that I don´t know how LM is handling this problem, but suppose it´s done like in B-787 with EHA´s, you fly like an airliner
Joined a SAE Fluid Power meeting with presentations of X-32 and X-35, actually the same
day as LM was chosen for F-35 and for which - USAF had demanded - EHA´s
The Boeing man said they had refused to do that in a fighter and he had a lot of more reasons not to do that, but it gets too hydraulic, my point is that you basically can´t be a fighter with hot and slow EHA´s

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 15:57
by SpudmanWP
einstein wrote:there is no liquid cooling circuit as in X-35 .... my point is that you basically can´t be a fighter with hot and slow EHA´s
The F-35 will use the fuel as a liquid cooling mechanism. There is a large heat-exchanger in the inlet channel for this purpose. And as we all know.. the F-35 has plenty of fuel :)

LM has been testing EHAs since 1996. These are not commercial models. They are MILSPEC. I am confident that LM fully planned for the heat buildup in the EHA.

F-35 Chief test Pilot, Jon Beesley wrote:(From Code One article) "The electro-hydrostatic actuators, or EHAs, are another excellent example of risk reduction we're accomplishing on AA-1. This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity—not hydraulics. The F-35 is the only military aircraft flying with such a system. We proved that the approach works on six flights of the AFTI F-16 during the concept demonstration phase of the JSF program. We already have many more flights on EHAs on this test program. Because we are flying production versions of the EHAs on AA-1, we won't have to prove the EHA design on subsequent F-35s."

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 16:39
by einstein
SpudmanWP wrote:
einstein wrote:there is no liquid cooling circuit as in X-35 .... my point is that you basically can´t be a fighter with hot and slow EHA´s
The F-35 will use the fuel as a liquid cooling mechanism. There is a large heat-exchanger in the inlet channel for this purpose. And as we all know.. the F-35 has plenty of fuel :)

LM has been testing EHAs since 1996. These are not commercial models. They are MILSPEC. I am confident that LM fully planned for the heat buildup in the EHA.

There is no liquid cooling from- the actuators - like in X-35 that had a centralized hydr system, where the hot fluid was going back to a fuel heat exchanger

Boing 787 EHA´s are in principle and regarding heat loss the same, an electric motor a pump in a package

You fly like an airliner, EHA´s will be fine

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 18:38
by SpudmanWP
Dude… Do you even know what Google is??? I have to wonder. A few minutes searching for info here, came up with plenty of info.

1. Here is the specific info on Parker’s (Actuator Contractor) EHA Spec for the F-35.
F-35 Fighter incorporates EHA. (Ideas & Applications).
Source: Hydraulics & Pneumatics
Publication Date: 01-DEC-02
The new Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's flight controls will use electrohydrostatic actuation (EHA) technology for the first time in a production aircraft. Parker Aerospace Control Systems Div.-Military and Moog, Inc. are jointly designing and developing the primary flight control actuation system The Parker/Moog team is also responsible for power drive electronics on all three variants of the F-35.

The EHA technology provides several benefits. The actuators are smaller and weigh slightly less; performance is more efficient, and the F-35 is less vulnerable to enemy fire.
The 4000-psi EHA actuators have flow capabilities up to 26 gpm, depending on the surface. There are two basic configurations: a simplex configuration (rudder and aileron) and the dual-tandem (horizontal tail and flapperon).

These sophisticated actuator packages contain the following:
* a ram assembly with triple-redundant rod seals to minimize leakage,
* an integral triplex-ram LVDT,
* a liquid-cooled DC motor with integral resolver,
* a bidirectional shoeless pump -- capable of speeds to 15,000 rpm,
* a metal-bellows reservoir with level sensing,
* pilot-actuated solenoid valves to control mode logic (one spool-in-sleeve logic valve for the simplex version, three for the dual-tandem version),
* anti-cavitation check valves,
* control-pressure relief valves,
* fill and bleed ports,
* control-port and reservoir pressure transducers, and
* motor-coil and reservoir temperature transducers.
Wow, look at that… it has liquid cooling and specifically addresses thermal issues. Who would have thought???

2. Parker has stated
Electrohydrostatic actuation (EHA) is a power-by-wire system that eliminates the need for central hydraulics. EHAs are self-contained hydraulic systems controlled by high power electronics, allowing the use of traditional proven hydraulic actuation configurations for fault tolerance. Parker EHAs provide reduced system weight, reduced power consumption, and improved maintainability.

We have taken a leadership role with our system of EHAs, used to power all primary flight control surfaces on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Jointly developed with our teammates Moog and Hamilton Sundstrand, EHAs contribute significantly to performance improvements and weight reduction at the aircraft system level.


Just to be fair and balanced ;) here is the article that describes the serious problem they had in 2006. In it, they describe the issue as an electrical (lead shorted on lid) issue and specifically state that the EHAs were not an issue.

Oh and just to stick a fork in you, AWST did an article in August specifically addressing the heat issues and the presence of a central "massive fuel/air heat exchanger”.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 19:34
by SpudmanWP
RE:
can't climb, can't turn, can't run
Here is a press release about the some recent F-35 tests... Low and behold, it can climb and run :)
With more than 5,000 pounds of ordnance in its internal weapons bays, performance remained strong, with no discernable indication of the degradation sometimes experienced in current fighters because of aerodynamic drag. "The acceleration in maximum-afterburner takeoff was very quick," said F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley. "The climb-out with full internal weapons carriage was particularly impressive to me. Very pleasant to see clean-fighter climb rates and angles while carrying a combat load."

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 20:25
by LowObservable
SpudmanWP...
Interesting. So if the motors a liquid-cooled, how does the coolant get there? Have I just eliminated one critical fluid system (the hydraulics) in favor of another (actuator cooling)? Do I (Heaven forfend) have two cooling loops, one for each motor in the critical actuators? I'd rather not lose the airplane because one fluid line goes poof.
And the I-canna-alter-the-laws-of-physics question here is this: since the heat ends up in the fuel, can I get away with using all my fuel? At the end of a hot-day mission, after a diversion and a missed approach or a bolter, how much fuel must I absolutely have on board up to the second that I chop my engine? From a performance point of view, therefore, do I need a "thermal reserve" on top of my flight reserves?

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 20:35
by SpudmanWP
I do not know if the fuel flows through the EHA. I do know that each EHA also has a backup. So, if the cooling loop, or other component of each EHA fails, it is backed up without affecting the whole system.

The EHAs will be cooled as long as you have fuel in the system. If they fail, the backups kick in.

If you are out of fuel, you have bigger problems than cooling the EHAs ;)

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 20:44
by einstein
SpudmanWP wrote:Dude… Do you even know what Google is??? I have to wonder. A few minutes searching for info here, came up with plenty of info.

1. Here is the specific info on Parker’s (Actuator Contractor) EHA Spec for the F-35.
F-35 Fighter incorporates EHA. (Ideas & Applications).
Source: Hydraulics & Pneumatics
Publication Date: 01-DEC-02
The new Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's flight controls will use electrohydrostatic actuation (EHA) technology for the first time in a production aircraft. Parker Aerospace Control Systems Div.-Military and Moog, Inc. are jointly designing and developing the primary flight control actuation system The Parker/Moog team is also responsible for power drive electronics on all three variants of the F-35.

The EHA technology provides several benefits. The actuators are smaller and weigh slightly less; performance is more efficient, and the F-35 is less vulnerable to enemy fire.
The 4000-psi EHA actuators have flow capabilities up to 26 gpm, depending on the surface. There are two basic configurations: a simplex configuration (rudder and aileron) and the dual-tandem (horizontal tail and flapperon).

These sophisticated actuator packages contain the following:
* a ram assembly with triple-redundant rod seals to minimize leakage,
* an integral triplex-ram LVDT,
* a liquid-cooled DC motor with integral resolver,
* a bidirectional shoeless pump -- capable of speeds to 15,000 rpm,
* a metal-bellows reservoir with level sensing,
* pilot-actuated solenoid valves to control mode logic (one spool-in-sleeve logic valve for the simplex version, three for the dual-tandem version),
* anti-cavitation check valves,
* control-pressure relief valves,
* fill and bleed ports,
* control-port and reservoir pressure transducers, and
* motor-coil and reservoir temperature transducers.
Wow, look at that… it has liquid cooling and specifically addresses thermal issues. Who would have thought???

2. Parker has stated
Electrohydrostatic actuation (EHA) is a power-by-wire system that eliminates the need for central hydraulics. EHAs are self-contained hydraulic systems controlled by high power electronics, allowing the use of traditional proven hydraulic actuation configurations for fault tolerance. Parker EHAs provide reduced system weight, reduced power consumption, and improved maintainability.

We have taken a leadership role with our system of EHAs, used to power all primary flight control surfaces on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Jointly developed with our teammates Moog and Hamilton Sundstrand, EHAs contribute significantly to performance improvements and weight reduction at the aircraft system level.


Just to be fair and balanced ;) here is the article that describes the serious problem they had in 2006. In it, they describe the issue as an electrical (lead shorted on lid) issue and specifically state that the EHAs were not an issue.

Oh and just to stick a fork in you, AWST did an article in August specifically addressing the heat issues and the presence of a central "massive fuel/air heat exchanger”.


No news for me and you miss the point all the time: The very basic 20% heat loss when running the motor and pump without an external cooling circuit is acceptable in an airliner but not in a fighter
Liquid cooling in spec above means that the motor is installed wet in fluid inside the package

Have to give up on you ´´Google´´

To point that out, you are impressed by all the sensors in the package:
X-32 Boeing man said, sensors are the most sensitive components in a hydraulic system.
With F-35 10 packages, all with sensors, compared to the conventional X-35 system, then you decrease reliability with a very high factor

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 22:26
by Raptor_claw
einstein wrote:You are right, that I don´t know how LM is handling this problem, but suppose it´s done like in B-787 with EHA´s, you fly like an airliner
So, why would you suppose it's done like a 787???? You are basically saying you don't think LM understands control surface usage for a fighter. That would be based on what, exactly? :bang:
The simple fact is that the kinds of events (radical things like landings, air refueling, close formation) where the heat buildup is most critical have been done (repeatedly) and the aircraft didn't melt.
einstein wrote:...for F-35 and for which - USAF had demanded - EHA´s
Not true.
einstein wrote:The Boeing man said they had refused to do that in a fighter and he had a lot of more reasons not to do that, but it gets too hydraulic,
And when was the last time Boeing produced a successful fighter? (And no, the F-15 and F-18 do NOT count).
einstein wrote: my point is that you basically can´t be a fighter with hot and slow EHA´s
Which is why you design the system so that it's not slow and doesn't get too hot. Seems like it wouldn't take an Einstein to understand that.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2008, 22:45
by Raptor_claw
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote: His job to the public is----MARKETING! Citing LM's marketing people as a credible source?
No, his job is an USAF officer and pilot. He does not work for LM. Are you saying that all USAF personnel that have worked on the F-35 cannot be trusted? Then how do we trust your un-named and un-quotable USAF personnel?

Just keeping the record straight, Jon is an LM employee and has been since the late 80's. He retired from USAF following a very distinquished career, including developmental testing for the F-117.
But, back to Casey's insane statement. To somehow suggest that Jon would sacrifice even a fraction of his personal ethics and professional standards in the interest of "marketing" is, at best, just ignorant. Jon's job (and the job of all the other pilots involved at this point (and that includes former F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8A, AV-8B, F-14 pilots, by the way)) is to provide the very best possible platform for future generations of pilots - period. To imply otherwise is criminal.
If you would rather put your faith in accusations from uncredited "sources", who have no direct insight into the program, and have personal grudges and/or political axes to grind, well go ahead - I can't stop ya.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 00:05
by dwightlooi
Well... there are always going to be accusations of this sort.

Worse yet, I recall a comment a couple of months back along the lines that the very fact that Jon Beesley is the chief test pilot proves that the F-35 flies like a 737 because otherwise they will need a real fighter jock in his prime (say 30 years old) rather than the nearly 60 year Jon. Whoever it was (I forgot) then went on to say that Jon has been nursing the AA-1 never ever pulling G-max turns right of the ground or charging it past Mach 1 because he probably knows it can't handle either.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 00:12
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:Well... there are always going to be accusations of this sort.

Worse yet, I recall a comment a couple of months back along the lines that the very fact that Jon Beesley is the chief test pilot proves that the F-35 flies like a 737 because otherwise they will need a real fighter jock in his prime (say 30 years old) rather than the nearly 60 year Jon. Whoever it was (I forgot) then went on to say that Jon has been nursing the AA-1 never ever pulling G-max turns right of the ground or charging it past Mach 1 because he probably knows it can't handle either.



Typical........... :?

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 06:11
by Conan
Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:rapier01 just posted a link to a great interview with the first pilot of the F-35..if you [wink]choose[/wink] to believe him.


His job to the public is----MARKETING! Citing LM's marketing people as a credible source?


His job is to fly F-35 AA-1 and F-35 BF-1. He was the first person to fly the first "production representative" (pre-SWAT) and one of the first to fly the first "weight optimised" F-35.

He is limited in what he can say publicly about the aircraft because it IS classified information that people want. He has discussed the flight characteristics of BOTH aircraft at length, as far as the testing has gone so far. With 3-4 more airframes due to be flying within the next 12 months, the flight testing WILL ramp up considerably and a lot more information will be released.

It is not his job to sell the aircraft.

It is a VERY interesting situation amongst critics of the F-35. They almost uniformly love the F-22 (made by Lockheed Martin) and believe the world of that aircraft and everything ever said about it, but believe NOTHING said about the F-35...

Jon Beesley was involved in the development program of both aircraft. He was apparently entirely trustworthy and believable about the F-22, but now he is simply an L-M shrill and nothing from his mouth can be believed?

Makes me wonder if the issue is really with him...

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 16:14
by LowObservable
Spudman: You can cool an electric motor with JP if you like. Just warn me so I can stay 100 yards away.

Although EHA tested out on the J/IST. it wouldn't be the first time that a technology looked like a good deal at one end of a program, and not so good at the other. And there is a lot of legitimate concern about thermal loading on the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 18:05
by SpudmanWP
Raptor_claw wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote: His job to the public is----MARKETING! Citing LM's marketing people as a credible source?
No, his job is an USAF officer and pilot. He does not work for LM. Are you saying that all USAF personnel that have worked on the F-35 cannot be trusted? Then how do we trust your un-named and un-quotable USAF personnel?

Just keeping the record straight, Jon is an LM employee and has been since the late 80's. He retired from USAF following a very distinquished career, including developmental testing for the F-117. ....


Sorry, I got my notes crossed... I was busy packing for a weekend camping trip.

However, THIS REPOT and THIS ONE is from the first USAF pilot to fly the F-35. He flew AA-1 in early 2008. His name is Lt. Col. James “Flipper” Kromberg.

Also, he is not just some fighter jock, he is the director of operations for the 461st Flight Test Squadron.

In short, he was very impressed.
"The aircraft flew very well, exceeding my expectations," Kromberg said. "I was surprised by the amount of power on the takeoff roll. And the handling, particularly with the gear up, was phenomenal. The aircraft was very stable flying in formation with another airplane. It was really a joy to fly."
After the flight, Colonel Kromberg said the F-35 flew "very well."

"The aircraft was responsive across all flight regimes," Colonel Kromberg said. "The engine thrust response was excellent -- accelerating very quickly. The aircraft was very stable during formation flight."

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 18:15
by sferrin
LowObservable wrote:Spudman: You can cool an electric motor with JP if you like. Just warn me so I can stay 100 yards away.


I'm pretty sure they're not running bare wires through the fuel. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 18:57
by SpudmanWP
LowObservable wrote:Spudman: You can cool an electric motor with JP if you like. Just warn me so I can stay 100 yards away.

Although EHA tested out on the J/IST. it wouldn't be the first time that a technology looked like a good deal at one end of a program, and not so good at the other. And there is a lot of legitimate concern about thermal loading on the F-35.
The EHAs on the F-35 have been in development since before 1996. That's 13 years ago. I would think that they have all the thermal and flight characteristics issues resolved.

btw, they have been using fuel-cooling of aircraft systems for years.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 22:16
by F16guy
Couple of people here probably need to do some more research on what engineers do with electrical components and fuel.

LO, if you think you want to stay away from fuel cooled components then you'll need to stay away from more than the JSF. You'll need to stay away from your car (if its a GM), away from Boeings and Airbus products and... a whole host of other useful modes of transportation.

I just replaced my fuel pump out of my truck and you'll never guess where it was located...inside the gas tank. I'm sure everyone here knows that automobile gas flash point is much lower than JP8's, so it would make less sense to put an electric motor in an automobile's gas tank if it isn't safe for an airplane. (Very simplistic anecdote, I know, but I was surprised that I had to crack open my car's fuel tank to get to the fuel pump module.)

I'm pretty sure fuel cooling works on electrical components.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 22:36
by SpudmanWP
einstein wrote:No news for me and you miss the point all the time: The very basic 20% heat loss when running the motor and pump without an external cooling circuit is acceptable in an airliner but not in a fighter
Liquid cooling in spec above means that the motor is installed wet in fluid inside the package

Have to give up on you ´´Google´´

To point that out, you are impressed by all the sensors in the package:
X-32 Boeing man said, sensors are the most sensitive components in a hydraulic system.
With F-35 10 packages, all with sensors, compared to the conventional X-35 system, then you decrease reliability with a very high factor
You throw around that 20% number like it is a constant and never improves. Got ANY sources to back that up? No, thought not.

I however, have a few sources you might like to look at. THIS press release speaks about NASA’s flight tests of EHA and EMA actuators in the F-18 test aircraft. Both of the links are PDF reports of the results from these tests. Btw, LM designed the EHA actuator for the test.

Here are some of the highlights.
1. Both the EHA and EMA performed identically to the legacy central-hydraulic system.
2. Either system is more reliable than legacy systems
3. Either system saves about 1000lbs from the design of an aircraft
4. The EHA was designed to require no Actively Cooling.
5. And here is the big one (re:EMA testing)…. Wait for it… Wait for it…
The most significant problem uncovered during this flight test program was actuator thermal performance. This had more to do with underestimating the aircraft aileron duty cycle during the early part of the design phase than with any inherent limitations in EMA technology. The worst-case thermal loading condition was assumed to occur during hard, tactical maneuvering. In reality, the worst case occurs when the aircraft deploys the ailerons as flaps, flying around for extended periods of time with the ailerons drooped from 30 to 45 degrees. This extended operation against a steady load, coupled with the continuous small corrections commanded by the flight control system at these slow speeds, twice caused the test team to terminate a test point, raise the flaps, and allow the actuator to cool (Figure 15). MPC fabricated heat sinks for the motors to increase the conductive path to the actuator body. These were retrofitted onto the actuator midway through the flight program. This modification significantly improved actuator thermal performance.


So, we can derive two things from that statement:
1. The EMAs generated, and built up, more heat than the EHAs. This is probably why the F-35 was designed with EHAs instead of EMAs.

2. You are COMPLETELY wrong in your assertion that “F-35… can´t be a fighter with hot and slow EHA´s” as they don't get hot and are not slow.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2008, 22:53
by sferrin
F16guy wrote:Couple of people here probably need to do some more research on what engineers do with electrical components and fuel.

LO, if you think you want to stay away from fuel cooled components then you'll need to stay away from more than the JSF. You'll need to stay away from your car (if its a GM), away from Boeings and Airbus products and... a whole host of other useful modes of transportation.

I just replaced my fuel pump out of my truck and you'll never guess where it was located...inside the gas tank. I'm sure everyone here knows that automobile gas flash point is much lower than JP8's, so it would make less sense to put an electric motor in an automobile's gas tank if it isn't safe for an airplane. (Very simplistic anecdote, I know, but I was surprised that I had to crack open my car's fuel tank to get to the fuel pump module.)

I'm pretty sure fuel cooling works on electrical components.


Did the same thing on an '86 Chrysler Laser back in the day so it's not like it's a new thing even. (I'll admit my first thought was "WTF? Why don't they just make it so I have to pull the engine while I'm at it?")

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 03:32
by F16guy
sferrin,
I was about to try that as looked for the damn thing then called in people way more knowledgeable and had to say no s#!t, as they told me where the pump was.

One thing I can count on is for SpudmanWP to do the research to be able to jump from the top rope and lay the smack down.
SpudmanWP, by the way, did you get my PM?

Let the games continue....

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 20:14
by einstein
You throw around that 20% number like it is a constant and never improves. Got ANY sources to back that up? No, thought not.

I however, have a few sources you might like to look at. THIS press release speaks about NASA’s flight tests of EHA and EMA actuators in the F-18 test aircraft. Both of the links are PDF reports of the results from these tests. Btw, LM designed the EHA actuator for the test.

Here are some of the highlights.
1. Both the EHA and EMA performed identically to the legacy central-hydraulic system.
2. Either system is more reliable than legacy systems
3. Either system saves about 1000lbs from the design of an aircraft
4. The EHA was designed to require no Actively Cooling.
5. And here is the big one (re:EMA testing)…. Wait for it… Wait for it…
The most significant problem uncovered during this flight test program was actuator thermal performance. This had more to do with underestimating the aircraft aileron duty cycle during the early part of the design phase than with any inherent limitations in EMA technology. The worst-case thermal loading condition was assumed to occur during hard, tactical maneuvering. In reality, the worst case occurs when the aircraft deploys the ailerons as flaps, flying around for extended periods of time with the ailerons drooped from 30 to 45 degrees. This extended operation against a steady load, coupled with the continuous small corrections commanded by the flight control system at these slow speeds, twice caused the test team to terminate a test point, raise the flaps, and allow the actuator to cool (Figure 15). MPC fabricated heat sinks for the motors to increase the conductive path to the actuator body. These were retrofitted onto the actuator midway through the flight program. This modification significantly improved actuator thermal performance.


So, we can derive two things from that statement:
1. The EMAs generated, and built up, more heat than the EHAs. This is probably why the F-35 was designed with EHAs instead of EMAs.

2. You are COMPLETELY wrong in your assertion that “F-35… can´t be a fighter with hot and slow EHA´s” as they don't get hot and are not slow.[/quote]
___________________________________________________________-

The 20% is not a constant value, but may be the best condition you vill have!

[ http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Hydr08.htm ] shows 90-95%, which is typical for a big
efficient aircraft pump in the 6000 RPM range
But EHA pump is at an extreme 15 000 RPM

Liquid-cooled DC motor with integral resolver: Found nothing, but an electric motor can
be in the 95% range, however this one is in hydraulic fluid with a lot of drag when rotating

F-18 test: Nice to test on an aileron so you can compare directly with the other unchanged one, but even you may agree, working continously hard with ailerons (= roll) will make anybody dizzy after a short while
That special condition they had also gave thermal problems!
(Chuck Yeager was hands on - he never trusted NASA)

Slow: This is fast.... a big Direct Force solenoid connected to a small spool, with zero overlap in the sleeve, and a stroke of less than 1/10 of an inch to full flow and pressure

All those sensors and bleed/refill valves:
X-35 with two central systems had a typical total of six sensors and four bleed/refills -
centrally and easily located
F-35 with 10 packages, has 20 bleed/refills and 50 sensors spread out in a stealth A/C

Deleted the LVDT, it´s common in all types of actuators

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 21:41
by F16guy
Um...okay...if you say so.

einstein, you have to realize some of us are pilots so you have to dumb it down for us.

What are you trying to say? Are you refuting SpudmanWP's post?

I blacked out right after "The 20% is not a constant value,"

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 22:01
by SpudmanWP
His post is confusing because he got the QUOTE function wrong.

I am doing more research now, so I will not shoot from the hip...

More to come later :)

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 22:39
by Meteor
Now that we've discussed the F-35 flight control system (at length) (at very long length) (dead horses neighing) (to the point that most of us have no clue as to what's being said), and have discussed how to "Google", and have debated the merits of test pilot credentials, may I be so impertinent as to ask the following question:

Which fighter should the Norwegian taxpayers purchase purchase, taking technical, political, and economic factors into consideration? The F-35 or the Gripen NG?

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 22:47
by einstein
F16guy wrote:Um...okay...if you say so.

einstein, you have to realize some of us are pilots so you have to dumb it down for us.

What are you trying to say? Are you refuting SpudmanWP's post?

I blacked out right after "The 20% is not a constant value,"

_________________
Maybe that you did´nt read the discussion start up
____
Start:

I´m a retired hydraulic type used to millisecond fast servovalve controls as in Gripen, F-16 etc
However, the conventional fast controls in X-35 (the prototype) were changed to Electro Hydrostatic Actuators in F-35, a package with an electric motor driven pump

My point is that efficiency for a motor is about 90%, for a pump also about 90%
Working together efficiency will be 0,9x0,9 = 0,81 i.e about 80%

20% of the considerable input effect will be heat, then comes further heat losses in hydr valves etc

Problem is this heat is not circulated to a fuel cooler as in a conventional central
hydraulic system and to me it means:

The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
and respons at starting the motor will be slöwer than for a conventional servo valve
____________

so F-35 should be no match för F-16 or other fighters regarding pure flying, though maybe F-35 is OK otherwise
To dumb down as you say, it will overheat in servos (now packages with motor and pump in each) when you work it hard for some time
It will be slower to start up an electric motor and pump to 15 000 RPM compared to standard servo valve as in F-16 where you immediately move a small spool tenth of an inch for full control, you will lose the edge
Maybe a pilot view then from you, but myself as stated is just a retired hydraulic type
Have flown Super Cub pretty hard though...but will leave it there
I´m looking forward to Spudmans investigation

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 22:55
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:Now that we've discussed the F-35 flight control system (at length) (at very long length) (dead horses neighing) (to the point that most of us have no clue as to what's being said), and have discussed how to "Google", and have debated the merits of test pilot credentials, may I be so impertinent as to ask the following question:

Which fighter should the Norwegian taxpayers purchase purchase, taking technical, political, and economic factors into consideration? The F-35 or the Gripen NG?




Well, the Norwegian Air Force clearly want the F-35...................Which says alot. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 23:24
by SpudmanWP
Meteor wrote:Which fighter should the Norwegian taxpayers purchase purchase, taking technical, political, and economic factors into consideration? The F-35 or the Gripen NG?
Well, speaking as a man who has served his country, this is the criteria I would use in order of importance:
1. Which airframe will execute the mission with greater success rates
1a. Which airframe will be easier to adapt to new missions over the next 20-30 years.
2. Which airframe will survive the longest in combat.
3. Which airframe is easier to maintain.
4. Which airframe, over the life of the program including maint, parts, and attrition, will cost less.
5. Which airframe will provide jobs at home.

Any procurement project is going to be a balancing act between these, and other parameters.

My opinion is that the F-35 wins in most of the above, especially the ones at the top of the list.

On the question of jobs, I put that at #5 for a reason. The purpose of a country's armed forces is not to provide jobs, it is to defend the country the best way it can.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2008, 23:41
by Corsair1963
Really, I see very little case for the Gripen in Norwegain Service. As it mite as well just purchase more capable F-16's. Regardless, the F-35 is better suited than either of the former...............

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 00:59
by SpudmanWP
Einstein wrote:The very basic 20% heat loss when running the motor and pump without an external cooling circuit is acceptable in an airliner but not in a fighter.
Liquid cooling in spec above means that the motor is installed wet in fluid inside the package.

….Liquid-cooled DC motor with integral resolver: Found nothing, but an electric motor can
be in the 95% range, however this one is in hydraulic fluid with a lot of drag when rotating

…Problem is this heat is not circulated to a fuel cooler as in a conventional central
hydraulic system..
This just goes to show you that if you keep repeating wrong info long enough, you cannot see the truth when it smacks you in the face.

You do know what “Active Cooling” is, right? Active cooling means that some medium is used to transfer heat from one location to another. In this case, fuel is circulated through the EHAs (and most of the airframe for that matter) and taken to the inlet heat exchanger, or the engine for burning.

The electric motors are not sitting in a bath of oil. That’s a moronic assumption, a maintenance pain in the A$$, and would be counter productive. The fuel (or oil) most likely flows through channels in the motor casing just like your automobile motor.

Einstein wrote:[ http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Hydr08.htm ] shows 90-95%, which is typical for a big
efficient aircraft pump in the 6000 RPM range… But EHA pump is at an extreme 15 000 RPM

…My point is that efficiency for a motor is about 90%, for a pump also about 90%
Working together efficiency will be 0,9x0,9 = 0,81 i.e about 80%
um, You do know that when something is smaller it can run at higher RPM and efficiency numbers. Just think of a Chevy 350 V8 vs a Honda 2 liter V4. The V8 runs at 2k rpm a cruising speed while the V4 runs at 4-5k.

Now, as to your repeated use of 20%, WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES? Most of the numbers that I have seen re legacy hydraulic efficiency puts it’s number at 50%. This is primarily due to the heat and pressure loss because the fluid has to be piped thorough the airframe. EHAs do not have this problem as the pump is 2 inches away from the hydraulic actuator. Also, the EHA only operates when it is needed, not consistently like legacy systems. You are also assuming absolutely NO improvement in materials to reduce friction.

Einstein wrote:…sensors are the most sensitive components in a hydraulic system.
With F-35 10 packages, all with sensors, compared to the conventional X-35 system, then you decrease reliability with a very high factor
So you think ignorance is bliss? Do you thick because I have more sensors to detect failures before they happen that this makes the system less reliable?

Einstein wrote:…F-18 test: Nice to test on an aileron so you can compare directly with the other unchanged one, but even you may agree, working continously hard with ailerons (= roll) will make anybody dizzy after a short while. That special condition they had also gave thermal problems!
You’re an IDIOT. They flew with BOTH ailerons in the down position at the same time to compare their performance.

Einstein wrote:The EHA´s will fast be overheated if operated as in a fighter
and respons at starting the motor will be slöwer than for a conventional servo valve

…F-35 should be no match för F-16 or other fighters regarding pure flying, though maybe F-35 is OK otherwise

…It will be slower to start up an electric motor and pump to 15 000 RPM compared to standard servo valve as in F-16 where you immediately move a small spool tenth of an inch for full control, you will lose the edge
So let’s see… on one side we have the NASA Dryden Research pilots & test data, LM Test pilots & test data, and the director of operations for the 461st Flight Test Squadron all saying that the EHAs perform just like (or better) than legacy systems in all aspects of the flight envelope.

Stack that against you, with no data to back up ANYTHING you have said.

Hmmmm….. I wonder who I will trust?

Will someone please hand me a stake to put this blood-sucker out of my misery. :)

Dude, you remind me of an old mechanic who swears that an old Holly Carb is better than fuel injection.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 01:16
by Raptor_claw
einstein wrote: To dumb down as you say, it will overheat in servos (now packages with motor and pump in each) when you work it hard for some time
You can keep repeating that line all you want, unfortunately it doesn't make it true. The fact is that they don't overheat. As I stated before, the critical conditions have been flown, repeatedly and successfully. Allow me to quote myself:
Raptor_claw wrote:The simple fact is that the kinds of events (radical things like landings, air refueling, close formation) where the heat buildup is most critical have been done (repeatedly) and the aircraft didn't melt.
And yes, those "critical cases" correlate exactly with the results of the F-18 tests noted earlier - amazing how that works, huh? In addition to the actual flight time the actuator system has been flown for thousands of hours in the lab - connected and responding realtime to a very-high fidelity simulation modeling every conceivable type of mission. And yes, the actuators are subjected to external resisting loads to constantly create the right hinge moments.

einstein wrote: It will be slower to start up an electric motor and pump to 15 000 RPM compared to standard servo valve as in F-16 where you immediately move a small spool tenth of an inch for full control, you will lose the edge
The simple fact is that fighter manufacturers understand what they need. Long before any hardware is built, a set of requirements can be formed which are necessary: actuator bandwidth, effective time-delay, and load-rate curves. If the actuator system design doesn't meet these requirements it doesn't get to the airplane - it's just that simple.

einstein wrote: so F-35 should be no match för F-16 or other fighters regarding pure flying, though maybe F-35 is OK otherwise
I don't even know where to start. I'm not kidding - I truly don't.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 04:10
by Meteor
SpudmanWP wrote:
Meteor wrote:Which fighter should the Norwegian taxpayers purchase purchase, taking technical, political, and economic factors into consideration? The F-35 or the Gripen NG?
Well, speaking as a man who has served his country, this is the criteria I would use in order of importance:
1. Which airframe will execute the mission with greater success rates
1a. Which airframe will be easier to adapt to new missions over the next 20-30 years.
2. Which airframe will survive the longest in combat.
3. Which airframe is easier to maintain.
4. Which airframe, over the life of the program including maint, parts, and attrition, will cost less.
5. Which airframe will provide jobs at home.

Any procurement project is going to be a balancing act between these, and other parameters.

My opinion is that the F-35 wins in most of the above, especially the ones at the top of the list.

On the question of jobs, I put that at #5 for a reason. The purpose of a country's armed forces is not to provide jobs, it is to defend the country the best way it can.


Don't you think that there should be a "cost" criteria in your list above? (By "cost", I mean initial purchase cost, ongoing maintenance costs, overhaul costs, and fuel costs.)

What if the F-35 costs twice as much as the Gripen to operate? (I don't know that it does, but just for the sake of discussion I think that it should be a criteria in your list.)

What if the F-35 costs twice as much as the Gripen, or the other way around? Would it be better to buy 24 F-35s, or 48 Gripens for the same 30 year program costs?

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 04:56
by johnwill
See Item # 4!

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 05:08
by geogen
Meteor,

Bottom line IMHO:

1) Wait and lease one (1) production LRIP F-35A, and lease one (1) Gripen NG, once in production.
2) Make a comprehensive, sufficient fly-off, old school.
3) Based on RNoAF's overall capability/economic/strategic criteria (not political decisions), go with the winner.

Cheers to Norway.. :salute:

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 06:28
by Beagle79
Gripen is probably the most suitable 4G/5G fighter (not counting long-endurance UAVs) for low intensity warfare and peace-keeping missions. As for which jet to choose, it all depends on how the air force plans to use the new aircraft. If it’s planning to play part in WW3 (Tom Clancy’s latest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_EndWar">EndWar</a>, anyone?), then I would prefer something more hardcore like Rafale, Typhoon or Raptor; recent conflict in Georgia indicates that we cannot rule out that possibility in foreseeable future. F35 is still little more than LM pay-dearly-to-feel-good ad for the time being, and personally I would hesitate to put pilots in a jet that’s half-stealthy, energy deficient and armed with only two AIM120s for ATA :?

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 06:39
by SpudmanWP
Meteor wrote:Don't you think that there should be a "cost" criteria in your list above? (By "cost", I mean initial purchase cost, ongoing maintenance costs, overhaul costs, and fuel costs.)
That's covered in #4 :)

Meteor wrote:What if the F-35 costs twice as much as the Gripen to operate? (I don't know that it does, but just for the sake of discussion I think that it should be a criteria in your list.)
That depends on how you are balancing it. If the F-35 is at least twice as capable, then having twice the operating cost brings it even.

Meteor wrote:What if the F-35 costs twice as much as the Gripen, or the other way around? Would it be better to buy 24 F-35s, or 48 Gripens for the same 30 year program costs?
No question, 24 F-35s.

Since the F-35 is at least as good as 4 Grippens then even if it cost twice as much to buy and twice as much to operate you are still getting a deal because you are paying for less pilots and basing.

But all that aside, the F-35 has been designed from the ground up with ease of maintenance in mind. Most of the components are monitored and let you know when they need to be serviced. All the computers on board are software upgradeable so you do not need to replace hardware when upgrading. The F-35 will also last longer in battle therefore saving a lot on attrition.

Throw on top of that superior Situational Awareness (SA) and stealth, the Grippen slips farther and farther behind in capability.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 06:45
by Scorpion1alpha
Meteor wrote:The question is; Is the F-35 or the Gripen the optimum fighter for Norway today?


Aside from all the other sidetracked posts here, this is the best and most vaild point made regarding the original topic.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 07:03
by SpudmanWP
Beagle79 wrote:Gripen is probably the most suitable 4G/5G fighter (not counting long-endurance UAVs) for low intensity warfare and peace-keeping missions.
Why would you say that? The F-35 has better SA (Situational Awareness) and longer legs on internal fuel. How exactly is a plane armed for peace-keeping missions?

Beagle79 wrote:As for which jet to choose, it all depends on how the air force plans to use the new aircraft. If it’s planning to play part in WW3 (Tom Clancy’s latest EndWar anyone?), then I would prefer something more hardcore like Rafale, Typhoon or Raptor;
How are the Rafale and Typhone more hard-core than the F-35?? The F-35 will smoke either one in a 1v1 or 4v4 engagement.

Beagle79 wrote:recent conflict in Georgia indicates that we cannot rule out that possibility in foreseeable future. F35 is still little more than LM pay-dearly-to-feel-good ad for the time being, and personally I would hesitate to put pilots in a jet that’s half-stealthy, energy deficient and armed with only two AIM120s for ATA :?
Where are you getting your info?? The F-35 has better RCS stealth than the B-2 bomber, carries 4 internal AIM-120s currently (with growth for 6 with a new launcher), and I do not even know what you meant by “energy deficient”. When the JDRADM comes online in the early 2020s you 'could' see 12 easily carried because of it's proposed folding wing design (2 on each door and 4 in the bay).

btw, the JDRADM is the follow on to the AIM-120 that combines A2A and HARM in one missile and contains both a mili-metric wave and IR seeker. Throw in HOBS and LOAL and you have a fine weapon.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 07:23
by Conan
Beagle79 wrote:Gripen is probably the most suitable 4G/5G fighter (not counting long-endurance UAVs) for low intensity warfare and peace-keeping missions. As for which jet to choose, it all depends on how the air force plans to use the new aircraft. If it’s planning to play part in WW3 (Tom Clancy’s latest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_EndWar">EndWar</a>, anyone?), then I would prefer something more hardcore like Rafale, Typhoon or Raptor; recent conflict in Georgia indicates that we cannot rule out that possibility in foreseeable future. F35 is still little more than LM pay-dearly-to-feel-good ad for the time being, and personally I would hesitate to put pilots in a jet that’s half-stealthy, energy deficient and armed with only two AIM120s for ATA :?


It AIN'T armed with "only two AIM120s for ATA". That is a myth used by critics of the aircraft. F-35 will have the capacity to carry 4x AMRAAM internally upon it's entry to service.

If a customer wishes to pay, ASRAAM can also be integrated into the internal weapons bay, thanks to it's LOAL capability (lock on after launch) and AIM-9X has an intended development path that includes this capability.

The 2x AMRAAM idea relates to an F-35 fitted with 2x 2000lbs internal bombs. This is the standard operational configuration L-M uses in it's marketing of the aircraft.

2x 200lbs bombs, 2x AIM-120C AMRAAM, a full 25mm gun load and a full internal fuel load.

Tell me, how many AMRAAM missiles will the Gripen carry, if loaded up like this? The answer, from the configurations I have seen, is: two. The Gripen will also carry 2x within visual range missiles on it's wingtips. However if it is a two seater Gripen, it won't have the 20mm gun, which has been removed for twin seaters.

Not much of a difference there really. Except the F-35 CAN carry external weapons as well. The Gripen CANNOT carrry internal weapons.

In your "low threat / peace-keeping" missions, why would an F-35 need to remain in it's "very low observable" configuration. F-35A's have 7x external hard points, afterall.

I'm sure a few more AMRAAM's could be carried then...

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 08:13
by F16guy
I'll I can say is based on the latest information I got (tonight infact) on the F-35....The Norwegians would be much better off buying the -39. I finally see why all of the critics have said the F-35 is worthless and weak, can't turn, can't climb, can't run. Even the electrically powered actuators that I thought were being defended admirably with logical arguments and facts, are nothing like I imagined them to be. I have to admit, I thought is was going to be better...especially for the amount of money being invested.

I guess Elp and so many other are right....I mean look at AA-1. I'm so disappointed.



Image

http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/minif35/1004336799

SpudmanWP thanks for the revealing post. I just didn't think "anyone" could build a F-35.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 14:04
by einstein
Yes, thanks Spudman, but sorry you went into a spin

And Raptor claw, don´t you think your radical things like landing etc can be done
by a B-787?
Old 707 even made a tunnel roll like the one done by your F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 14:52
by SpudmanWP
F16guy wrote:can't turn, can't climb, can't run
That report has been SOO debunked... You realy should check your sources before deciding.

F16guy wrote:....I mean look at AA-1. I'm so disappointed.
I'd be real curious to know what about AA-1 are you so disappointed in? I have looked at most every interview and story during the flight testing and I do not see any long-lasting problems that have presented themselves. Heck, even the F-39 has been crashed a few times.

Granted, there have been problems, but you will have that in any SDD phase of an aircraft. AA-1 is also a pre-weight reduction airframe so is actually heavier than a production F-35 will be.

btw, you may believe me or not, but he sky is blue. ;)

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 15:35
by Conan
SpudmanWP wrote:
F16guy wrote:can't turn, can't climb, can't run
That report has been SOO debunked... You realy should check your sources before deciding.

F16guy wrote:....I mean look at AA-1. I'm so disappointed.
I'd be real curious to know what about AA-1 are you so disappointed in? I have looked at most every interview and story during the flight testing and I do not see any long-lasting problems that have presented themselves. Heck, even the F-39 has been crashed a few times.

Granted, there have been problems, but you will have that in any SDD phase of an aircraft. AA-1 is also a pre-weight reduction airframe so is actually heavier than a production F-35 will be.

btw, you may believe me or not, but he sky is blue. ;)


I think he is employing sarcasm... :)

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 16:13
by SpudmanWP
Sarcasm?? :doh:
It was 5am here and I had not had my coffee yet... :pint:

If that's the case, I am sorry F16guy.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2008, 17:15
by lamoey
While we mostly talk about ATA there is one question that must be asked. When did a Norwegian fighter fire an ATA missile or gun in anger last and when did it last drop a bomb. For ATA it may be WW2 and the last bomb was dropped in Afghanistan, so clearly ATG is a capability that is most commonly used.

When dropping a bomb you are by definition relatively close to your target, hence within reach of a few different types of SAM systems, so stealth would be useful as well.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 00:12
by SpudmanWP
Someone was spying on me late last night when I was posting. :)

Image

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 04:38
by dwightlooi
lamoey wrote:While we mostly talk about ATA there is one question that must be asked. When did a Norwegian fighter fire an ATA missile or gun in anger last and when did it last drop a bomb. For ATA it may be WW2 and the last bomb was dropped in Afghanistan, so clearly ATG is a capability that is most commonly used.

When dropping a bomb you are by definition relatively close to your target, hence within reach of a few different types of SAM systems, so stealth would be useful as well.


Based on that argument, why not buy a Cessna Citation?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 16:27
by lamoey
dwightlooi wrote:
Based on that argument, why not buy a Cessna Citation?


Thanks for your constructive input. All feedback is good feedback, but come on...

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 17:26
by Raptor_claw
einstein wrote:And Raptor claw, don´t you think your radical things like landing etc can be done
by a B-787?
Old 707 even made a tunnel roll like the one done by your F-35
(First, the use of the word "radical" was sarcasm, related to the fact that the worst heating conditions are not exotic, air-to-air dogfighting points).
But, yes, I do realize that a B-787 can land (or at least someday it will, maybe). So, what's your point?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 18:33
by Meteor
As I said before, it's difficult to compare prices of aircraft because so many variables are involved. In the case of the F-35 vs Gripen NG, there are exchange rates, unit vs program costs, and neither aircraft is in serial production. That being said, I think it is safe to assume that the heavier, larger, stealthy, more capable F-35 with all the latest avionics and gizmos will be significantly more expensive than the Gripen. How much more expensive, 20%, 50%, 100%, I won't hazard to guess at this point.

Some on this thread have made the argument that even if the F-35 is twice as expensive as the Gripen, it should still be the choice for purchase, because it is twice as capable as the Gripen. I agree to a point. If the F-35 costs 20% or 50% more than the Gripen, but is 20% or 50% better, then the selection process becomes somewhat of a wash. That works for me until you get down to small numbers of aircraft.

I'm old enough to remember the F-15 vs F-16/F-17 LWF arguments in the 1970s. The F-15A was a very capable air-to-air and air-to-ground fighter. (I remember being range officer in the very early 1980s watching Japanese pilots flying F-15As out of Luke dropping MK82s off of MERs using CCIP mode, and dropping some pretty good radar bombs too.) The USAF wanted to replace a couple of thousand F-4s and A-7s (yeah, we had that many fighters back then) and planned on replacing them all with the F-15. However, the F-15 was very expensive, somewhat like the F-22 is today. It quickly became evident that the USAF would not be able to afford to buy 2000 or 3000 F-15s to recapitalize the fleet. The LWF technology program was under way, and Congress mandated that the AF look at turning one of the LWF technology demonstrators into a cheap operational alternative to the F-15. Thus was born the F-16, and eventually the USN F-18.

The block 1/3/5/10 F-16A was a very limited fighter compared to the F-15A. The F-15A carried 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9, while the F-16A had no BVR missile at all. The APG-63 was far more powerful than the APG-66. The F-15 could fly higher and faster than the F-16, carry a greater air-to-air or air-to-ground payload, and had very comparable dogfight capabilities.

So why didn't the AF just buy a whole bunch more F-15s, and not worry about the F-16 at all? For the same reason that the AF is buying F-22s and F-35s. The AF simply can't afford to replace all of it's A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, and F-117s with F-22s. We can't afford 2 or 3000 F-22s. We decided that sometimes (sometimes!) quantity is better than quality.

The governments of many nations face the same quandry; Go for a few of "the best", or more of "good enough"? Some nations, such as New Zealand, decided that they could afford so few modern fighters that it just didn't make sense to have a squadron of six fighters. They parked their A-4s, and now they have no fighters at all. Other nations, such as South Africa or Norway, can afford some fighters, but not very many.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario: Oslo can afford to buy 12xF-22, or 24xF-35, or 48xGripen. Realize that some fighters need to be set aside for training and maintenance, say 25% of the fleet. That leaves 9xF-22, or 18xF-35, or 36xGripen available for deployment and combat.

Let's say that Norway decides to join an EU or NATO or UN deployment to the Congo, or Afghanistan, or the Taiwan Straits. You can't employ much less than a 4-ship, and you need at least one spare aircraft to support that, so you'd need to take 5 of your 9 available F-22s. That leaves 4xF-22 to defend Norway 24/7. (Not a good idea.) But if you had 18xF-35, you could deploy the 5 aircraft and still leave 13 defending Norway 24/7. (Not great, but a little bit better idea.) Or if you had 36xGripen, you could deploy 5 of them and still have 31 left to defend Norway. (Actually feasible!) More aircraft allows the Norwegian government more options.

Let's say that Norway is going to stay at home and never deploy again, and become a purely "air defense of the homeland" air force. Let's say that they want to have four aircraft on 5 minute alert, two at Bodo and two at Oslo. Each alert location would normally have one armed and ready spare aircraft standing by, so that would be a total of six fighters committed to alert status. If you only have 9xF-22 available, that leaves three fighters available for routine flying. If you have 18xF-35, that leaves twelve available for normal duties. And if you have 36xGripen, that leaves 30 available for everyday flying. Which air force would you rather be a pilot in? And which option gives the Norwegian government the greatest number of options and flexibility?

(Sorry about the length of this post. I'm a little long-winded today...)

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 18:53
by SpudmanWP
I guess we will have to wait till final pricing is announced....

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 21:27
by Meteor
SpudmanWP wrote:I guess we will have to wait till final pricing is announced....


We could, but the Norwegian (and other) governments are trying to make a decision now. This is from an industry publication:

A British consultant said the price for the JSF had risen about 18 percent this year, estimating the U.S. plane now probably would cost about $70 million, compared with an initial price target of about $40 million.

A Saab executive said the collapse of the dollar has helped lower Gripen's prices, as about a third of the content is sourced from the United States, with the other two-thirds split roughly between Swedish and European suppliers.

The British executive said Lockheed Martin had underestimated the potential sales threat from the Gripen, which had probably stayed close to its initial unit price of about $40 million and likely could match about 80 percent of the JSF's performance.


That was from:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=TOP

If we believe these numbers, (F-35 = $70 million vs Gripen NG = $40 million), then the F-35 costs 75% more than the Gripen. You can buy 7xGripens for every 4xF-35s. Or you can buy 49xGripens for the price of 28 F-35s. Or conversely, for the price of 48xF-35 you could get 84xGripen.

Considering Norway's geopolitical and economic situation, which is the better buy?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 21:38
by lamoey
Good analysis Meteor.

One thing to keep in mind when considering the price is how long each type will operate, e.g. 20, 30 or even 50 years and how many will be produced of each type for the entire duration of the program. I don’t know how many of you have had the dubious pleasure of dealing with corporate finance and justifications, but purchase cost is to some extent immaterial as long as you can justify the cost it will save or add to the monthly P&L statement (Profit and Loss), as long as the ability to finance or pay cash for the initial purchase exists. The pure finance calculation will then be something like this:

Purchase price may be depreciated over the length of time the asset is operating. I’m obviously guessing on both prices, depreciation method and length and service life, but it should give a fair idea what the real cost of purchase would be.

Type Price Service Life Cost/Year
F-35: $70m 35 years $2.0m
G-NG: $40m 25 years $1.6m

So for argument sake let’s say these numbers are good then much of the pure purchase cost argument is void. If G-NG is 80% as good as the F-35 then the price is the same for each plane, as 1.6 is 80% of 2.0.

As for industrial cooperation goes it must be examined carefully as well. Let’s say Norway gets to produce 5% of the G-NG and 0.5% of the F-35.

Type Price Share Quant. Years Revenue Rev/Year
F-35 $70m 0.5% 3500 30 $1,225m $41m
G-NG $40m 5.0% 250 20 $500m $25m

As above I have guessed at the total number to be produced and assumed that when a contract is won it is kept for the duration of the program (doubtful as it may be). It looks more likely that an F-35 contract is for the entire program and G-NG only for your own aircrafts, but I don’t know that for sure.

So in essence the appearance of a much better industrial cooperation deal from G-NG may be highly exaggerated.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 21:45
by Meteor
Type Price Service Life Cost/Year
F-35: $70m 35 years $2.0m
G-NG: $35m 25 years $1.6m

Well, we think along the same lines. However, why did you use a 35 year life for the F-35 and only a 25 year life for the Gripen? Why not make the years of service equal? That would alter the your conclusions, I believe.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 21:46
by einstein
Raptor_claw wrote:
einstein wrote:And Raptor claw, don´t you think your radical things like landing etc can be done
by a B-787?
Old 707 even made a tunnel roll like the one done by your F-35
(First, the use of the word "radical" was sarcasm, related to the fact that the worst heating conditions are not exotic, air-to-air dogfighting points).
But, yes, I do realize that a B-787 can land (or at least someday it will, maybe). So, what's your point?

Yes, I didn´t get your sarcasm and I know for example that flying low high speed with high
skin temperature and evasive can be a worst case
But flying a fighter supersonic , also at high skin temperature, and with high actuator pressure, working hard long time is quite a difference to airliner flying
So my point was, you stated that most critical heat built up landings had been done,
then an airliner can do it too - and tunnel rolls as well

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 21:56
by lamoey
Meteor wrote:Well, we think along the same lines. However, why did you use a 35 year life for the F-35 and only a 25 year life for the Gripen? Why not make the years of service equal? That would alter the your conclusions, I believe.


If Norway bought F-16 10 years later than they did then the upgrade potential would be much less. The G-NG may be 50% towards its potential for upgrades, while the F-35 most likely have plenty of opportunity for upgrades in the next 35 years making its useful life span longer.

b.t.w. I don’t necessarily agree that the G-NG is 80% as capable, but used it as it was a good fit in my calculations.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 23:11
by SpudmanWP
LM has been floating $50 million in recent stories. If those numbers stay close, you can get 4 F-35s for every 5 Gripens.

Can the Gripen carry 9500+ Kgs of ordinance and be fully fueled? Thought not.

The Gripen NG can carry 6000 Kg of ordinance on internal fuel while the F-35 can carry 9500 Kg of ordinance. That's only 63% as capable on stores alone. throw in the MASSIVE amount of fuel carried internally on the F-35 and you will see that 63% slip even further behind. Throw in stealth and situational awareness and it's game over.

Yes, I know that the F-35 with wing stores loses some of it's stealth, but it's still better than the Gripen.

If absolute range over water is your criteria, the F-35 can carry two wing tanks plus the MASSIVE internal fuel and two 2000 lb class weapons in a very clean config.

The Gripen will have to hang all the tanks and the ordinance under the wings which will be very dirty.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2008, 23:12
by SpudmanWP
crappy double post ;)

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 00:07
by Meteor
SpudmanWP wrote:LM has been floating $50 million in recent stories. If those numbers stay close, you can get 4 F-35s for every 5 Gripens.


Yes, and in that very same story that you quote the $50 million from, it also says that Australia is estimating $70 million per copy. (Story link below.)

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/new ... ed182cccf7

As I've said several times previously, costs are very hard to compare, especially for aircraft which are not yet in serial production, and with currencies fluctuating wildly every day. Also, with both aircraft, are we talking program or unit cost? If LM is truly able to deliver an F-35 at $50 million unit cost, then it will be a best seller. However, numerous governments around the world, (including the US congress), have severe doubts about ever seeing one at that price.

As to your technical comparisons, I don't think any of us (well okay, Casey) are arguing that the Gripen is a better aircraft than the F-35. We all agree with you. But using that argument alone, we could argue that the F-22 is a better aircraft than the F-35, so Norway should buy the F-22 instead, even though it costs twice as much as the F-35. Sure, they'd only have 12 of them, but who cares since it is technically superior to all others?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 01:41
by SpudmanWP
Let's set the record straight on the pricing.

The Saab Gripen offer is for 23 Billion Krone (translation here)

The US F-35 offer is for 20 Billion Krone (translation here)

Props for energo for posting the Norway LM F-35 Docs here

So that should put a torpedo into the whole "F-35 is 70-100% more expensive than the Gripen" argument.

Yes, I know that all the details of the deal have not been released, but.... you have to admit that the F-35 will be cheaper than even some other governments have been guessing at. It will be nowhere near $70 Million. Even if the above offer is just for the planes, the price is $58 million USD.

---Update
After some closer examination of the F-35 docs, I found that the F-35s will be delivered at Block 3 and that the price includes future Block 4&5, as well as Norway-specific future upgrades.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 02:22
by dwightlooi
SpudmanWP wrote:Let's set the record straight on the pricing.

The Saab Gripen offer is for 23 Billion Krone (translation here)

The US F-35 offer is for 20 Billion Krone (translation here)

Props for energo for posting the Norway LM F-35 Docs here

The contract value of a typical fighter deal is around 150~200% of the total price of the aircrafts. This is because, training, new ordnance, spares, services, etc are always necessary. If you just buy the planes they are only useful in a museum.

So that should put a torpedo into the whole "F-35 is 70-100% more expensive than the Gripen" argument.

Yes, I know that all the details of the deal have not been released, but.... you have to admit that the F-35 will be cheaper than even some other governments have been guessing at. It will be nowhere near $70 Million. Even if the above offer is just for the planes, the price is $58 million USD.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 04:26
by Meteor
Spudman, you quoted one set of numbers from the press to support your point, and I quoted another to support my point. Note that the numbers from our respective press documents don't agree. The press article below says $60 million per copy for the planned 3000 aircraft for the US:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... reign.html

This article says $69.3 million per copy:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=79814

This article says $80 million per copy for the Israeli F-35s:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 97,00.html

The fact that neither you, nor I, nor seemingly anyone else can come up with reliable figures as to what the price of this (or any other) fighter will be is not surprising. As I've said several times previously, there are a huge number of variables involved in a "price" calculation, and governments spend months trying to sort it all out in order to come up with something that they can work with. Since neither the F-35 nor the Gripen NG has been tested or produced in quantity, and since nobody knows what the currency exchange rates will be at the time of purchase, I doubt that anybody anywhere can say with confidence what the price will be.

I think that you and I agree that the F-35 beats the Gripen NG on technical merits. If LM can deliver operational F-35s to the Norwegians for the same cost (or less) than the Gripen NG would be, then by all means they should buy it. I've said all along that fighter purchase decisions are made on a combination of technical, economic, and poilitical factors. If the F-35 wins on at least two out of three of those, then it should likely get the order. My personal opinion, based on what I've read, is that the F-35 will probably be more expensive than the Gripen. How much more expensive? I don't know. We'll see.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 06:57
by SpudmanWP
There are many things that can cause quoted prices to fluctuate:
1. What year dollars are being quoted?
2. Is it an average or single year buy?
3. Is it a quote for just the aircraft or a whole package?
4. What airframe models does it cover (A, B, & C.. where B & C cost more than A)
5. At what time frame in production are the F-35s going to be delivered?

Unfortunately most articles are very bad at answering the above in their text.

btw, I am in contact with the US Embassy in Oslo to see if I can get some more definitive numbers.

Wish me luck ;)

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 07:24
by geogen
Meteor wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:I guess we will have to wait till final pricing is announced....


We could, but the Norwegian (and other) governments are trying to make a decision now. This is from an industry publication:

A British consultant said the price for the JSF had risen about 18 percent this year, estimating the U.S. plane now probably would cost about $70 million, compared with an initial price target of about $40 million.

A Saab executive said the collapse of the dollar has helped lower Gripen's prices, as about a third of the content is sourced from the United States, with the other two-thirds split roughly between Swedish and European suppliers.


That was from:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=TOP

Considering Norway's geopolitical and economic situation, which is the better buy?


LOL,

You blink and bam! USD is no longer collapsed! Breaking news: USD surges vs global basket! :shock:

Things change rapidly in this arena however, as rapidly as an F-35 can climb, turn and run!! So we can just stay tuned, I guess!?

My guess as far as latest production unit prices go, (assuming Oslo can secure a fixed SAAB unit price now, for a future produced NG??) would be this:

FMS F-35A: $75 million USD
Gripen NG: $70 million USD

Now, if relative US inflation really kicks in vs Euro/Krona , around 2014 say, then that said fixed '$75mil per F-35' quote will be actually cheaper for Oslo!

That's the beauty of fixed, futures contract pricing (or risk for the counter-party) :?

Kinda like Belgium getting burned now for buying Budweiser today at yesterday's quoted price! Serious bummer...

So again... my solution for your 'geopolitical and economical' situation (assuming it's truly a serious geopolitical and economical situation for Oslo deciders)

1) Don't rush into an absolute 'buy now' decision now. Oslo holds more cards today on this decision than ever before.

2) Wait and LEASE one 'production model' F-35 and one 'production model' Gripen NG and fly them off according to Norway's national defense interests (for next 20 yrs) with intent to order 32-36 units of winner.

3) Salute the loser and order the winner.

This will defray all the usual domestic political static intervening in RNo's critical decision. IMHO.

4) or then again... maybe LEASE block 50/52 Vipers for 10 yrs and decide then on the logical geopolitical/economic fighter in 2018?? Hmmm.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 08:13
by Beagle79
SpudmanWP, perhaps only time will tell just how close LM will match F35's performance with all the ads and hypes. Cheer :lol:

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 08:38
by Caprice
SpudmanWP wrote:Let's set the record straight on the pricing.

The Saab Gripen offer is for 23 Billion Krone (translation here)

The US F-35 offer is for 20 Billion Krone (translation here)


Poor attempt to "set the record straight" IMHO. Those numbers aren't comparable ie. Lockheeds sum don't include everything that SAABs does. Estimations I've seen when doing so is ~35 billions in compairison.

But I admit it's smart LM tactics to throw out such numbers because that's what stick in peoples mind as shown above.
AFAIK the norwegian goverment hasn't gone public with any definitiv price yet from either part but I think SAABs offer is close to what Denmark got - 20 years of operational aircrafts all included minus weapons...

Regards C.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 15:53
by LowObservable
The big deal on cost is through-life cost, not just purchase.

In this regard the Gripen has a huge advantage: risk. The airframe, systems and cockpit are largely common to the JAS 39C/D, already in service. The engine is a basically standard F414, which has been flogged to death on carriers for seven years.

The F-35 claims all sorts of low support costs but none of them have been proven. LM also claims that the LO maintenance beast has finally been tamed, but that's what they said about the F-22 and it has not happened that way.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 17:42
by Meteor
SpudmanWP wrote:There are many things that can cause quoted prices to fluctuate:
1. What year dollars are being quoted?
2. Is it an average or single year buy?
3. Is it a quote for just the aircraft or a whole package?
4. What airframe models does it cover (A, B, & C.. where B & C cost more than A)
5. At what time frame in production are the F-35s going to be delivered?

Unfortunately most articles are very bad at answering the above in their text.

btw, I am in contact with the US Embassy in Oslo to see if I can get some more definitive numbers.

Wish me luck ;)


This time, Spudman, we're in 100% agreement!

Conclusions from this thread so far:
1. The F-35 is technically superior to the Gripen NG.
2. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get reliable, believable, verifiable cost estimates for a fighter to be delivered at some time in the future.

Now the Norwegian government (and Spudman) are trying to get those numbers. Spudman; I do wish you luck!

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 19:59
by Prinz_Eugn
Damn you, Meteor, and your insidious logic...

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 21:49
by SpudmanWP
Caprice wrote:Poor attempt to "set the record straight" IMHO. Those numbers aren't comparable ie. Lockheeds sum don't include everything that SAABs does. Estimations I've seen when doing so is ~35 billions in compairison.
Where have you seen them?

My main point was to put an end to all this “F-35 costs >= 70 Million” issue. The price given for the F-35 package was given by Tom Burbage (Executive Vice President and General Manager of F-35 JSF Program Integration) at a press conference. This was not some “inside sources say” leak. They are bound to it by whatever language appears in the offer.

That being said, this is what is included in the offer.
1. 48 F-35A Aircraft
2. All Upgrades through Block 5
3. All Norwegian specific upgrades including JSM and “Icy Runway Capability” (read brake parachute)
3.48mb PDF (Page 9) The weapon system in our offering is based on the contracted F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Block 3 Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) configuration, plus anticipated Block 4/5 upgrades and any Norwegian Future Combat Aircraft (FCA) requirements. Regular upgrades through a formal Block upgrade program are planned. The Government of Norway has identified 2014 for acquisition with deliveries starting in 2016. As currently assessed, Norway can expect to have Block 4 capability in their early production aircraft and Block 5 capability in the later production aircraft. Retrofit of new Block capabilities in earlier Block aircraft is a key tenet of our spiral plan.


For all that, and maybe more, Norway was quoted a price of $58 Million per aircraft… nowhere near $70 Million.

The Aircraft would be delivered at a rate of 2, every 2 months, starting in 2014. The last would be delivered in 2018.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 22:12
by energo
Caprice wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Let's set the record straight on the pricing.

The Saab Gripen offer is for 23 Billion Krone (translation here)

The US F-35 offer is for 20 Billion Krone (translation here)


Poor attempt to "set the record straight" IMHO. Those numbers aren't comparable ie. Lockheeds sum don't include everything that SAABs does. Estimations I've seen when doing so is ~35 billions in compairison.


Although you are correct that the bids are not directly comparable, they both cover normal aquisition costs and a 20 year support and maintenance deal.

SAAB: 24B NOK
LM: 17.5B + 12.5B NOK (3.5B + 2.5B USD)


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 22:46
by Meteor
This from an industry publication:

The price tag of the F-35 remains a point of contention. The credibility of various cost estimates has been questioned by various government audits. Lockheed Martin says that the unit cost of the F-35A conventional fighter is less than $50 million, in 2002 dollars, when the contract was initially awarded. By the same accounting, the F-35B and F-35C are about $60 million per copy.

In an audit last year, however, the Government Accountability Office estimated that the F-35 could cost as much as $97.6 million apiece, in 2008 dollars. Norway recently asked the U.S. government to provide information on a potential buy of 48 F-35s for delivery in 2016. Lockheed estimated that, in 2008 dollars, each aircraft would cost $56.5 million, with an additional $2.2 million for auxiliary mission equipment, such as pylons, rails and the helmet-mounted display systems.


Link to the above article: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... t2282.aspx

I agree with Spudman. The $97.6 million from the 2007 GAO estimate isn't anywhere close to $70 million.

(Sorry. I couldn't resist. :wink: )

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 22:58
by Meteor
This analysis of the F-35 vs Gripen NG from Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 234d227276

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 23:01
by SpudmanWP
I would love to see that GAO report... but unlike myself, you did not provide a source ;)

You missed the point that LM committed to a sub $60 million price tag that includes more than just fly-away cost.

This just adds more weight to the argument that the GAO are worst-case, panic ridden, and short-sighted people afraid to take any kind of risk.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 23:03
by lamoey
I agree with Spudman. The $97.6 million from the 2007 GAO estimate isn't anywhere close to $70 million.


Currently 1 US$ = NoK 6.866
Just a few months ago 1 US$ was NoK 4.980.
That means $1 was worth 72.5% of the current US$. 72.5% of $97m = $70.7m

So depending on when each of the prices where stated they may actually BE THE SAME.
Now try to figure out the real cost...

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 23:14
by Meteor
From the US House Armed Services subcomittee, March 2008:

“The 2009 average procurement unit cost for 20 F-22s is $205 million, while the projected cost for the F-35A is $73 million.

“We are much more certain of the cost for F-22s since we have an ongoing production line. As we will hear from the GAO this morning, there is high risk in the F-35 program that it will not achieve its cost, schedule or performance parameters.

“The F-22 and F-35 have a similar 12 year development period. If we go back to where the F-22 was five years into development in 1996, about where the F-35 is now, projections were for a buy of 438 aircraft at an average procurement unit cost of $104 million in 2008 dollars. Today, we’re only planning for 183 aircraft and unit costs have increased 97 percent.

If the cost of an F-35 increases similar to the F-22, costs could increase by a similar amount to $156 million per aircraft in 2008 dollars if the cost grows at the same rate as it did for the F-22. And that is without a reduction of the currently projected 2,443 aircraft total procurement.


Link to the above: http://armedservices.house.gov/apps/lis ... 1108.shtml

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 23:20
by Meteor
SpudmanWP wrote:I would love to see that GAO report... but unlike myself, you did not provide a source ;)


Actually, I did. Go to the link beneath the italicized quote. It's a long article. Scroll to the end and then count up 14 paragraphs. There it is.

I've been looking for the actual GAO report, but no luck online so far. Anything from the embassy in Oslo?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2008, 23:32
by SpudmanWP
I think you misunderstood me.

I wanted the link to the original GAO report.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 03:59
by Meteor
SpudmanWP wrote:I wanted the link to the original GAO report.


Found it:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-415

From page 49 of the report:

Overall, the cost estimate to develop the JSF has increased from $34.4 billion in 2001 to $44.5 billion in 2005—about 29 percent. Procurement costs have increased from $196.6 billion in 2001 to $231.7 billion in 2005—about 18 percent. Since program start, JSF quantities have been reduced by 530 aircraft. Current estimated program acquisition unit costs are about $112 million, a 38 percent increase since 2001.

(That is program cost, by the way, which includes amortizing all the development of the aircraft.)

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 04:16
by Meteor
Also this GAO report from March 31, 2008:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-467SP

Note on page 105 of the full report that the per unit program cost of the F-35 is listed as $97.63 million each.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 04:41
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:This analysis of the F-35 vs Gripen NG from Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 234d227276



Sorry, Mr. Sweetmans bias towards the F-35 is well known.......... :evil:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 04:43
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:Also this GAO report from March 31, 2008:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-467SP

Note on page 105 of the full report that the per unit program cost of the F-35 is listed as $97.63 million each.



If, it comes from the GAO I wouldn't give it to much credit. Just go back and look and every other big budget program. As the sky is always falling........If, the US listen to the GAO. We wouldn't have a military. :cry:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 07:53
by F16guy
I'd actually like to know...if anyone can tell me, has the GAO ever liked any military program? Have they ever said that such and such program is a model to be followed or money well spent? I've only ever heard the GAO's reports used by critics of military programs.

Not that all criticism is bad, in fact, being able to criticize something is the American way.

Just don't criticize something I really like. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 09:11
by Caprice
SpudmanWP wrote:
Caprice wrote:Poor attempt to "set the record straight" IMHO. Those numbers aren't comparable ie. Lockheeds sum don't include everything that SAABs does. Estimations I've seen when doing so is ~35 billions in compairison.
Where have you seen them?
SpudmanWP, can't remember where I saw them but they appear to be ruffly in the same ballpark as those Energo posted above. I think though he's a little low on his LM 17.5B(aquisition) + 12.5B NOK costs...and a little high on SAABs 24B. We will se in a month or so, hopefully. :wink:

Regards C.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 13:43
by Beagle79
On the contrary, Corsair, I would pay heed to GAO reports more than to contractors’ sale pitches. GAO, like RAND, doesn’t have much to lose when they make their recommendations; contractors, on the other hand, with their never-ending egg-headed (=high risk/cost?) proposals usually approach us with contract-snatching and profitability in mind. We don’t need to listen to everything GAO says, but their recommendations usually point out hard but necessary truth. Time has changed, and we need to maneuver in accordance with strategic changes worldwide, and renew our armed forces while implementing new capabilities. :2c:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 16:06
by bumtish
GAO uses then-year dollars with a baseline year of 2036 (end of project). They also lump the unit cost of LRIPs, FRPs and A/B/C into one lump sum and then average them out. They arrive at $104M then-year dollars (GAO, 2008).

The USAF have calculated that the cost of a F-35A is $79.973M then-year dollars at Full Rate Production, with a baseline-year 2036. That's approximately $58M 2008 dollars. Those are the ones that Norway is going to buy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DfbUPDqtPVI/S ... 5price.jpg

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 19:29
by Meteor
Corsair1963 wrote:
Meteor wrote:This analysis of the F-35 vs Gripen NG from Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 234d227276



Sorry, Mr. Sweetmans bias towards the F-35 is well known.......... :evil:


As opposed, of course, to the totally unbiased neutrality on this F-16 / F-22 / F-35 fan site! :D

(Bill Sweetman is the Editor in Chief of AW&ST, probably the world's leading aerospace industry magazine. He may possibly - maybe - have a little bit more insight than those of us on this forum. Note that his article compared the F-35 unfavorably against both the Gripen and our very own cherished F-16. Bill has not been a great proponent of the whole JSF program since the inception, and he has delineated his reasons on many occasions. Although we may disagree with his viewpoint, to dismiss his opinions as "bias" are a little bit presumptuous.)

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 19:35
by andreas77
Type Price Service Life Cost/Year
F-35: $70m 35 years $2.0m
G-NG: $40m 25 years $1.6m


Where did you get thoose numbers from (cost / year)?
GAO has reported the expected cost per flight hour for F-35 to be higher than for the F-16.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf

Gripen C/D cost $2500 per flight hour, F-16 Block 52 $3700.
http://www.nacional.hr/en/articles/view/34674/


The Gripen NG will have an engine with a lower specific fuel consumption than the C/D, and the avionics will be more modular, using only one type of computer, which will be cheaper to maintain and upgrade. The cost per flight hour wont be any higher for the NG compared to the C/D.

Remember that the price given to Norway and the other european partners will change if the number of planes ordered will be cut. The british are talking about buying 85 F-35s instead of 150. If Norway goes for the Gripen NG maybe Denmark will do the same (Sweden, Norway and Denmark training together would be nice!). The dutchmen (why are they still in the project????) might change their mind as well. Italy cancelled the testplane and with their national debt (110% or so of GNP) + a financial crisis I guess they are looking for other things to spend money on than new carrier jets.....



There was this article in a Norweigan newspaper yesterday stating that a analysis from Janes defense came to the conclusion that the F-35 would cost Norway 1 billion kronor a year more than the Gripen NG (using and upgrading for 30 years), anyone who read the original report?
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks ... 768964.ece


By the way, how do I add the username of the user I quoted?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 19:52
by loke
energo wrote:
Caprice wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Let's set the record straight on the pricing.

The Saab Gripen offer is for 23 Billion Krone (translation here)

The US F-35 offer is for 20 Billion Krone (translation here)


Poor attempt to "set the record straight" IMHO. Those numbers aren't comparable ie. Lockheeds sum don't include everything that SAABs does. Estimations I've seen when doing so is ~35 billions in compairison.


Although you are correct that the bids are not directly comparable, they both cover normal aquisition costs and a 20 year support and maintenance deal.

SAAB: 24B NOK
LM: 17.5B + 12.5B NOK (3.5B + 2.5B USD)


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

The numbers that Bjørnar qoutes for the F-35 are outdated. The 24B NOK for Gripen, I have not seen before. Latest figures, with references:

48 Gripen NG everything but fuel and weapons included: 20 - 23 billion NOK

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/04/30/534028.html
http://www.aereo.jor.br/?p=1461

The latest figures for F-35 (qouting the same source as Bjørnar but more recent ones): 21 billion NOK + 36 billion NOK = 57 billion NOK.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=537767

Add fuel costs and F-35 is 30 billion NOK (USD 4.4 billion) more expensive than Gripen NG. Not insignificant for a small country like Norway.

The NOK 30 billion figure that I estimated above actually match what Jane's reported in a recent issue.


L

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 20:11
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Meteor wrote:This analysis of the F-35 vs Gripen NG from Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 234d227276



Sorry, Mr. Sweetmans bias towards the F-35 is well known.......... :evil:


As opposed, of course, to the totally unbiased neutrality on this F-16 / F-22 / F-35 fan site! :D

(Bill Sweetman is the Editor in Chief of AW&ST, probably the world's leading aerospace industry magazine. He may possibly - maybe - have a little bit more insight than those of us on this forum. Note that his article compared the F-35 unfavorably against both the Gripen and our very own cherished F-16. Bill has not been a great proponent of the whole JSF program since the inception, and he has delineated his reasons on many occasions. Although we may disagree with his viewpoint, to dismiss his opinions as "bias" are a little bit presumptuous.)



Sorry, in my opinion his "bias" is way over the top and I have lost all respect for his views. Regardless, when the F-35 is proven to be successful. I think his creditably will be severely tarnished................ :2c:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 20:21
by Corsair1963
Beagle79 wrote:On the contrary, Corsair, I would pay heed to GAO reports more than to contractors’ sale pitches. GAO, like RAND, doesn’t have much to lose when they make their recommendations; contractors, on the other hand, with their never-ending egg-headed (=high risk/cost?) proposals usually approach us with contract-snatching and profitability in mind. We don’t need to listen to everything GAO says, but their recommendations usually point out hard but necessary truth. Time has changed, and we need to maneuver in accordance with strategic changes worldwide, and renew our armed forces while implementing new capabilities. :2c:



Well, its not to say that the GAO or RAND don't ever have a point. Yet, I believe as a whole controversy keeps them in business. Much like the media..........every watch the nightly news! :shock:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 22:00
by Meteor
bumtish wrote:GAO uses then-year dollars with a baseline year of 2036 (end of project). They also lump the unit cost of LRIPs, FRPs and A/B/C into one lump sum and then average them out. They arrive at $104M then-year dollars (GAO, 2008).

The USAF have calculated that the cost of a F-35A is $79.973M then-year dollars at Full Rate Production, with a baseline-year 2036. That's approximately $58M 2008 dollars. Those are the ones that Norway is going to buy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DfbUPDqtPVI/S ... 5price.jpg


Well, bumtish, my recent record in the stock market proves that I am not a financial wizard, but your recent post puzzled me.

My experience with "then year dollars" has always been with previous or current years. We know what the dollar was in - for example - 1895 or 1952 or 2006, and so can compare that dollar to the current dollar and figure out the loss (or gain) in value since then. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with any budgeting process involving "future year dollars", since obviously we haven't yet been to the future and have no idea what the dollar will be worth in 2015, 2026, or 2036.

The chart you posted, (good find, by the way), and which you used to make your conclusions ends in 2036, 28 years from now. The GAO, LM, the USAF, and the Norwegian government have no more idea of what the dollar will be worth in 2036 than we knew of today's dollar in 1980, which was 28 years ago. When the GAO, GD, the USAF, and the Norwegian government were analysing the budget for the new F-16 in 1980, they certainly didn't use the postulated 2008 dollar value to make their calculations.

The chart you posted shows the expenditures in FY06 and FY07 on the JSF program. Those monies, (correct me if I'm wrong), were actual FY06 and FY07 dollars, not some hypothetical devalued 2036 dollars. There is nothing on that chart that shows that going forward (FY10-FY36) those dollars are 2036 dollars. If it does say that on the lower (deleted) portion of the chart you posted, please post that too, or PM me. If using a hypothetical future year dollar value is a standard GAO budgeting device, then please send that link too, as I did not know that. (As my daughters tell me, I'm often wrong...)

My guess is that the chart shows actual dollars for previous and current years, and all future estimates are based on current year dollars. The steady decrease in unit cost probably reflects expected gains in manufacturing efficiency as the construction learning curve moves further to the right, along with expected gains from economy of scale as the program grows.

Also, the House Armed Services subcommittee, (the guys that actually buy these airplanes), says $73 million per copy in FY09 dollars...

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 22:18
by lamoey
andreas77 wrote:
Type Price Service Life Cost/Year
F-35: $70m 35 years $2.0m
G-NG: $40m 25 years $1.6m


Where did you get those numbers from (cost / year)?
GAO has reported the expected cost per flight hour for F-35 to be higher than for the F-16.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf

The two prices from earlier post. The Service Life is on me. Cost per year is math based on the two previous numbers, which is purely acquisition cost, not including operating cost.


Gripen C/D cost $2500 per flight hour, F-16 Block 52 $3700.
http://www.nacional.hr/en/articles/view/34674/


The Gripen NG will have an engine with a lower specific fuel consumption than the C/D, and the avionics will be more modular, using only one type of computer, which will be cheaper to maintain and upgrade. The cost per flight hour won’t be any higher for the NG compared to the C/D.

Those are specific improvements that will make the G-NG better, hence it is still in the running, but it is still a 4th generation fighter.


Remember that the price given to Norway and the other European partners will change if the number of planes ordered will be cut. The British are talking about buying 85 F-35s instead of 150. If Norway goes for the Gripen NG maybe Denmark will do the same (Sweden, Norway and Denmark training together would be nice!). The Dutchmen (why are they still in the project????) might change their mind as well. Italy cancelled the test plane and with their national debt (110% or so of GNP) + a financial crisis I guess they are looking for other things to spend money on than new carrier jets.....

The Norwegians voted against EU even after Sweden decided to join, and both Sweden and Denmark kept their currencies, so don't bet the farm on Scandinavian co-operation.


There was this article in a Norwegian newspaper yesterday stating that a analysis from Jane’s defense came to the conclusion that the F-35 would cost Norway 1 billion kronor a year more than the Gripen NG (using and upgrading for 30 years), anyone who read the original report?
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks ... 768964.ece

You get what you pay for...

Let me quote astronaut Alan Sheppard when he sat in the capsule for several hours, waiting to become the first American in space, and was then asked what he was thinking sitting there waiting. His answer was “That this rocket was built by the lowest bidder”.

If you look at most articles in Aftenposten (I read the online version every day), not including specific interviews with people, they are all in favor of the G-NG. They seem to only bring up the good points about the G-NG and only the bad points about the F-35. Such comparison mostly comes in favor of the G-NG. They never mention that there is 20 years between the designs. Would you buy a 20 year old SAAB 900 with a new chassis and some minor upgrade the old frame could accommodate over a new hybrid (Hybrid being equal to Stealth in car terms)

In the article they highlight that there may be fewer F-35’s purchased than originally envisioned. So let’s say there is 500 less, making it 3000, instead of 3500. 500 less G-NG sold would make no upgrades

By the way, how do I add the username of the user I quoted?

Push the quote button on top of the post you want to quote. Always pleased to help.

Apologies to all if I come across a tad sarcastic.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 22:45
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:
bumtish wrote:GAO uses then-year dollars with a baseline year of 2036 (end of project). They also lump the unit cost of LRIPs, FRPs and A/B/C into one lump sum and then average them out. They arrive at $104M then-year dollars (GAO, 2008).

The USAF have calculated that the cost of a F-35A is $79.973M then-year dollars at Full Rate Production, with a baseline-year 2036. That's approximately $58M 2008 dollars. Those are the ones that Norway is going to buy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DfbUPDqtPVI/S ... 5price.jpg


Well, bumtish, my recent record in the stock market proves that I am not a financial wizard, but your recent post puzzled me.

My experience with "then year dollars" has always been with previous or current years. We know what the dollar was in - for example - 1895 or 1952 or 2006, and so can compare that dollar to the current dollar and figure out the loss (or gain) in value since then. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with any budgeting process involving "future year dollars", since obviously we haven't yet been to the future and have no idea what the dollar will be worth in 2015, 2026, or 2036.

The chart you posted, (good find, by the way), and which you used to make your conclusions ends in 2036, 28 years from now. The GAO, LM, the USAF, and the Norwegian government have no more idea of what the dollar will be worth in 2036 than we knew of today's dollar in 1980, which was 28 years ago. When the GAO, GD, the USAF, and the Norwegian government were analysing the budget for the new F-16 in 1980, they certainly didn't use the postulated 2008 dollar value to make their calculations.

The chart you posted shows the expenditures in FY06 and FY07 on the JSF program. Those monies, (correct me if I'm wrong), were actual FY06 and FY07 dollars, not some hypothetical devalued 2036 dollars. There is nothing on that chart that shows that going forward (FY10-FY36) those dollars are 2036 dollars. If it does say that on the lower (deleted) portion of the chart you posted, please post that too, or PM me. If using a hypothetical future year dollar value is a standard GAO budgeting device, then please send that link too, as I did not know that. (As my daughters tell me, I'm often wrong...)

My guess is that the chart shows actual dollars for previous and current years, and all future estimates are based on current year dollars. The steady decrease in unit cost probably reflects expected gains in manufacturing efficiency as the construction learning curve moves further to the right, along with expected gains from economy of scale as the program grows.

Also, the House Armed Services subcommittee, (the guys that actually buy these airplanes), says $73 million per copy in FY09 dollars...



Even if your $73 Million Dollar price per copy is correct??? It is meaningless without price comparisons with its peers! For example what is the price of the Raptor and Super Hornet for FY 09??? Of course that doesn't even include such non-American Types like the Typhoon and Rafale........... :idea:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2008, 23:57
by bumtish
Meteor wrote:Well, bumtish, my recent record in the stock market proves that I am not a financial wizard, but your recent post puzzled me.

My experience with "then year dollars" has always been with previous or current years. We know what the dollar was in - for example - 1895 or 1952 or 2006, and so can compare that dollar to the current dollar and figure out the loss (or gain) in value since then. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with any budgeting process involving "future year dollars", since obviously we haven't yet been to the future and have no idea what the dollar will be worth in 2015, 2026, or 2036.


For our common benefit I'll start with this quote:

"Currency year

There are three types of accounting "year" used to express costs: "calendar year" (CY), "fiscal year" (FY), and "then year" (TY). The default, especially when no type of year is given, is the calendar year in which the valuation was first given. This would be written "US$75 million (2002)", for example.

Government budget documents and announcements are usually based on their "fiscal year", which may coincide with the calendar year, but usually do not. (The US fiscal year 2007, for instance, runs from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007.) Such a value should be rendered as "US$75 million (FY2002)". (I would deprecate use of the informal "FY02".)

"Then-year" valuation is principally an American phenomenon and should be avoided at all costs. It is a multi-year accounting in which the inflated dollars from each year's budget are added together in a lump sum that is meaningless without knowledge of each year's amount and projected inflation rate. If that is the only available information, then it should be expressed as "US$75 million (TY, 2002)" with the year being the baseline (zero-inflated) year on which the estimate is based*. Such values should be replaced as soon as CY or FY data become available."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Askar ... unit_costs

* I think he's mixing it up by inflating to the baseline year, that's not it's actual use in US Government. They use it as lump-sum. See the relationship between TY and CY from the GAO reports down in my post.


The Americans do use then-year dollars in their budgeting. That's an (annoying) fact. In the 2006 realignment of the JSF budget they are operating with both CY and TY; here are the numbers extracted from GAO reports, both from March this year.

Program Cost
TY (2036) $299.8B (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf, p.6, Table 1)
CY (2008) $239.9743B (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf, p. 105)

Procument Cost
TY (2036) $255.1B
CY (2008) $193.6521B

Same sources.

More interesting is the USAF FY 2009 Budget Estimates. (The source of the link: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DfbUPDqtPVI/S ... 5price.jpg)

The budget estimates can be found on page 43 in this document:

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 04-081.pdf


The numbers in the columns in the header with "FY 20xx" are indeed FY dollars for each particular year. The "To Complete" column is for the FY2014, FY2015...FY20xx cumulatively added for each year. If you summarize the cells they will add up to the lump sum in the last column "Total", confirming that then-year dollars are indeed what is used in the last two columns.

The USAF use TY dollars in their budgeting.


Meteor wrote:The chart you posted, (good find, by the way), and which you used to make your conclusions ends in 2036, 28 years from now. The GAO, LM, the USAF, and the Norwegian government have no more idea of what the dollar will be worth in 2036 than we knew of today's dollar in 1980, which was 28 years ago. When the GAO, GD, the USAF, and the Norwegian government were analysing the budget for the new F-16 in 1980, they certainly didn't use the postulated 2008 dollar value to make their calculations.


It's not 2036 dollars by purchasing value. They're lump-sum money used during the project. The budget itself is susceptible to predictions of inflation. It's a budgeting tool. The average relationship between CY2008 and TY procurement dollars is

$CY/$TY = $194B/$255B = 0.76

The average budgeted procument fly-away cost of a F-35A is from a Pentagon perspective is then

$83.131M*0.76 = $63M (CY2008)

And the Weapon System Cost (the one you'll usually see referred to in Committee and Congress) is then

$90.314M*0.76= $69M (CY2008) (or about the $70M number sometimes tossed out)

Norway is going to buy block 4 and 5, so from the "To Complete" column

$79.973M*0.76 = $61M (CY2008) (or close to the $58M L-M pushes)


Using the CY/TY relationship is far from perfect as it assumes an even procurement over the entire time frame. This is not the case. It's only used here as an appropriate first-order approximation in order to explain the numbers. So they're +/- a couple of $M.

These are also the budgeted numbers and does not reflect potential cost overruns in the future.


Meteor wrote:The chart you posted shows the expenditures in FY06 and FY07 on the JSF program. Those monies, (correct me if I'm wrong), were actual FY06 and FY07 dollars, not some hypothetical devalued 2036 dollars. There is nothing on that chart that shows that going forward (FY10-FY36) those dollars are 2036 dollars. If it does say that on the lower (deleted) portion of the chart you posted, please post that too, or PM me. If using a hypothetical future year dollar value is a standard GAO budgeting device, then please send that link too, as I did not know that. (As my daughters tell me, I'm often wrong...)


Most of this is answered above. TY is just as a budgeting device in the United States. The TY dollars are not devalued. Correct, they are sensitive to anomalies from predicted inflation, but not the way you describe. I used a cut-away from a blogger because it was easy to find and the cells were already highlighted. I don't know why it was cut there, but here's what was left out:

"The F-35 is the next generation strike fighter which will increase aero performance, stealth
signature and countermeasures. Its advanced avionics, data links and adverse weather precision targeting will incorporate the latest technology available. The F-35 has increased
range with internal fuel and includes superior weaponry over existing aircraft. The highly supportable, affordable, state-of-the-art aircraft commands and maintains global air
superiority. The production cost and quantities are interdependent due to one manufacturer for the program. Navy procurement begins in FY08 with Long-Lead in FY07."

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 04-081.pdf


Meteor wrote:My guess is that the chart shows actual dollars for previous and current years, and allfuture estimates are based on current year dollars. The steady decrease in unit cost probably reflects expected gains in manufacturing efficiency as the construction learning curve moves further to the right, along with expected gains from economy of scale as the program grows.

Also, the House Armed Services subcommittee, (the guys that actually buy these airplanes), says $73 million per copy in FY09 dollars...


The Armed Services Committee would use the Weapon System Cost. My shot was $69M, CY2008. Add a year of inflation and a little bit of uncertainty from the method.

Best of luck with the stock market in the future. Well, things can only improve - or can they? :roll:

bumtish!

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 01:32
by Meteor
Bumtish; Great post, thanks for all the info. You obviously are a financial kind of guy. I've got to leave and will be offline for a few days, but in a very quick review of your post, I came up with the following:

1. I understand the difference between CT, CY, and TY, but good review.
2. You use the following links

Program Cost
TY (2036) $299.8B (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf, p.6, Table 1)
CY (2008) $239.9743B (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf, p. 105)


to support you case, but I went to those pages, and the first (p6 table 1) reference doesn't say anything about the year 2036. The numbers only go to 2006, and it specifically says FY2006. On the second link (p105), it specifically says FY2008 dollars in the colorful box on the right side of the page. It does not say anything about 2036 or TY dollars either.

3. On page 20 of the same document, I found this:

In response to the request to present our cost analyses in constant dollars, then year dollars, and using net present value, we:
calculated all costs using constant fiscal year 2002 dollars,
• used separate JSF program office and Office of the Secretary of Defense inflation indices for development, production, production support, and sustainment to derive then year dollars; when necessary for the out years, we extrapolated the growth of escalation factors linearly; and
• utilized accepted GAO methodologies for calculating discount rates in the net present value analysis.


I don't know if that helps any...

4. LM doesn't get paid in "then year" dollars. We pay them today's dollars (CY08) for a delivery in the future (say CY12). If Norway were to buy F-35s today (or 2009-10) they would be paying today's USD or NOK for a future delivery. Norway can't say "we'll buy F-35s for delivery in 2014, but we're going to pay 2036 rates for them".

(I'm so confused....)

Good thread. See you guys in a few days.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 03:23
by andreas77
lamoey wrote: ...which is purely acquisition cost, not including operating cost.


OK, thought you were talking about actual operating costs.



lamoey wrote:Those are specific improvements that will make the G-NG better, hence it is still in the running, but it is still a 4th generation fighter.


Cant we just stop talking about generation and focus on the actual capabilities?



lamoey wrote:The Norwegians voted against EU even after Sweden decided to join, and both Sweden and Denmark kept their currencies, so don't bet the farm on Scandinavian co-operation.


Its already happening:
http://www.norden.org/webb/news/news.asp?lang=6&id=8193




lamoey wrote:If you look at most articles in Aftenposten (I read the online version every day), not including specific interviews with people, they are all in favor of the G-NG. They seem to only bring up the good points about the G-NG and only the bad points about the F-35. Such comparison mostly comes in favor of the G-NG. They never mention that there is 20 years between the designs. Would you buy a 20 year old SAAB 900 with a new chassis and some minor upgrade the old frame could accommodate over a new hybrid (Hybrid being equal to Stealth in car terms)


I dont agree with you on Aftenposten but youre right, delta-canard is soooo 1980s...

Once again, why focus on age and generation instead of looking at capabilities? Yes, JSF has stealth and payload, but when will Norway need 9 tons of payload? Passive IR-sensors, AESA, HMD etc. will be found on every fighter in 2015. And will the JSF have a datalink with the capabilities of the Gripen datalink? (And dont come with numbers of megabits per second because that is not what its all about.)

The Gripen NG radar will cover 200+ degrees, SAAB has come a long way with their NORA project:
http://www.janes.com/info/idr/articles/ ... cures.html

The F-35 is perfect if you want to bomb Iran but I dont think Norway needs that kind of airplane. And the stealth will not give the huge upperhand in AA combat that LM states since:

1. The enemy can also fly with the radar switched off, the first one to turn it on will reveal its position, stealth wont help you there.

2. Most fighters are equipped with passive IR-sensors and the F-35 wont be harder to detect with such a sensor than for example the Gripen.

3. Stealth or not, the same second you launch a missile, there a chance that the enemy will detect the missile rocket motor and/or any radar signals from the missile or the plane, using passive sensors and triangulation.

4. In BVR the AMRAAM PK isnt really impressive (0.6? against target not really trying to avoid them). What will the PK be against targets with towed decoys and a rearward looking radar? Is 6 AMRAAMS enough and what will happen with the stealth and the aerodynamics if its necessary to carry 12 missiles?



lamoey wrote:In the article they highlight that there may be fewer F-35’s purchased than originally envisioned. So let’s say there is 500 less, making it 3000, instead of 3500. 500 less G-NG sold would make no upgrades


Well, 500 fewer F-35s will have impact on the price, but SAAB will build the 48 Gripen NG for Norway for the specified price even if Denmark, Brazil, India and Holland all turn them down.


lamoey wrote:Push the quote button on top of the post you want to quote. Always pleased to help.


OK, thanks. My browser wasnt showing images for some reason so I couldnt see thoose links.


lamoey wrote:Apologies to all if I come across a tad sarcastic.


sarcastic? not at all...

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 03:32
by Corsair1963
Unless IQ's have dropped Norway has not agreed to purchase Gripen NG over F-35's. At least not as of yet.............

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 17:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
andreas77 wrote:
Once again, why focus on age and generation instead of looking at capabilities? Yes, JSF has stealth and payload, but when will Norway need 9 tons of payload? Passive IR-sensors, AESA, HMD etc. will be found on every fighter in 2015. And will the JSF have a datalink with the capabilities of the Gripen datalink? (And dont come with numbers of megabits per second because that is not what its all about.)


Yes the JSF will have advance datalinking. The US realized that NetCentric warefare is the way to go, the Swede's just did it first.


andreas77 wrote:1. The enemy can also fly with the radar switched off, the first one to turn it on will reveal its position, stealth wont help you there.

2. Most fighters are equipped with passive IR-sensors and the F-35 wont be harder to detect with such a sensor than for example the Gripen.

3. Stealth or not, the same second you launch a missile, there a chance that the enemy will detect the missile rocket motor and/or any radar signals from the missile or the plane, using passive sensors and triangulation.

4. In BVR the AMRAAM PK isnt really impressive (0.6? against target not really trying to avoid them). What will the PK be against targets with towed decoys and a rearward looking radar? Is 6 AMRAAMS enough and what will happen with the stealth and the aerodynamics if its necessary to carry 12 missiles?



1.That is where the LPI radars that the F-22 and F-35 have comes in handy, the whole point of putting them in is to maximize the stealth even with radar turned on.

2.true

3.again LPI means that the enemy wont know you locked on to them. Missiles only use their own radar for endgame tracking, the last seconds of flight. Most passive systems dont track missile launches that I know of, only DAS.

4.if 12 are carried then the enemy will see 6 missiles and 6 pylons on radar. Not exactly but you get the point. Putting external missiles on a JSF does not make the ENTIRE plane show up.

in the ende the F-35 is going to be a vastly more capable aircraft then the G-NG, but the real question is does Sweden NEED it? do they NEED a stealth aircraft with obsene range and top shelf sensors. Will a highly developed delta do the job?

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 18:02
by energo
loke wrote:The numbers that Bjørnar qoutes for the F-35 are outdated. The 24B NOK for Gripen, I have not seen before. Latest figures, with references:

48 Gripen NG everything but fuel and weapons included: 20 - 23 billion NOK


The figures I quoted are the bids as presented by SAAB and LM to the Norwegian goverment in april. Neither figures have been confirmed by the goverment and thus its exact content and price is speculation. For instance depending on who you ask, the SAAB bid has been anything from 22B to 25B NOK.

loke wrote:The latest figures for F-35 (qouting the same source as Bjørnar but more recent ones): 21 billion NOK + 36 billion NOK = 57 billion NOK.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=537767


This is clearly a misrepresentation. The april bids stated support and maintenance package was 2.5B USD or 12.5B NOK. The total deal was 30B NOK.

loke wrote:Add fuel costs and F-35 is 30 billion NOK (USD 4.4 billion) more expensive than Gripen NG. Not insignificant for a small country like Norway.

The NOK 30 billion figure that I estimated above actually match what Jane's reported in a recent issue.


What fuel cost, details? Which Janes article?


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 19:19
by bumtish
Meteor wrote:Bumtish; Great post, thanks for all the info. You obviously are a financial kind of guy. I've got to leave and will be offline for a few days, but in a very quick review of your post, I came up with the following:

1. I understand the difference between CT, CY, and TY, but good review.
2. You use the following links

Program Cost
TY (2036) $299.8B (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf, p.6, Table 1)
CY (2008) $239.9743B (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf, p. 105)


to support you case, but I went to those pages, and the first (p6 table 1) reference doesn't say anything about the year 2036. The numbers only go to 2006, and it specifically says FY2006. On the second link (p105), it specifically says FY2008 dollars in the colorful box on the right side of the page. It does not say anything about 2036 or TY dollars either.


The reason it refers to 2006 is because that is the year of the replanning in 2006 and the JSF program still works to this budget and schedule. The 2036 is the year of the then-year dollar. The then-year is implicitly the year of the end of the project or when the USAF will end their acquisition of F-35A. It's a given. To illustrate this have a look at page 9, figure 1, same document. The DOD will aquire F-35A out to the year 2034 and project (the production part) ends in 2036.

Meteor wrote:3. On page 20 of the same document, I found this:

In response to the request to present our cost analyses in constant dollars, then year dollars, and using net present value, we:
calculated all costs using constant fiscal year 2002 dollars,
• used separate JSF program office and Office of the Secretary of Defense inflation indices for development, production, production support, and sustainment to derive then year dollars; when necessary for the out years, we extrapolated the growth of escalation factors linearly; and
• utilized accepted GAO methodologies for calculating discount rates in the net present value analysis.


I don't know if that helps any...


In practice it doesn't matter to the then-year dollar wether the calculations are done on constant fical year 2002, 2005 or 2006 dollars. They're then-year dollars. All years beyond CY and past FY should be extrapolated as described in the second bullet point above.

Meteor wrote:4. LM doesn't get paid in "then year" dollars. We pay them today's dollars (CY08) for a delivery in the future (say CY12). If Norway were to buy F-35s today (or 2009-10) they would be paying today's USD or NOK for a future delivery. Norway can't say "we'll buy F-35s for delivery in 2014, but we're going to pay 2036 rates for them".

(I'm so confused....)

Good thread. See you guys in a few days.


The TY dollar is a lump-sum and is not inflated/deflated 2036 dollars. The then-year dollar does not represent purchasing power in these budget documents, they represent the lump-sum.

If Norway buys the F-35A, they'll have to put down the sums in the period FY2013-FY2017. The fly-away cost will be approximately $58M in CY2008. They will represent an then-year lump-sum of the unadjusted FY amounts on a 1:1 basis or equal to the then-year dollar.

In actual fact, the Weapon System Cost would be the most relevant figure to the Norwegians.

The $58M fly-away cost and $70M Weapon System Cost are recognizable in the acquisition amounts posted by energo. Keep in mind that the Norwegian Krone is temporarily under pressure as it is a small currency, but will re-adjust in the near-term.

bumtish!

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 19:54
by loke
energo wrote:
loke wrote:The numbers that Bjørnar qoutes for the F-35 are outdated. The 24B NOK for Gripen, I have not seen before. Latest figures, with references:

48 Gripen NG everything but fuel and weapons included: 20 - 23 billion NOK


The figures I quoted are the bids as presented by SAAB and LM to the Norwegian goverment in april. Neither figures have been confirmed by the goverment and thus its exact content and price is speculation. For instance depending on who you ask, the SAAB bid has been anything from 22B to 25B NOK.

Indeed the figures you presented are speculations, referred by VG, the same newspaper that in their latest speculations suggest a total of 57 billion NOK for 48 F-35. Which, when you add fuel costs, seem to match the Jane's figures nicely.

I gave sources for the 20 billion NOK and 23 billion NOK figures; Please supply sources for the 22 and 25 billion NOK figures.

loke wrote:The latest figures for F-35 (qouting the same source as Bjørnar but more recent ones): 21 billion NOK + 36 billion NOK = 57 billion NOK.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=537767


This is clearly a misrepresentation. The april bids stated support and maintenance package was 2.5B USD or 12.5B NOK. The total deal was 30B NOK.

Misrepresentation? By whom? VG or VG ? Please clarify. The latest speculations says 57 billion NOK, not 30 Billion NOK.
loke wrote:Add fuel costs and F-35 is 30 billion NOK (USD 4.4 billion) more expensive than Gripen NG. Not insignificant for a small country like Norway.

The NOK 30 billion figure that I estimated above actually match what Jane's reported in a recent issue.


What fuel cost, details? Which Janes article?


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Aftenposten referred to Jane's and gave the 30 billion figure:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2768964.ece


L

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 20:09
by bumtish
loke wrote:Aftenposten referred to Jane's and gave the 30 billion figure:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2768964.ece


L


... and Jane's used Saab as their reference. :lol:

"With regard to cost, the Gripen NG is viewed by Jane's as competitive in terms of both acquisition and through-life support costs when compared to its rivals. Bob Kemp, sales and marketing director for Gripen International, citing figures produced for the Dutch fighter contest, said Saab believes that the Gripen NG, as part of an 85-aircraft fleet, would cost EUR6 billion (USD7.6 billion) less than the F-35 in terms of life-cycle costs over a 30-year period."

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/j ... _1_n.shtml

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 21:17
by energo
My apologies, double post.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 21:27
by energo
loke wrote:
energo wrote:
loke wrote:The latest figures for F-35 (qouting the same source as Bjørnar but more recent ones): 21 billion NOK + 36 billion NOK = 57 billion NOK.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=537767


This is clearly a misrepresentation. The april bids stated support and maintenance package was 2.5B USD or 12.5B NOK. The total deal was 30B NOK.

Misrepresentation? By whom? VG or VG ? Please clarify. The latest speculations says 57 billion NOK, not 30 Billion NOK.


Clearly the price tag didn't just double out of nowhere. It seems far more likely that the 36B NOK figure is the total amount ajusted for exchange rates. Infact, they match up exactly.

loke wrote:The NOK 30 billion figure that I estimated above actually match what Jane's reported in a recent issue.


What fuel cost, details? Which Janes article?


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo


loke wrote:Aftenposten referred to Jane's and gave the 30 billion figure:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2768964.ece


As I just elaborated in a different forum, the Aftenposten figure is way out of propotions. Keeping our fleet of 57 F-16s airborne amounts to about 0.5 billion NOK pr. year, including maintenance and fuel. That's for 10 000 flight hours yearly. The F-35 fleet will be both smaller and - most likely - less costly to operate, thus there is no rationale behind Aftenpostens suggestion that Janes is claiming that the Gripen will cost 1 billion NOK less pr. year to operate.

It really looks like someone put an extra zero behind his sum -- I am prepared to believe that a fleet of 48 Gripens might be 100 million NOK cheaper to operate pr. year, although that's speculation for now.

This particular journalist has been wrong on other occations, as I also mentioned. Keep in mind that the norwegian daily newspaper journalists rarely have in-depth knowledge of defence matters and Aftenposten is no exception.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 22:08
by Corsair1963
Clearly, the Gripen NG is cheaper to own and operate vs the F-35. That said, it is "vastly" inferior to the Lightning in capabilities. As a matter of fact the F-35 will likely be cheaper to operate than the current F-16 Fleet. So, the real question is capability vs cost. Personally, by bet is still on the F-35.............

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 23:16
by Casey
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, the Gripen NG is cheaper to own and operate vs the F-35. That said, it is "vastly" inferior to the Lightning in capabilities. As a matter of fact the F-35 will likely be cheaper to operate than the current F-16 Fleet. So, the real question is capability vs cost. Personally, by bet is still on the F-35.............


Gripen may be vastly inferior the F-35 in the bomber role, but i don't think it will be inferior in the air-to-air-role.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 23:35
by zeven
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, the Gripen NG is cheaper to own and operate vs the F-35. That said, it is "vastly" inferior to the Lightning in capabilities. As a matter of fact the F-35 will likely be cheaper to operate than the current F-16 Fleet. So, the real question is capability vs cost. Personally, by bet is still on the F-35.............


first i want to say hey, to Casey. Energo and Loke, nice to see all of you here too.

Crosair.

do you always debate with this kind of quotes ? so tell me. what do you know about Gripen NG capabilites? or do you assume just by looking at some facts of Gripen DEMO ?? Demo will not be the final IOC. (NG)

you're aware that Gripen NG will have features not even the "mighty" F-35 has. guess you did NOT know that

and why do you even compare F-35 vs Gripen, when they never will meet in combat?

you should ask yourself this? will gripen be able to do the job it is design and purchased to do?? the answer is YES,
But Gripen NG will be able to do this, for half the price..

I believe Gripen NG will reach 80 per cent or more of F-35 overall capabiltiy, hence it will have features superior to F-35 regarding small countries will limited personal and budgets

dont be a child and debate " i want the tuffest toy on the block" be realistc and include all factors not only what you heard from LM marketing department.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2008, 23:57
by zeven
Corsair

Have you ever asked yourself, why UK,France,Germany,Spain,Italy,India, will operate non-stealth configuration plattforms for the next 30-40 years? or you think Norway needs "superior" equipments ??

of i forgot, Even USA, will operate F-15 and SH for many more years, strange.

second
do you take in to account, support, tactics, weaponsystems, ECM EWS configurations, ? in modern warfare you dont do one vs one.
and you never play fair,
Missiles do not have an amazing hitrate, and because you launch first does not mean you kill first.

Gripen C have proved itself in international exercises, vs, ground and air threats simultainously,. and no gripens were ever shot down. and they only used 60 -70 per cent of the EWS and other sensors capability and this against the most modern threats known..

so what make you think Gripen NG will be inferior ? nothing in the world support that claim.
the swedish airforce even said no thanks to awac and ground radar support because their own datalink and sensors gaved them a better sitation awarness.

Not even LM can say how much better F-35 will be. so how can you??

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 00:10
by zeven
Corsair

and if you don´t think economy is important, only shows your lack of knowledge in the subject.

Gripen passed all Norwegian demands.... enough said..

obs
i never said Gripen will be superior F-35, F-35 will probably have a 20 per cent or so in inceased capability, but Gripen have certain features that makes it by far the best option for small countries. and Gripen finish the missions asked by Norway at any given time anywhere in the world for the next 30 to 40 years.

heck, SAAB upgrade program is the best, software upgrade and processor uprades EVERY YEAR and major upgrades hardware/sensors/systems every third year. this will insure Gripen to be at the cutting edge at all times.
remember, the software is A.O its all about the software.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 01:07
by andreas77
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:...
again LPI means that the enemy wont know you locked on to them
...


LPI radar technology is not a silver bullet that makes ESMs totally useless, the ESMs are also developing, here is a short report on the battle between radars and ESMs:

http://www.emrsdtc.com/conferences/2004 ... rs/A14.pdf

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 01:17
by Conan
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, the Gripen NG is cheaper to own and operate vs the F-35. That said, it is "vastly" inferior to the Lightning in capabilities. As a matter of fact the F-35 will likely be cheaper to operate than the current F-16 Fleet. So, the real question is capability vs cost. Personally, by bet is still on the F-35.............


Gripen may be vastly inferior the F-35 in the bomber role, but i don't think it will be inferior in the air-to-air-role.


Really. Please give us your insight into this. Why will the Gripen be superior?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 04:21
by Casey
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, the Gripen NG is cheaper to own and operate vs the F-35. That said, it is "vastly" inferior to the Lightning in capabilities. As a matter of fact the F-35 will likely be cheaper to operate than the current F-16 Fleet. So, the real question is capability vs cost. Personally, by bet is still on the F-35.............


Gripen may be vastly inferior the F-35 in the bomber role, but i don't think it will be inferior in the air-to-air-role.


Really. Please give us your insight into this. Why will the Gripen be superior?


Gripen can climb, can run, can turn.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 04:53
by dwightlooi
Casey wrote:
Gripen can climb, can run, can turn.


I am sure it can. But what makes you think the F-35A can't?

FYI... the structural T/W ratio of the F-35A is ~ 1.53:1 vs 1.24:1 for the JAS-39C and 1.44 for the proposed Gripen NG. At ANY given fuel fraction possible for the Gripen the F-35A has more thrust per unit weight. The discrepancy widens on dry thrust where the structural T/W ratio of the F-35A is 1.00:1 vs 0.83:1 on the Gripen.

In addition, the F-35 has the ability to conduct A2A missions in a completely clean profile whereas a Gripen will probably lug one center line tank about four pylons and external missiles.

Which do you think climbs and runs better in a practical combat scenario?

As far as turning goes, what makes you think the F-35 can't turn?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 05:08
by Conan
Casey wrote:
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, the Gripen NG is cheaper to own and operate vs the F-35. That said, it is "vastly" inferior to the Lightning in capabilities. As a matter of fact the F-35 will likely be cheaper to operate than the current F-16 Fleet. So, the real question is capability vs cost. Personally, by bet is still on the F-35.............


Gripen may be vastly inferior the F-35 in the bomber role, but i don't think it will be inferior in the air-to-air-role.


Really. Please give us your insight into this. Why will the Gripen be superior?


Gripen can climb, can run, can turn.


And how does this "expert" piece of analysis apply to air combat?

I've already shown you in another thread that the basis for this comment about the F-35 is unfounded.

That claim came from a man named Peter Goon. He is one of the 2 behind Air Power Australia and he fed this crap to a tame RAND staffer who then put it in a publication.

Peter Goon also made the claim that the F-35 was too "heavy" to fly supersonic with a full internal fuel and weapons load.

Guess what? The non-SWAT variant did it 4 times in the same afternoon.

So what other myth would you like to provide for the discussion?

The figures I provided earlier are basic, but show that the F-35 is not at all outclassed by even the SU-30 when installed thrust, fuel fraction and wing loading are taken into consideration.

You didn't even respond to that. Mostly because I expect you cannot.

If the F-35 "can't climb, run or turn" when it's basic performance parameters exceed the SU-30, what does that say about the SU-30 and other modern fighter aircraft?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 05:10
by jockey
I have to say hello to everybody first since I am new in the forum.
We are arguing about one statement (with no credible sources) for 12 pages - wow. I really doubt that some people in here have the insight or knowledge to start an argument in this forum about the F-35.
1. Just get a reality check and think about some facts. The largest and most modern air force of the world and some NATO and other allies are putting all there money on the table on a piece of s...? Do you really believe that?
2. A comparison of a F-35 to a Gripen NG is not possible since they never competed against each other and it would be a comparison of 2 different generations!
3. By far the F-35 will be the better platform the real question is can Norway (and other nations) afford it and will it satisfy there needs - i.e. security issues in technology transfers etc.
Like I mentioned earlier I am just on of these dumb pilots put but there is an old saying among fighter pilots:
NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHUT THE F... UP.
Maybe that is a good advice for some people in this forum. :bang:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 05:33
by Conan
zeven wrote:Corsair

Have you ever asked yourself, why UK,France,Germany,Spain,Italy,India, will operate non-stealth configuration plattforms for the next 30-40 years? or you think Norway needs "superior" equipments ??


Because the design of the aircraft they are currently buying predate the advent of LO technology capable of being incorporated in high performance fighter aircraft.

You are probably too young to remember BaE wheeling out the EAP the technology demonstrator (much as your Gripen NG demo is now) for what became the Eurofighter, but I wasn't.

I well remember the fanfare about the aircraft. It was 1986... The comparable aircraft at that time were the earlier generation "teen series" fighters and MiG-29 / SU-27 "threat" aircraft.

The ONLY LO design in-service was the F-117.

of i forgot, Even USA, will operate F-15 and SH for many more years, strange.


Yes, because they are in-service...

If European Countries aren't interested in LO fighters as you claim, why did so many sign up as an SDD partner for the F-35?

Why have so many invested in LO tech for unmanned solutions?

Why are Visby, Lafayette and T-45 Class warships all making heavy usage of LO technologies?

second
do you take in to account, support, tactics, weaponsystems, ECM EWS configurations, ? in modern warfare you dont do one vs one.
and you never play fair,
Missiles do not have an amazing hitrate, and because you launch first does not mean you kill first.


You are MUCH more likely to hit first if you launch first, which is the point you are missing.

No missile has a Pk of 1.0. There is always a chance you'll miss. But with F-35 and Gripen both likely to operate AMRAAM variants for years to come, the F-35 is the superior fighter, given the weapons are mostly equal.

Gripen C have proved itself in international exercises, vs, ground and air threats simultainously,. and no gripens were ever shot down. and they only used 60 -70 per cent of the EWS and other sensors capability and this against the most modern threats known..

so what make you think Gripen NG will be inferior ? nothing in the world support that claim.
the swedish airforce even said no thanks to awac and ground radar support because their own datalink and sensors gaved them a better sitation awarness.


Were you there?

Perhaps you can explain why SAAB is offering Link 16 with Gripen now, if their own data-links are so superior?


Not even LM can say how much better F-35 will be. so how can you??


They can and have. So can I...

1. Installed thrust. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

2. Fuel fraction. The F-35 beats Gripen NG.

3. Low observability. The F-35 beats the Gripen NG.

4. Ability to carry internal weapons and avoid the significant drag effect of external weapons, when necessary? F-35 beats the Gripen NG.

5. APG-81 AESA is a 4th generation AESA radar designed and built in the USA. How many fighter sized fire control radars has Ericsson designed and built? None. They even had to get a Thales AESA array for their demo. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their ability to build a better radar than the APG-81 within a supposed entry date for the production version of the Gripen NG within the next 7 years...

6. EOTS/DAS. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

Should I go on?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 05:59
by andreas77
Conan wrote:Perhaps you can explain why SAAB is offering Link 16 with Gripen now, if their own data-links are so superior?


Because Sweden is not in NATO and never had the need until SWAF started to participate in NATO exercises. TILDS is much more capable than Link-16 when it comes to sensor fusing and situational awareness, do your homework...

Conan wrote:
1. Installed thrust. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

2. Fuel fraction. The F-35 beats Gripen NG.

3. Low observability. The F-35 beats the Gripen NG.

4. Ability to carry internal weapons and avoid the significant drag effect of external weapons, when necessary? F-35 beats the Gripen NG.

5. APG-81 AESA is a 4th generation AESA radar designed and built in the USA. How many fighter sized fire control radars has Ericsson designed and built? None. They even had to get a Thales AESA array for their demo. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their ability to build a better radar than the APG-81 within a supposed entry date for the production version of the Gripen NG within the next 7 years...

6. EOTS/DAS. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

Should I go on?


1. Well, its a heavier aircraft so its quite natural it has more thrust...

2. Fuel fraction itself does not say much but youre right, but what about the situations when you dont need all that fuel, thats a lot of extra drag.

3. True

4. Internal weapons store and fuel tanks has added extra structural weight to the F-35 and gives extra drag even when you dont need that much fuel or weapons, you dont put things inside the fuselage for free...

5. Please read this about the Gripen AESA, SAAB is doing things no one else is doing. The AESA is just an antenna, its the algorithms in the radar that matters: http://www.janes.com/info/idr/articles/ ... cures.html

6. LM has now said that the hyped DAS system is basically a missile warning system, nothing unique.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 06:04
by andreas77
dwightlooi wrote:
Casey wrote:
Gripen can climb, can run, can turn.


I am sure it can. But what makes you think the F-35A can't?

FYI... the structural T/W ratio of the F-35A is ~ 1.53:1 vs 1.24:1 for the JAS-39C and 1.44 for the proposed Gripen NG. At ANY given fuel fraction possible for the Gripen the F-35A has more thrust per unit weight. The discrepancy widens on dry thrust where the structural T/W ratio of the F-35A is 1.00:1 vs 0.83:1 on the Gripen.

In addition, the F-35 has the ability to conduct A2A missions in a completely clean profile whereas a Gripen will probably lug one center line tank about four pylons and external missiles.

Which do you think climbs and runs better in a practical combat scenario?

As far as turning goes, what makes you think the F-35 can't turn?


Its not only about thrust, drag is a big factor as well. Gripen C/D flies supersonic with 6 AA missiles and a drop tank with a T/W-ratio of 0.6 without AB. The Gripen C/D drag is really low! Delta-canard is also really usefull when turning.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 06:09
by bumtish
7. Datalink. MADL/Link 16 beats Link 16. (and MADL is LPI/LPD and part of the LO package) F-35 beats Gripen NG.

8. Bus computing bandwidth. IEEE 1394 beats Mil-Std-1553b of the Gripen NG. This is an issue as integration of future avionics will have to be tailored to the limitations of the bus. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

9. Bigger radar means higher output and better time-budget. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

Next.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 06:16
by andreas77
7. How is that relevant to Gripen???

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 06:20
by bumtish
andreas77 wrote:7. How is that relevant to Gripen???


Gripen NG for Norway features Link 16. High bandwidth Low Probability of Intercept/Low Probability of Detection matters in NCW.

Better SA with smaller risk of detection.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 06:56
by Conan
andreas77 wrote:
1. Well, its a heavier aircraft so its quite natural it has more thrust...


T:W is an overrated performance value for an aircraft, but F-35 still has the better one...

2. Fuel fraction itself does not say much but youre right, but what about the situations when you dont need all that fuel, thats a lot of extra drag.


The drag of a slightly bulkier fuselage seems unlikely to match the effect of 3x external drop tanks. I doubt there will be many situations that the Gripen will be carrying less than 3, with loiter capacity being the name of the current fighter game...



4. Internal weapons store and fuel tanks has added extra structural weight to the F-35 and gives extra drag even when you dont need that much fuel or weapons, you dont put things inside the fuselage for free...


Agreed. It is a compromise necessary to assist with the LO design of the aircraft and weight and drag penalties are inherent in the bulkier design of the aircraft.

The F-35 is however amazingly light for an aircraft with the maximum payload rating that it has.

As for the fuel requirement, when was a pilot ever wanting LESS gas?

5. Please read this about the Gripen AESA, SAAB is doing things no one else is doing. The AESA is just an antenna, its the algorithms in the radar that matters: http://www.janes.com/info/idr/articles/ ... cures.html


Er, so their using a Raytheon array of 1000 modules with multiple receivers?

Perhaps you should read up on the APG-79. An 1100 module count AESA radar with multiple receivers... From what I've read there, there isn't anything "cutting edge" about their radar technology... Do you honestly believe the APG-81 won't be more advanced?


6. LM has now said that the hyped DAS system is basically a missile warning system, nothing unique.


It's a tad more than that, according to Northrop Grumman who have actually designed and built the AN/AAQ-37...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q

A bit more than MAWS-300 can boast too... :)

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 06:59
by Conan
andreas77 wrote:
Its not only about thrust, drag is a big factor as well. Gripen C/D flies supersonic with 6 AA missiles and a drop tank with a T/W-ratio of 0.6 without AB. The Gripen C/D drag is really low! Delta-canard is also really usefull when turning.


And how far can it fly this supersonic profile?

I'm guessing less than 100nm, the limit that even the F-22 can manage on a typical profile, without refuelling...

While the ability MIGHT (and I'm not entirely convinced) be there, the tactical usefulness is VERY much in doubt.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 09:21
by Beagle79
Just for the record (and/or for you amusement) F35 is 13t when empty while JAS39C/D is about 6t and Typhoon 11t.

What do Nimitz Carrier and Visby Corvette have in common? Well, they both float on water i guess. The two are different beasts, fellows :D

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 09:57
by bumtish
Beagle79 wrote:Just for the record (and/or for you amusement) F35 is 13t when empty while JAS39C/D is about 6t and Typhoon 11t.

What do Nimitz Carrier and Visby Corvette have in common? Well, they both float on water i guess. The two are different beasts, fellows :D


So what you're saying is that comparing Gripen to what is in fact a heavy stealth fighter, crammed full of US* MIC avionics wet dreams, is like torturing defenseless baby animals?

I knew I should feel bad about it! :D

*and partners

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 10:42
by zeven
Conan
i really dont know were to begin.

1 you actually asked why Gripen NG will have Link 16, only this question makes me laugh, if you dont understand the difference between TIDLS and link16 and why Gripen NG will intergrade it, you really need to read. link16 is a NATO system TIDLS is a swedish domestic system. if you dont know the difference, i will tell you.

second you ask me if i were at red flag alaska. yes i was. but that not the point, its common knowledge and public information how Gripen manage there, strange you were not aware of it.

this two answers only needs a "google" to find facts that support my statements.

i really cant take you seriously after readong your answers, so i need to repeat it:

"why does SAAB offer link16 if TIDLS is so superior" hahah are you kidding me. basic knowledge will give you the answer.

why dont you ask yourself why the SDD partners havent yet decided which platform they want?

about the AESA radar, its amazing you dont know why thales are selcted and why SAAB use their antenna in the 2009 test flight, sorry but i dont have time or energy to tell you all this stuff. you need to read it yourself

about DAS, strange that you dont know Gripen will have similar capability and that DAS actually is a MAW. second, you thought Gripen will have MAW 300 thats wrong too. the demo version has a system build on MAW300 but thats not the final system NG will have. strange you didnt know that either.

oh DAS is buiild on 2 generation technology, Gripen will you use 3 generation technology that is under develeopment right now. strange you didnt know that..

you are talking about thrust and fuel fraction. but hey, Gripens excellent aerodynamics that are well proven, shows that gripen does not really need any more here, so i really cant see what that has to do with anything.

about stealth, i work with stealh as we speak, i know the advantages. and on todays battle field Stealth aint important, hence, stealth was more important yesterday than it will be tomorrow.

you obvously dont know much about SAAB or the gripen plattorm, but still you have an attidude that is rather arrogant.

like i said, previously, F-35 will be an overall better plattform, but Gripen has some features that make it preferable for small countries.

OBS please stop to compare platforms on black and white, and take ALL factors into account.

i really dont care what you say to others but when you talking to me. show some respect and dont spare me your rather lack of common knowledge about Gripen. its sad to read.

the difference between you and me, is that you try to convince ppl F-35 is better for ALL countries. when i just want to set the record straight.

PS.
you have no idea what so ever about gripen NGs software, so when you take for granted the specific sensors are superior to Gripen, you make a fatal mistake. Gripen NG will have features not even F-35 has.
but i guess you was not aware of that either, neverless: software is A.O when it comes to modern platforms



so dont take me as a fool or someone who dont know anything about the topic. you alreay showed you lack of basic knowledge about military platforms. dont make it worse.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 10:53
by zeven
bumtish wrote:7. Datalink. MADL/Link 16 beats Link 16. (and MADL is LPI/LPD and part of the LO package) F-35 beats Gripen NG.

8. Bus computing bandwidth. IEEE 1394 beats Mil-Std-1553b of the Gripen NG. This is an issue as integration of future avionics will have to be tailored to the limitations of the bus. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

9. Bigger radar means higher output and better time-budget. F-35 beats Gripen NG.

Next.


Gripen NG avionic system is 10 years newer than F-35

about busses. Gripen NG will only use 40 per cent of its capacity, so why even make an argument about it?
in other words, gripen have the computer power to more than well run the systems in question and thats the only thing that matters

MADL is a short range datalink and you can compare it to Gripens 20 years old TIDLS yes. but hey, Gripen NG will have a new version of TIDLS

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 11:13
by zeven
Conan

F-35 vs Gripen one on one nothing els, yes F-35 will get the first shot. but hey this is not the 50s

do you really think any modern air force are so damn stupid that they will play FAIR??? guess what no,.

and Gripen defending its on air space with support of AWACS ground radar and so on. will se F-35 first

if you didnt know, every singel air force will try to use ther advantages against the enemiy´s disadvantages WAR is not a fair play game. those who play Fair will lose, and losers dies in WAR.

yes stealth is a huge advantage, but you need more than stealth to survive in modern warfare.

when reading your posts,. its like F-35 is god, so everything els is obsolete. this is not the reality. ever crossed your mind, that gripen might be a better option for certain countries?? if not, you might take a look at all the countries who are interested in the Gripen platform.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 15:41
by Conan
zeven wrote:Conan
i really dont know were to begin.

1 you actually asked why Gripen NG will have Link 16, only this question makes me laugh, if you dont understand the difference between TIDLS and link16 and why Gripen NG will intergrade it, you really need to read. link16 is a NATO system TIDLS is a swedish domestic system. if you dont know the difference, i will tell you.


You and others have stated the Swedish system is superior. Without a breach of OPSEC, please explain why.

second you ask me if i were at red flag alaska. yes i was. but that not the point, its common knowledge and public information how Gripen manage there, strange you were not aware of it.


Really? What were you doing there, if I may be so bold?

"why does SAAB offer link16 if TIDLS is so superior" hahah are you kidding me. basic knowledge will give you the answer.


Instead of repeating the same inane, comment, why don't you attempt to use the knowledge you claim to have, to argue, WHY, on a systems level, TIDLS is a superior tactical data-link to modern Link 16 systems?

Without Google. One so knowledgeable should be able to easily inform of it's merits.

why dont you ask yourself why the SDD partners havent yet decided which platform they want?


Because not one of these Countries is DUE in their fighter projects, to actually decide as yet, which platform they prefer.

The intent is pretty obvious. How many Countries fronted up cash to invest in the development of Gripen, before ordering?

about the AESA radar, its amazing you dont know why thales are selcted and why SAAB use their antenna in the 2009 test flight, sorry but i dont have time or energy to tell you all this stuff. you need to read it yourself


I do know. The answer quite simply is that SAAB do not HAVE an AESA array they could use. The aircraft IS a demonstrator and as such the investment necessary to develop a radar for something that has not yet been ordered, and in even the best case will result in a limited production run, is not considered a very wise investment...

SAAB themselves have admitted they intend to use "off the shelf" systems to upgrade the aircraft to the NG standard, as much as possible. The F-414 engine upgrade, is a logical extension of this.

about DAS, strange that you dont know Gripen will have similar capability and that DAS actually is a MAW. second, you thought Gripen will have MAW 300 thats wrong too. the demo version has a system build on MAW300 but thats not the final system NG will have. strange you didnt know that either.


It is a MAW. It is ALSO an IRST system AND a weapon cueing sensor, which is what sets it apart from generic missile approach warning system, something Gripen does NOT currently have, as I understand the situation.

Furthermore it is a 360 degree system with 6x aperture windows. Something that ALSO sets it apart from other systems. MAWS-300 for instance has 4 windows...

Please show me some evidence that Gripen will have a similar system.

oh DAS is buiild on 2 generation technology, Gripen will you use 3 generation technology that is under develeopment right now. strange you didnt know that..


Really? Prove it. You've made the claim.

you are talking about thrust and fuel fraction. but hey, Gripens excellent aerodynamics that are well proven, shows that gripen does not really need any more here, so i really cant see what that has to do with anything.


We were discussing the F-35's attributes as an air to air fighter. One of the benefits of more fuel is that you can use your afterburner more often.

I'm no air combat pilot, but I've been informed that the use of an afterburner is fairly relevent to air combat maneuvering...

No doubt you can verify or disabuse me of this, as applicable, with your extensive Red Flag experience?

about stealth, i work with stealh as we speak, i know the advantages. and on todays battle field Stealth aint important, hence, stealth was more important yesterday than it will be tomorrow.


Is that right? What do you mean exactly when you say "stealth"?

It's a pretty broad concept. No doubt you're aware of that though, given you work with "stealth"...

you obvously dont know much about SAAB or the gripen plattorm, but still you have an attidude that is rather arrogant.


I've read the brochures. It is ironic however how one group of fans is willing to believe the manufacturer of their choice, but any other manufacturer's claims are nonsense...

like i said, previously, F-35 will be an overall better plattform, but Gripen has some features that make it preferable for small countries.


Very generous of you. This is the case even though stealth is irrelevent, as is fuel fraction, internal weapons carriage, thrust to weight ratio advantages, cost, supportability, incapable DAS systems and "inferior software"?

That's a rather unusual analysis... I hope you're not employed in capability acquisition within your Country...

Better stick to your soon to be irrelevent line of work, I guess...

i really dont care what you say to others but when you talking to me. show some respect and dont spare me your rather lack of common knowledge about Gripen. its sad to read.


I asked you and others, Casey in particular, to attempt to justify your opinions. You haven't.

You then replied with this:

i really cant take you seriously after readong your answers,


Respect should be a two way street shouldn't it?

the difference between you and me, is that you try to convince ppl F-35 is better for ALL countries. when i just want to set the record straight.


No, what I want is for people to be objective. People, including yourself, have bashed the F-35, Lockheed Martin and some of the 9 Countries who signed on to SDD for their "corruption, incompetence or delusions" about this particular aircraft.

People make idiotic claims about it being unable to "climb, run or turn" without using a single shred of evidence to support this claim. Other more serious critics have made equally fatuous claims about it, which are debunked on a daily basis...

Facts are:

1. It weighs about 12.7tons.

2. It has 43,000lbs of thrust on full reheat and about 28,800lbs on dry thrust.

3. It carries 18,000+lbs of fuel in it's internal tanks.

http://www.jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_variant_ctol.jpg

4. It has a very clean aerodynamic design. It is not designed for "maximum speed" but max speed is far less important in air combat than acceleration. Any aircraft that is relatively light, with plenty of thrust with a relatively clean airframe is likely to accelerate well.

It is a supersonic aircraft. Therefore it cshould be able to climb. Anecdotal reports of the testing so far, show that F-16's have to use their afterburners to match the climb rate of the non-weight optimised (ie: heavier than production F-35's) AA-1, when AA-1 is only using dry thrust. This has been written about in Code One magazine and verified by multiple flight test pilots.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... index.html


Therefore it can climb.

It has demonstrated mach air speeds of 1.05 so far, perhaps using reheat, perhaps not. In any case this is certainly FAR below the aircrafts top speed.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... -f-35.html

A mach airspeed of 1.6 is the stated design requirement according to L-M.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... tions.html

Therefore it can run.

The F-35A is a 9G rated fighter aircraft.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... ities.html

The design requirement is for agility equal to, or exceeding F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft.

L-M built the F-16 and F-22. Both of these aircraft are noted for their agility and "turning". Have they suddenly lost expertise in designing and building fighter aircraft?

Therefore it can turn.


PS.
you have no idea what so ever about gripen NGs software, so when you take for granted the specific sensors are superior to Gripen, you make a fatal mistake. Gripen NG will have features not even F-35 has.
but i guess you was not aware of that either, neverless: software is A.O when it comes to modern platforms


Do you even know what a data-bus is?

Please feel free to demonstrate your understanding any time...

so dont take me as a fool or someone who dont know anything about the topic. you alreay showed you lack of basic knowledge about military platforms. dont make it worse.


So far you have demonstrated nothing. Not one single shred of evidence to support any claim you have made.

Perhaps instead of appearing a fool, you could argue rationally, support your claims and show why your opinion should even be considered?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 17:09
by Beagle79
On the contrary, 13 pages of online challenge later, JAS39 stands on its own ground pretty well when being compared to some dude nearly twice its tonnage. F35, on the other hand, in spite of its "5G" sticker and all, seems so well compromised between the three inter-service variants and the stealth requirement that it's boarder-line of being a true fighter aircraft. Perhaps "A-35 Lightning II" would be a more apt designation for it :?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 17:13
by dwightlooi
andreas77 wrote:Its not only about thrust, drag is a big factor as well. Gripen C/D flies supersonic with 6 AA missiles and a drop tank with a T/W-ratio of 0.6 without AB. The Gripen C/D drag is really low! Delta-canard is also really usefull when turning.


This issue has been beaten to death...

(1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.

(2) We cannot conclude that the delta canard configuration is lower drag than an unstable wing tail. The biggest advantage claim to the canard design is that in level flight both the wing and the canard are lift producing elements which contributes to a lower amount of overall drag. This is actually NOT TRUE when talking about unstable aircrafts. With an unstable airframe, the tail provides LIFT and the natural tendency is to flip over becauase the cg is close to or behind the center of lift. If you look at an F-35 in flight for instance the tail has a slight upward angle propping up the stern of the aircraft. On the other hand, with an unstable canard the canard has to produce a little bit of down force to prevent the aircraft from pitch up and flip over. Hence in many cases the canard configuration is draggier in terms of combined lift production from the wing and the canard.

(3) As far as agility is concerned, again, there is no evidence close the case on canards necessarily being more agile. The canard does two things to enhance agility. The first is that it provides lift for pitch up, the second being that if close coupled (ala Rafale or Gripen, but not in the case of the Typhoon) it acts as a vortex generator for the main wing. The problem is that in an unstable design, the aircraft in a sharp turn naturally turns and the canards are actually providing downforce to prevent the aircraft from over turning! Also, in most cases, if vortex generation is the goal a well designed LEX (ala MIG29, SU-27, F-18, F-16, etc) is better than a canard whose shape has to pull double duty as a control surface and a vortex generator. Ideally, you want a curved leading edge and a very sharp overall sweep -- both of which is impractical to place on a canard. Lastly, there is a problem with canards in that the position of the canards ahead of the wing naturally restricts its size -- because you need to tuck them inside the nose shock front for good aerodynamics. At extreme altitudes the size of the canard or tail can be one of the key determining factors for control authority.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 17:23
by zeven
Conan,

You want me to support claims that are so well known out there, we havent even started to debate yet, its like learning you to walk once again..

Sweden started to use datalink systems with Draken. and TIDLS is the worlds most advanced today. .
Link16 is a simply broadcast systems that can share short text msg. and have no where near data fusion TIDLS offer, TDLS is also very resistent to jamming and have 100 per cent fusion capability



Did is say LMs claims are nonsens? did i say i'm a huge Gripen Fan?? NO NO. i did not

NO i was not on RED FLAG i thought you toke the hint when i said google it. but stupid questions deservs stupid answers

but i do have an engineering company that works towards the military industry.

on you it sounds like OFF the SHell is somethiing bad. (strange because it is not, thats the reason F-35 use it too)

yes DAS have a couple of more capabilites, but if you read my post i said, Gripen will have similar capability but not with exactly the same type of system..

i dont understand why you still mention MAW-300 ??

Gripen NG will use 3 gen IRST, on top of their ongoing program tracking back for 15 years. a system 10 years ago, had an impressive range capability.

the Gripen projekt was NEVER meant to be joint project. and tell me what does that how to do with the capability ?

my god i never said Stealth is "bad" or not needed.. stealth is the strongest advantage F-35 has. with all right.. but you need more than stealth, :)

it seems like in your world to different platforms cant do an equally good job?


ps
yes SAAB have an AESA. (not for fighters) but still ( why not? sweden did not demand it)

the NORA M-AESA radar will be an outstanding RADA with LPI, datalinking, EW and much more. and on top of it, an impressive power management system

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 17:42
by zeven
Conan
and save your time, you dont need to convince me about F-35 capabilities, i'm very much aware of them. and they are pretty damn good too.

but that does not mean Gripen is less capable and that ppl can post false facts about the platform. when i see thing that is not true about F-35 i correct them..

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 18:24
by bumtish
zeven wrote:Gripen NG avionic system is 10 years newer than F-35


No it isn't. Most of the hardware in the F-35 has just or is about to enter production maturity. MADL and DAS comes to mind. The bus on the Gripen NG is decades older that the 1394 on the F-35. This a serious and crippling hardware limitation. At the design concept freeze of the F-35 the technologies weren't mature. The design concept was frozen to what was expected to be mature cometh full rate production. This included increase in processing power not available at the time.

Overall the Gripen NG uses already mature technology and refines it.

zeven wrote:about busses. Gripen NG will only use 40 per cent of its capacity, so why even make an argument about it?
in other words, gripen have the computer power to more than well run the systems in question and thats the only thing that matters


Here:

But today, combat and weapons systems found on-board an aircraft require more computing bandwidth, pushing MIL-STD-1553 to its limit. Military designers must find a way to improve the performance of aircraft systems that incorporates MIL-STD-1553, which is still a key interface standard.

http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/home/a ... ?id=100147


Because it is an issue. The data transfer rate of the 1553 is 1mbps, the 1394 has a data transfer rate of 400mbps! Good that Gripen only use 40% of the existing computational bandwidth, but if you want to integrate modern and future sensors and exploit the potential of advanced integration and processing the core has to be ripped out and replaced. This is not on the development path for the Gripen NG. The path Saab has chosen is to tweak the existing bus, possibly like this:

http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/home/a ... ?id=100147

But we're still talking low single-digit data transfer rates. This, and non-scheduled complimentary buses will make it possible to run it federated, but will not give the integration and processing advantages that avionics available in even the near-term promises.

So it will run the avionics slated for the NG and possibly take it as far as Super Hornet block II. The last 15-20 years of the operational life is very much in question. This has to be taken into the Total Cost of Ownership equation.

Read up on this JPL solicitation for research money from 2001:

TECHNICAL ABSTRACT (LIMIT 200 WORDS)
The MIL-STD-1553B Bus is a widely supported data bus for avionics applications and compatible with most of the avionics equipment. However, its low data rate (1 Mbps) and command-response architecture are not suitable for many modern applications such as on-board autonomy. Therefore, the avionics industry recently has been interested in adopting the IEEE 1394A Bus as the next generation avionics bus. The IEEE 1394A Bus has a minimum bandwidth of 100 Mbps, which is two orders of magnitude faster than the 1553B Bus. In addition, its sophisticated protocol and multi-master capability can support distributed processing in advanced applications. One major obstacle in adopting the IEEE 1394A Bus is its compatibility with heritage equipment that is mostly compatible only with the 1553B Bus. It might take many years and large investments for the aerospace industry to convert all 1553B based equipment to the IEEE 1394A Bus.
The objective of this task is to solidify the IEEE-1394A standard in spacecraft engineering by providing backward compatibility with MIL-STD-1553B. This backward compatibility allows heterogeneous communications between the IEEE-1394A and MIL-STD-1553B buses, so that both heritage and modern components can share a common bus architecture. Hence, this backward compatibility would shorten the time to acceptance of the IEEE 1394A Bus.
In Phase I of this STTR, the functional requirements of the bridge and formats of the embedded commands have been defined. A software testbed has also been successfully implemented to demonstrate the read and write commands. In Phase II, a single board level implementation of the bridge will be designed, built and evaluated. This will provide the basis for further integration and miniaturization in a potential Phase III.

POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATION(S) (LIMIT 200 WORDS)
Many future NASA flight projects and commercial spacecraft, are considering the IEEE 1394 Bus as their baseline. These projects include the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), the Europa Orbiter, and the next generation weather satellite program NPOESS. The science objectives of these missions require advanced application software such as on-board autonomy, real time hazard avoidance and precise landing. These advanced application software demand processing capability beyond current flight-qualified processors (e.g. the Rad 750). Therefore, distributed multiprocessor architectures have to be developed to support these applications.

In contrast, many instruments such as the inertial measure units (IMU) and the Small Deep Space Transponder (SDST) that are being considered by these missions, are compatible only with the MIL-STD-1553B bus. In the avionics industry, as the next generation unmanned aircraft are developed with more sophisticated processing, they will require a more advanced bus architecture, but they still use many heritage sensors.

With this bridge, much heritage equipment can be made compatible with the IEEE 1394 Bus without redesign.

http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/01/ ... 10032.html


It ended up with 400mbps in the F-35:

In addition, the F-35 uses a high-speed data bus based on IEEE 1394 standards instead of the Mil-Std-1553 bus. "The F-35 needs a higher bandwidth bus for the processing architecture and the 1394 [system] can transfer 400 megabits per second compared with the 1553 bus that transfers at 1 Mbps.," McFarlan says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... d%20Flight


zeven wrote:MADL is a short range datalink and you can compare it to Gripens 20 years old TIDLS yes. but hey, Gripen NG will have a new version of TIDLS


You previously argued that the avionics on the Gripen was 10 years newer!

MADL is high bandwidth directional LPI. TIDLS and Link-16 is an emissions give-away.

The future TIDLS is not Nato compatible, not emissions controlled and not part of the offer for Norway, afaik.

In short: the F-35 is a fighter aircraft with the aerodynamic performance of a clean F-16 block 50, wrapped in stealth and capable of lofting the avionics needed for tomorrows fight.

Gripen MLU - can't hide, can't sense, doesn't compute. (ok, it should have been can't, but couldn't resist the twist! :twisted:)

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 19:27
by muir
As far as I can tell I´m the third swede who just joined the forum and started out in this thread. I´ve been reading some threads on this site for a while now but never really bothered to register and take part myself until now. First, let me say this, I´m no pilot, not an engineer. A lot of ths stuff you talk about round here is way beyond my comprehension. My girlfriend would probably say I´m a nut when it comes to fighters, round here I´m at best a novice. I did however serve a year in the Swedish Air Force, worked mostly with the SAAB 37 but also a bit with the SAAB 39 which was introduced around this time so I do have some knowledge about fighters and those two in particular.

Now I´m gonna do something radical and don´t join in the latest debate here but stick to the topic. I´ve read most of what you guys said so far but I wanted to point out a couple of things.

1: I guess some of you might be "homeblind" but for a small country with a small airforce the rules are a bit diffrent from say USAF or even RAF. You can "hide" the Gripen at lot better on the ground and, if I´m informed correctly, you only have to do so for a lot shorter times. When an F-16, F-15 or (if it´s known and not classified) an F-35 lands, how long before you can send it back up? This has always been sort a party piece for swedish fighters, the can land on really short runways, on normal roads even, and you can get them ready to go back up real fast. Back when I worked with the SAAB 37 we regurlarly rearmed and refuled them in less than 15 minutes, when we only had to kit them up for air-air we usually did it in under 10 minutes. For you lot in the US this doesn´t really matter cause you got a lot of fighters, we don´t so we have to keep em in the air as much as possible. Also remember that the more time they spend on the ground the more time you give the enemy to find 'em and take 'em out. We can´t expect to gain air-superiority against the russians.

2: Take this with a pinch of salt but I still think it´s worth mentioning. As far as I understood from some of the technicians working with the Gripen it was already back then known that one of the diffrences between the A/B and C/D versions was that the latter wich was made NATO-compatible was in some cases "dumbed-down". I didn't really get it but it should have had something to do with the fact they had to work together with a lot older planes. Don´t know what you´d call it but I guess it has to do with info-sharing, communications and stuff like that. Until then we never had to worry about getting any of our planes to work with say old F-5:s or even old F-16:s, something the US always had to take into consideration. I figured it was a bit like getting old versions of diffrent programs to work on a new OS like Vista for instance. Hope that made sense?

In my mind there is no doubt that the F-35 in most ways will the superior fighter. But the comparison is really quite stupid. They where built in diffrent ways, with diffrent goals and to do diffrent things. Why not compare the F-35 to the B-2, they can both move a lot of dirt without letting anyone know they´re coming? If you´re gonna go downtown day one in a conflict against a decently equipped adversary there's no question the F-35 is the way to go. On the other hand, if you're gonna spend the next 30 or so years turning away russian bombers about to enter your airspace the SAAB 39 will do this just as well.

I honestly don't see any of the smaller european countrys going to war anytime soon on their own. If Sweden, Norway, Denmark or the Dutch will se any action it'll be alongside british and/or US forces and none of us can even come close to the fire power those bring. In most cases, if the US don't come, no one else will either and if the US do come, they'll be the ones taking out the anti-air missiles and so forth.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 20:16
by zeven
Bumtish
I have NEVER stated TIDLS will be NATO compable, thats my entire point here, why Gripen NG also will feature LINK16..

Are we talking about Norway?? or MADL? last time i checked it was about link16 vs TIDLS

MLU ? thats a word Swedish industry never use, by good reasons, is not the best upgrade path in existens if you know what i mean..

"Gripen MLU - can't hide, can't sense, doesn't compute. (ok, it should have been can't, but couldn't resist the twist! Twisted Evil)"
quite funny, no need to go futher. think everyone knows how wrong it is. but nice ending tho :) i give you that..

ops.
i meant the avionic rig. sorry tired and a hangover. + bad day.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 20:19
by energo
Conan wrote:The F-35A is a 9G rated fighter aircraft.


Morever:

"With a full internal load of munitions, the F-35A will be a nine G dogfighter, as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no underwing stores." (Air Force Magazine September 2006, Vol. 89, No. 9)


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 20:23
by bumtish
zeven wrote:quite funny, no need to go futher. think everyone knows how wrong it is. but nice ending tho :) i give you that..

ops.
i meant the avionic rig. sorry tired and a hangover. + bad day.


Glad you liked it. I fired for effect. :D

Junk food and iced beverages works for my hangovers. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 20:32
by zeven
energo wrote:
Conan wrote:The F-35A is a 9G rated fighter aircraft.


Morever:

"With a full internal load of munitions, the F-35A will be a nine G dogfighter, as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no underwing stores." (Air Force Magazine September 2006, Vol. 89, No. 9)


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo


:) according to LM this belong to the past. now when DAS enter the world no need for maneouverability anymore :)

and a delta canard with light A2A configuration will do pretty well too :)

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 20:37
by zeven
someone wrote that Gripen NG will use CFTs that is not true.

SAAB went with the increased internal fuel solution instead and regular droptanks good or bad that i leave to the customers in question..

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 20:43
by zeven
Bumtish

in this case, not even Junk food helped, yes its really that bad :)

and i have to catch a flight feel sorry for the poor guy who be sitting next to me :)

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 21:59
by Casey
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 22:02
by Casey
energo wrote:
Conan wrote:The F-35A is a 9G rated fighter aircraft.


Morever:

"With a full internal load of munitions, the F-35A will be a nine G dogfighter, as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no underwing stores." (Air Force Magazine September 2006, Vol. 89, No. 9)


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo


The claim that a F-35 can pull 9 G's with a full internal load is nothing but stupid. The slightest turbulence in such a situation would cause the belly aircraft to be ripped apart.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 22:16
by johnwill
Casey, your insight into the maneuver capability of the F-35 is amazing. Can you tell us the source of this insight??

The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies. If the spec called for 1.8 or 2.0, that's what it would do. The airplane is designed to meet the spec. Any more than that is extra weight and cost - period.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 22:25
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?


I am sorry but you can't just look at a aircraft and make such a judgement! For example the F-104 was sleek like a rocket. Yet, its top speed was nearly identical to that of the big and ugly F-4 Phantom II. Which, by the way was just as "fat" as the F-35. Regardless, the F-35 doesn't fly much past Mach 1.6 because it doesn't need too! As a matter of fact current supposedly Mach 2 plus aircraft like the F-15 rarely get near Mach 1.5 let alone Mach 2.5. So, what the F-35 will offer is exceptional aceleration. Especially, in the high subsonic to low Mach 1 range. Which, many have discribe as "power" to burn! :twisted:


To put it this way the F-35 wants to win the 1/4 Mile Drag Race. Not the land speed record at the Salt Flats in Nevada.



Sorry, top speed has little bearing in this argument.............. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 22:27
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
energo wrote:
Conan wrote:The F-35A is a 9G rated fighter aircraft.


Morever:

"With a full internal load of munitions, the F-35A will be a nine G dogfighter, as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no underwing stores." (Air Force Magazine September 2006, Vol. 89, No. 9)


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo


The claim that a F-35 can pull 9 G's with a full internal load is nothing but stupid. The slightest turbulence in such a situation would cause the belly aircraft to be ripped apart.



Sorry, but would please remove your foot from your mouth........ :?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 22:34
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?




So, you look at a clean F-16 vs a clean F-35 and assume the former is more aerodynamic. Let's say for argument sake you are correct. Now take that same F-16 and add 2-External Fuel Tanks, 4-AAM's, and 1-Jammer. Is it now more aerodynamic than the F-35??? Also, with all of those stores how fast can the F-16 go???

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 23:07
by zeven
Casey,

You obviously dislike F-35 of one strange reason. after being in multply forums with you :)

F-35 is (what ever you like it or not) a 9G platform. with state of the art Stealth aerodynamics (because of the stealth configuration some extra drag is there, but the thrust and huge internal fuel tank equalize this)

You have to remember F-35s design play after different rules, but still under the same physics laws. compared to let say eruo canards

dont let personal "hate or love for specific platforms" cover true facts what ever we like it or not. Facts is the only thing that matters

and that should be taken under serious consideration by some anti gripen guys as well i have seen some desturbing posts in here about Gripen too...

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2008, 23:42
by Casey
johnwill wrote:Casey, your insight into the maneuver capability of the F-35 is amazing. Can you tell us the source of this insight??

The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies. If the spec called for 1.8 or 2.0, that's what it would do. The airplane is designed to meet the spec. Any more than that is extra weight and cost - period.


What does the fact that the F-35 has a MAXIMUM speed of M1.6 tells you about its aerodynamics?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:02
by zeven
Speed has some advantages,
1, fast interception
2, increased kinetic energy (missile launch)
3. stealth reasons
4. regarding the counterpart Russian platforms, (where speed always have been a high priority, like F-22)
5 a fast moving object will always be harder to hit than a slower one.

higher the top speed is, in most cases the average speed will be higher as well.

but A/B speed like many in here points out are not relevant in air combat because of the huge amounts of fuel thats needed...

but is like stealth, you cant really have enough and its only advantages with speed.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:05
by Casey
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am sorry but you can't just look at a aircraft and make such a judgement! For example the F-104 was sleek like a rocket. Yet, its top speed was nearly identical to that of the big and ugly F-4 Phantom II. Which, by the way was just as "fat" as the F-35. Regardless, the F-35 doesn't fly much past Mach 1.6 because it doesn't need too! As a matter of fact current supposedly Mach 2 plus aircraft like the F-15 rarely get near Mach 1.5 let alone Mach 2.5. So, what the F-35 will offer is exceptional aceleration. Especially, in the high subsonic to low Mach 1 range. Which, many have discribe as "power" to burn! :twisted:


To put it this way the F-35 wants to win the 1/4 Mile Drag Race. Not the land speed record at the Salt Flats in Nevada.



Sorry, top speed has little bearing in this argument.............. :wink:


Any idea what the thrust/weight-ratio is for the F-104 and the F-4?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:07
by Casey
Corsair1963 wrote:
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?




So, you look at a clean F-16 vs a clean F-35 and assume the former is more aerodynamic. Let's say for argument sake you are correct. Now take that same F-16 and add 2-External Fuel Tanks, 4-AAM's, and 1-Jammer. Is it now more aerodynamic than the F-35??? Also, with all of those stores how fast can the F-16 go???


Do you think the F-35's maximum speed is M1.6 at maximum weight?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:15
by Casey
zeven wrote:Casey,

You obviously dislike F-35 of one strange reason. after being in multply forums with you :)

F-35 is (what ever you like it or not) a 9G platform. with state of the art Stealth aerodynamics (because of the stealth configuration some extra drag is there, but the thrust and huge internal fuel tank equalize this)

You have to remember F-35s design play after different rules, but still under the same physics laws. compared to let say eruo canards

dont let personal "hate or love for specific platforms" cover true facts what ever we like it or not. Facts is the only thing that matters

and that should be taken under serious consideration by some anti gripen guys as well i have seen some desturbing posts in here about Gripen too...


Where did I say the F-35 can't do 9 G maneuvers? Anywhere? I just said that it cannot do 9 G's with maximum load, like ANY other combat aircraft, EVER made, ANYWHERE! It's simply not possible, as it would require a much stronger, hence much heavier structure. I don't know why some F-35 fanboys claim the F-35 can do 9 G-maneuvers with maximum load.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:19
by Beazz
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?




So, you look at a clean F-16 vs a clean F-35 and assume the former is more aerodynamic. Let's say for argument sake you are correct. Now take that same F-16 and add 2-External Fuel Tanks, 4-AAM's, and 1-Jammer. Is it now more aerodynamic than the F-35??? Also, with all of those stores how fast can the F-16 go???


Do you think the F-35's maximum speed is M1.6 at maximum weight?


Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance.

What does that sound like to you?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:22
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
johnwill wrote:Casey, your insight into the maneuver capability of the F-35 is amazing. Can you tell us the source of this insight??

The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies. If the spec called for 1.8 or 2.0, that's what it would do. The airplane is designed to meet the spec. Any more than that is extra weight and cost - period.


What does the fact that the F-35 has a MAXIMUM speed of M1.6 tells you about its aerodynamics?



It's not that simple. Ok, maybe this will help....a WWII P-51D Mustang had a top speed of 437 mph vs 415 mph for a F4U-1D Corsair. So, in your book the Mustang is faster. That simple...........Well, the true is that is just one given Speed and one given Altitude.


Yet, what about at 5,000 ft, 10,000 ft, 15,000 ft, etc. etc. etc.


So, if the Corsair was faster over the whole range of altitiudes. Which, one is the faster fighter???


Sorry, Air Combat happen within all three dimensions. Your taking a very simplistic view. Of a extremely complex equation. 8)

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:27
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am sorry but you can't just look at a aircraft and make such a judgement! For example the F-104 was sleek like a rocket. Yet, its top speed was nearly identical to that of the big and ugly F-4 Phantom II. Which, by the way was just as "fat" as the F-35. Regardless, the F-35 doesn't fly much past Mach 1.6 because it doesn't need too! As a matter of fact current supposedly Mach 2 plus aircraft like the F-15 rarely get near Mach 1.5 let alone Mach 2.5. So, what the F-35 will offer is exceptional aceleration. Especially, in the high subsonic to low Mach 1 range. Which, many have discribe as "power" to burn! :twisted:


To put it this way the F-35 wants to win the 1/4 Mile Drag Race. Not the land speed record at the Salt Flats in Nevada.



Sorry, top speed has little bearing in this argument.............. :wink:


Any idea what the thrust/weight-ratio is for the F-104 and the F-4?



Well, I don't off the top of my head. That said, if we compared each with full fuel and clean. I am pretty sure the F-104 would hold the advantage. Its also worth noting that the F-104 would "appear" to be more aerodynamic than the F-4 Phantom! Which, seem to be a oxymoron..............how would you explain that one? :?:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:33
by Casey
Beazz wrote:
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?




So, you look at a clean F-16 vs a clean F-35 and assume the former is more aerodynamic. Let's say for argument sake you are correct. Now take that same F-16 and add 2-External Fuel Tanks, 4-AAM's, and 1-Jammer. Is it now more aerodynamic than the F-35??? Also, with all of those stores how fast can the F-16 go???


Do you think the F-35's maximum speed is M1.6 at maximum weight?


Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance.

What does that sound like to you?


If you say that the top speed of the F-35 is independent of its weight, you tell me that you are unfamiliar with aerodynamics.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:35
by dwightlooi
Casey wrote:
What does the fact that the F-35 has a MAXIMUM speed of M1.6 tells you about its aerodynamics?


First of all the "maximum speed" of the F-35 is not accurately known at the moment. Officially, it is given as Mach 1.6+ (1930km/h). 1930km/h is NOT Mach 1.6 but rather M1.83 @ 40,000 ft (more or less the altitude fighters will attain their maximum level speeds). So I'll leave it to you to interpret what you will from the public specs. Mind you though, that at this point in the F-22's development (circa 1996) the "official" maximum speed was given as Mach 1.8+, today the consensus is that the F-22 cruises at ~Mach 1.7 and easily exceeds Mach 2 although by how much is less well documented.

Secondly, Mach 1.6+ achievable with a practical war load means that the aerodynamics of the F-35 is equivalent to or better than the typical 4th generation types like the F-16, F-18, Rafale or Gripen when loaded for A2A combat. Yes, both are "technically" Mach 2 airframes, but with a basic A2A load the achievable dash speed rarely get past Mach 1.5 even when the pilots try really hard. Mach 2 is what you get to a few times in the aircraft's history when you do a test light with no stores, no pylons, get refueled at altitude then make a run in a slight dive till you are practically bingo. The last 0.2~0.3 can take more than almost 15 minutes to reach when you have 18~22 minutes of fuel at the start line at Mach 0.7 off the tanker.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:39
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?




So, you look at a clean F-16 vs a clean F-35 and assume the former is more aerodynamic. Let's say for argument sake you are correct. Now take that same F-16 and add 2-External Fuel Tanks, 4-AAM's, and 1-Jammer. Is it now more aerodynamic than the F-35??? Also, with all of those stores how fast can the F-16 go???


Do you think the F-35's maximum speed is M1.6 at maximum weight?



If, I had to guess and that is all it would be...........I would say the F-35 is likely capable of flying up to Mach 1.6 with at least half fuel and 4-6 AAM's.


That said, considering Lockheed Martins experience with Stealth and Aerodynamics. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 could reach Mach 1.8+. Of course nobody will know for sure for many years to come. Except for a very select few! :?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 00:48
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:
Casey wrote:
What does the fact that the F-35 has a MAXIMUM speed of M1.6 tells you about its aerodynamics?


First of all the "maximum speed" of the F-35 is not accurately known at the moment. Officially, it is given as Mach 1.6+ (1930km/h). 1930km/h is NOT Mach 1.6 but rather M1.83 @ 40,000 ft (more or less the altitude fighters will attain their maximum level speeds). So I'll leave it to you to interpret what you will from the public specs. Mind you though, that at this point in the F-22's development (circa 1996) the "official" maximum speed was given as Mach 1.8+, today the consensus is that the F-22 cruises at ~Mach 1.7 and easily exceeds Mach 2 although by how much is less well documented.

Secondly, Mach 1.6+ achievable with a practical war load means that the aerodynamics of the F-35 is equivalent to or better than the typical 4th generation types like the F-16, F-18, Rafale or Gripen when loaded for A2A combat. Yes, both are "technically" Mach 2 airframes, but with a basic A2A load the achievable dash speed rarely get past Mach 1.5 even when the pilots try really hard. Mach 2 is what you get to a few times in the aircraft's history when you do a test light with no stores, no pylons, get refueled at altitude then make a run in a slight dive till you are practically bingo. The last 0.2~0.3 can take more than almost 15 minutes to reach when you have 18~22 minutes of fuel at the start line at Mach 0.7 off the tanker.



As always.............excellent point! Its very likely the clean F-35 will burn less fuel at a given speed and height. Than compared to a similar 4th Generation Type carrying External Fuel and AAM's. Further, I wouldn't be surprised to see better climb and aceleration times too. Funny, on how few people really get the beauty of this design......... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 01:25
by johnwill
Casey wrote:


What does the fact that the F-35 has a MAXIMUM speed of M1.6 tells you about its aerodynamics?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Casey, something you may not understand is that the max speed of a fighter is not much influenced by thrust to weight ratio. Added weight has little effect on max speed, since max speed conditions have such a low angle of attack. Ten per cent added weight (for example) might require an extra 0.1 degree AOA. The added drag from such a small AOA increase is very small.

Much more significant to max speed is the inlet design. Look at the inlet for any 2.5 mach airplane and you'll see a complex, heavy, expensive device. Compare the F-15 and F-16 inlets and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So to answer your question, if the F-35 max speed is 1.6, it tells me the designers came up with a simple, low-cost, light weight inlet that enables the airplane to meet its design requirements. It tells me NOTHING about its aerodynamics, because there is NO significant relationship.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 01:52
by Beazz
Casey wrote:
Beazz wrote:
Casey wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Casey wrote:
dwightlooi wrote: (1) What makes you think the F-35 is "high drag"? Internal weapons are lower drag than external weapons. And while bulking up the fuselage volume to increase internal fuel capacity may be slightly draggier than carrying less fuel in a slimmer fuselage, the drag incurred is very small compared to carrying the same fuel in an external tank. Why do you think the F-15E, F-16 Block 60 or the Gripen NG all use conformal tanks? Answer: Because they are much less draggy. Also, fuel is speed and agility. Fuel means burner time and ultimately means persistance at high supersonic speeds. With both aircrafts being 9G rated they both turn at the same rate (a 9G turn at the same speed has the same radius). The only difference being that one aircraft may slow down more because it has higher drag while turning. However, this can be overcomed by thrust! Hence more thrust = more turning ability, and lots of fuel = the ability to use your maximum turning ability more.


You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?




So, you look at a clean F-16 vs a clean F-35 and assume the former is more aerodynamic. Let's say for argument sake you are correct. Now take that same F-16 and add 2-External Fuel Tanks, 4-AAM's, and 1-Jammer. Is it now more aerodynamic than the F-35??? Also, with all of those stores how fast can the F-16 go???


Do you think the F-35's maximum speed is M1.6 at maximum weight?


Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance.

What does that sound like to you?


If you say that the top speed of the F-35 is independent of its weight, you tell me that you are unfamiliar with aerodynamics.


I never claimed to be in the least bit familiar with aerodynamics of a/c. All I know is what the guy test flying the a/c said above.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 ... -jets.html

And from what I have been reading from you on here, you would be better served to stop trying to act like you know anything about a/c performance characteristics. As it is quiet obvious, even to a novice such as myself, that you don't know jack squat.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 01:55
by andreas77
Conan wrote:
Er, so their using a Raytheon array of 1000 modules with multiple receivers?

Perhaps you should read up on the APG-79. An 1100 module count AESA radar with multiple receivers... From what I've read there, there isn't anything "cutting edge" about their radar technology... Do you honestly believe the APG-81 won't be more advanced?




Thats the radar used in the NORA project, Gripen NG will have a Thales array, number of elements unknown (SAAB says they are aiming for 1200-1300). The number of elements is not that important, its what you can do with them. A quote from the article i linked to:

"As far as we know, this is the first data collection from a fighter radar using multi-channel AESA technology [that] simultaneously has one receiver channel per sub-aperture," says Jonas Branzell, programme manager for airborne radar at Saab Microwave Systems.
...

Saab says these flight trials have demonstrated that an AESA radar, using one channel per sub-aperture, gives better sidelobe suppression than a monopulse system. According to the company, its radar detects targets in more directions and at lower speeds than any earlier known AESA radar.
"


Europe isnt that far behind the US (if they are at all) when it comes to AESA as some people think. SAAB/Ericsson has been working on theese things for 15 years, just because the SWAF didnt order them, it doesnt mean that they cant be delivered. Will the F-35 AESA have the 200 degrees+ coverage that the Gripen AESA will have?




Conan wrote:It's a tad more than that, according to Northrop Grumman who have actually designed and built the AN/AAQ-37...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q



Funny you posted that clip! I was just going to use it as an example on how hyped this system is. Look att the sequence at about 2:05 where a SU-27 is detected by a F-35. The SU-27 would have picked up the F-35 engine with the IRST long before the F-35 would see the SU-27 in frontal view.



dwightlooi wrote:
FYI... the structural T/W ratio of the F-35A is ~ 1.53:1 vs 1.24:1 for the JAS-39C and 1.44 for the proposed Gripen NG. At ANY given fuel fraction possible for the Gripen the F-35A has more thrust per unit weight. The discrepancy widens on dry thrust where the structural T/W ratio of the F-35A is 1.00:1 vs 0.83:1 on the Gripen.


What do you mean with "structural T/W ratio", empty weight? Has the F-35 engine become more powerful? For Gripen NG the ratio would be a bit more than 1:1 on dry thrust, and I believe that is more than for the F-35.

Again, thrust isnt all, drag is important as well when it comes to climbing and turning performace. My previous post about Gripen super cruising was to show the low drag of the Gripen.

For the guy who didnt belive me on that:
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE46 ... 001_01.pdf
(Page 2, third column).



Conan wrote:...
Tell me, how many AMRAAM missiles will the Gripen carry, if loaded up like this? The answer, from the configurations I have seen, is: two. The Gripen will also carry 2x within visual range missiles on it's wingtips. However if it is a two seater Gripen, it won't have the 20mm gun, which has been removed for twin seaters.



One possible layout for the Gripen NG is 2 x 2000 lb. bombs under the fuselage, 2 drop tanks, 2 x 2 AMRAAM/METEOR (twin launchers) and 2 Sidewinder/IRIS-T.




Look at the picture of the F-35 internal weapons bay:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... 35-bay.jpg

The volume of the weapons bay is at least 3 times the volume of the weapons and pylons inside it, if you would place 3 AMRAAMS there, it would be even more. 4 AMRAAMS on twinlaunchers and wingtip sidewinders a la Gripen wont come close to the drag that big weapons bay creates, since it contains a lot of air! The internal weapons bay is for stealth and you pay with drag and weight.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 03:02
by Conan
zeven wrote:Conan,

You want me to support claims that are so well known out there, we havent even started to debate yet, its like learning you to walk once again..


A lot of people thought the world was flat for a long time too.

The fact that you've repeatedly avoided supporting any of your claims, shows to me that A you can't or B you're a troll.

Sweden started to use datalink systems with Draken. and TIDLS is the worlds most advanced today. .


I thought so...

Why is TIDLS so superior? Bandwidth capability? LPI capability? Crypto technology? ECCM capability?

Link16 is a simply broadcast systems that can share short text msg. and have no where near data fusion TIDLS offer, TDLS is also very resistent to jamming and have 100 per cent fusion capability


Link 16 is a standard not a data-link. Most modern Western fighters use the MIDS-LVT terminals in order to transmit voice, data and navigation information via Link 16, VMF and other older formats, via UHF radio systems.

Modern MIDS-LVT can share video as well.

I will now support my claim. Something you have not done once.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... ted-02471/

So, why is TIDLS more advanced again?

Did is say LMs claims are nonsens? did i say i'm a huge Gripen Fan?? NO NO. i did not


But you are.

http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/

NO i was not on RED FLAG i thought you toke the hint when i said google it. but stupid questions deservs stupid answers


So what does this comment mean then?

second you ask me if i were at red flag alaska. yes i was. but that not the point,


but i do have an engineering company that works towards the military industry.


Bought it recently, did you? :)

on you it sounds like OFF the SHell is somethiing bad. (strange because it is not, thats the reason F-35 use it too)


Off the shelf means it is CURRENT technology. There is nothing wrong with "off the shelf" provided you recognise this.

Apart from weapons, show me some major system on the F-35 that is "off the shelf".

yes DAS have a couple of more capabilites, but if you read my post i said, Gripen will have similar capability but not with exactly the same type of system..


I'm glad you now acknowledge that. Before according to you it was "only" a "missile approach warning system".

i dont understand why you still mention MAW-300 ??


Oh well..

my god i never said Stealth is "bad" or not needed.. stealth is the strongest advantage F-35 has. with all right.. but you need more than stealth, :)


No, this is what you said:

about stealth, i work with stealh as we speak, i know the advantages. and on todays battle field Stealth aint important, hence, stealth was more important yesterday than it will be tomorrow.


With double-digit SAM systems and increasingly capable "threat" fighters, stealth, or or "signature management" as it is actually known, as you WOULD be calling it, if you had ANYTHING to do with it, will be MORE important than ever.

If stealth ain't important, why does Russia and India so badly want PAK-FA? Why is Europe investing so heavily in Neuron and other LO UCAV designs?


it seems like in your world to different platforms cant do an equally good job?


Of course different platforms have different capabilities. If you and other fanboys understood that, you'd never be arguing that "Gripen beats F-35" or whatever other nonsensical claims they like to make.


ps
yes SAAB have an AESA. (not for fighters) but still ( why not? sweden did not demand it)


I'm aware of that. However, I think even SAAB would be hard pressed impressing anybody if they mounted the Erieye on a Gripen though...

What SAAB doesn't have is a fighter sized FCR, which is why I've painstakingly mentioned fighter sized FCR every single time I've discussed the issue.

the NORA M-AESA radar will be an outstanding RADA with LPI, datalinking, EW and much more. and on top of it, an impressive power management system


Wonderful. Thank Raytheon for that...

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 03:12
by Conan
Casey wrote:
johnwill wrote:Casey, your insight into the maneuver capability of the F-35 is amazing. Can you tell us the source of this insight??

The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies. If the spec called for 1.8 or 2.0, that's what it would do. The airplane is designed to meet the spec. Any more than that is extra weight and cost - period.


What does the fact that the F-35 has a MAXIMUM speed of M1.6 tells you about its aerodynamics?


Who says it has a maximum speed of M1.6? That is the requirement. It is not unheard of for an aircraft to exceed it's requirements.

The F-22 was required to demonstrate a M1.5 "supercruise" capability. It is widely believed that it has demonstrated an M1.72 "supercruise" capability.

Still I'd like to see what you think the F-35's "aerodynamics" limits it to.

So far you've done nothing of the sort.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 03:15
by Conan
Casey wrote:
You only have to take a look at it to understand that F-35 isn't very aerodynamically efficient. An aircraft with the looks of a pregnant sow cannot be aerodynamically efficient. And why do you think it has a top speed of M1.6, despite its huge engine?


Praise the lord! We can do away with wind tunnels. All one has to do is LOOK at an aircraft to decide what it's capability is.

No doubt you believe Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon when they start pontificating about the F-35's "front sector only" VLO status which they have also identified by "looking" at the aircraft.

Get rid of the RCS test ranges too, boys...

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 03:54
by geogen
Andreas,

I'm a big fan of anything SAAB and especially Gripen NG potential. I fully support it's successful development.

But regarding who can see whom first in frontal view: either an Su-27 with IRST or F-35 with APG-81?? Perhaps this was highly speculative (and depends on other variables). But just maybe the EOTS could see an opponent before he sees with IRST?

Regards-

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 04:12
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:Andreas,

I'm a big fan of anything SAAB and especially Gripen NG potential. I fully support it's successful development.

But regarding who can see whom first in frontal view: either an Su-27 with IRST or F-35 with APG-81?? Perhaps this was highly speculative (and depends on other variables). But just maybe the EOTS could see an opponent before he sees with IRST?

Regards-


If, the Su-27 is so capable..........why did Russia need to highly modify the Flanker to the Su-35 Series. Then spend Billions more on the forthcoming PAK-FA. Sorry, no model of the Flanker is going to be able to detect and target the F-35 first............. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 05:05
by Beagle79
Su27 is the benchmark by which 4th G fighters are measured; try to see Su27 as 70’s F16AB and Su30/35 as 21st Century’s F16CD and more, much more.

Russia launched PAK-FA for the same reason we launched ATF/F22. As for the comparative passive sensor detection ranges, your guess is just as good as anyone else’s, Corsair. Historically, Russia is known to design and field insanely potent missiles and radars, FYI.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 05:38
by andreas77
geogen wrote:Andreas,

But regarding who can see whom first in frontal view: either an Su-27 with IRST or F-35 with APG-81?? Perhaps this was highly speculative (and depends on other variables). But just maybe the EOTS could see an opponent before he sees with IRST?

Regards-


The scenario in the movie clip was that the Su-27 (or maybe its even a Su-35) could not discover the F-35 from behind but the F-35 could see the Sukhoi in frontal view using EO DAS (The Sukhoi was following the F-35).

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 05:54
by zeven
Conan

TIDLS degree of fusion is much larger than Link16 can offer.

SAAB does not have to thank anyone for their NORA program.

and you calling me fanboy? you're the one who talking down another platform you obviously dont know enough about. because of many reasons. so save me from that Crap..

I dont really understand what you try to prove? you really need to convince everyone that the not yet operational F-35 is superior in all aspects? or you will have trouble sleeping??

so Tell me, when will Norway invade a country with highly advanced SAM systems? or anyother country for that matter except US? and still i have never said stealth is not important. in the last Red flag, Grripen C did very well against threats both from Ground and air. aint that that enough?

and what do you know about the future systems and software in Gripen NG? you seem to know alot because you are quite sure. Gripen is an inferior platform by measure paper specifikations, real world does not work like that.

Gripen or Rafale or EF will not be less capable because of F-35 enter service.

and DAS is basicly a MAW system according to John Beesly.. so is that specific enough for you..

Do i say Gripen beats F-35 ?? NO.

But its so many factors that comes into play in warfare, so to say F-35 will be superior in all aspects and "always win" is just so wrong. and pretty much any kind of military platform can prove that. and if your reality was right. - every singel platform would be absolete when another enter service.. and that is not how the reality works.

and for the last TIME, stop trying to convince me about F-35 capabilities i'm well aware of them. (or what we know and can imagine)

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 06:01
by andreas77
Conan wrote:
Why is TIDLS so superior? Bandwidth capability? LPI capability? Crypto technology? ECCM capability?


Got this from another forum that quoted the original article:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... =93.0;wap2


The TIDLS can connect up to four aircraft in a full-time two-way link. It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing, and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state. The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.
TIDLS information, along with radar, EW, and mapping data, appears on the central MFD. The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles, and unidentified targets and show who has targeted whom.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind, and will retain that status until the F-22 enters service. The Flygvapnet has already proven some of the tactical advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area. Visual contact between the fighters is no longer necessary, because the datalink shows the position of each aircraft. Leader and wingman roles are different: the pilot in the best position makes the attack, and the fact that he has targeted the enemy is immediately communicated to the three other aircraft.

A basic use of the datalink is "silent attack." An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM's active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.

But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls "samverkan," or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target's signals will often identify it as well.
The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.
Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.



Conan wrote:
Why is Europe investing so heavily in Neuron and other LO UCAV designs?



405 million Euros is not heavily.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 06:17
by zeven
Conan

try to look at it this way.

Gripen is operational today. and have proved itself over and over again as an outstanding platform. by all accounts except the small legs.

Gripen NGs prestanda compared to Gripen C will probably be Huge. so what does that tells us about Gripen NG? alot.

so why do you think Gripen NG with his sensors/systems will do a worse job than F-35 ??
the main thing here is not what kind of system or sensors the platform has, but how the sensors and systems works together and help the pilot to deliever their deadly cargo, and return safe to base.

so F-35 ang gripen have different systems but the final goal is the same.

it seems like F-35 "fanboys" have a need to prove everyone els that F-35 is more advanced and superior in all aspects. but that does not really matter. as long as you have a system that works perfectly fine and do the job its designed to do.

i look at both these platforms and see to state of the art cutting edge technology wouders that will serve which ever country choose them very well. and for certain countries F-35 will be the best choice. but for other countries Gripen will be the best choice

because you read about a system on paper and it sound more advanced there, does not mean it really is.. and it does not mean it will do a better job..

and F-35 is not proven yet. we can only speculate how good it will be or if all the gadgets will work as promised in a future battle field this is something we dont know..

its alot of projects in american history that did not turn out to be what they promised. now i dont say F-35 in anyway is a failure or will not live up to what LM says. but to be a little bit more gentle when talking about other platforms that have already proved itself good enough to do the job it was designed to do..

ps.
and i do hope F-35 turns out to be the top dog.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 08:06
by dwightlooi
andreas77 wrote:What do you mean with "structural T/W ratio", empty weight? Has the F-35 engine become more powerful? For Gripen NG the ratio would be a bit more than 1:1 on dry thrust, and I believe that is more than for the F-35.

Again, thrust isnt all, drag is important as well when it comes to climbing and turning performace. My previous post about Gripen super cruising was to show the low drag of the Gripen.


Structural T/W ratio = T/W ratio with no fuel or weapons. The JAS 39C is 1.25:1 wet (18,100lbs/14,500lbs) and 0.83:1 dry (12,100/14,500). The F-35A is 1.54:1 (43,000lbs/28,000 lbs) and 1:1 (28,000lbs/28,000 lbs) dry. As you add fuel, the aircraft with a higher structural T/W always retain an edge in T/W ratio for all fuel fractions which both aircrafts are able to attain.

andreas77 wrote:The volume of the weapons bay is at least 3 times the volume of the weapons and pylons inside it, if you would place 3 AMRAAMS there, it would be even more. 4 AMRAAMS on twinlaunchers and wingtip sidewinders a la Gripen wont come close to the drag that big weapons bay creates, since it contains a lot of air! The internal weapons bay is for stealth and you pay with drag and weight.


Since when is drag predorminantly about volume? To say that an aircraft with internal bays will incur more drag than one without one when the latter is not carrying anything is probably true, but only very slightly so. So claim that the same stores carried externally is lower drag than those stores carried internally because the enclosed volume is larger is... uh... quite ridiculous.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 08:49
by zeven
dwightlooi

T/W dont say so much either. Gripen C (when looking at the stats) seems underpowered
but remember, Gripen C can fly supersonic without the need to engage A/B with 4BVR 2WVR + droptank, thanks for Gripens excellent aerodynamics. not that Gripen C can reach any operational advantages with that supercruise speed, but it gives a good direction what Gripen NG will be able to. with 4000 increased thrust and only 300 kg increased weight, but with the same configuration and fuel,

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 09:42
by andreas77
dwightlooi wrote:Since when is drag predorminantly about volume? To say that an aircraft with internal bays will incur more drag than one without one when the latter is not carrying anything is probably true, but only very slightly so. So claim that the same stores carried externally is lower drag than those stores carried internally because the enclosed volume is larger is... uh... quite ridiculous.



I never said predominantly.

The drag is not bigger because the volume is larger, but because its MUCH larger. What do you think would happen with the Gripen performance if SAAB made the fuselage wider in order to store 2 x 2 AMRAAMs and if each compartment was 2/3 of the F-35 weapons bay? You would end up with a heavier plane with smaller wings, higher wingloading, more drag and worse performance than the Gripen of today carrying 4 AMRAAMS under the wings.

And if volume is not a factor, why didnt LM make room for 6 2000lb bombs?

Weapons on pylons hanging under wings still allows for airflow around the wing, such airflow can be useful.

From that picture you can also tell that the F-35 is designed primarily as an attack aircraft. The weapons bay is half a meter longer than the AMRAAM (because of the AGM-154) but if it was shorter, wider and lower there would be room for more than 3 AMRAAMs.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 10:44
by F16guy
Using secretprojects.co.uk as a source reference is ....well I guess I'll start directing people to abovetopsecret.com and support BS arguments with that web site. Saying the TIDLS is the only link of its kind until the F-22. Just naive. Reading press releases and then espousing 'expert' opinions on something is dangerous. Not for the object being discussed, but for the credibility of the 'expert' and his opinions.

As a user of SAAB technology,...at least a recipient of information from SAAB technology, I can honestly say...it looks good but it 'ain't' as good as some of the guys on the forum are making it out to be. Now I don't have it in my jet, but the guys I do know who do use it and then pass me the information from the system...they like several other systems better. Not saying the current system won't eventually be able to do what the controllers want, it just can't now and isn't up to the standards they were trained on. Oh and I know it probably is a degraded export system with out all the bells and whistles, but it has too many issues to be as new as it is.

I'll say this... I honestly don't know if Norway would be better served with a 39NG or a F-35, that is what their government and military are going to decide based on a lot more factors than anyone here probably will ever have privy to.

That being said, LO right now opens so many doors against current and near term projected technology, it has to be a consideration. If the F-35 does happen to be selected, then I'll bet a lot more countries attempt to enter the 5th gen fighter production race.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 10:57
by bumtish
I knew that UV based sensing was shorter ranged than IR, but that the MAWS-300 only has a range of 5 km is an OMG!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ripen%20NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 13:52
by Conan
andreas77 wrote:
Conan wrote:
Why is TIDLS so superior? Bandwidth capability? LPI capability? Crypto technology? ECCM capability?


Got this from another forum that quoted the original article:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... =93.0;wap2


I noticed you left out this quote from Bill Sweetman in that very article though.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind, and will retain that status until the F-22 enters service


Pretty recent isn't it?

I am prepared to admit that in the mid to late 90's, Gripen's data-link was something fairly special. Now the capability inherent in it is standard and nothing to rave about.

Link 16 as I mentioned earlier is actually a standard. Various terminals provide Link 16 capability, but MIDS-LVT is the system that actually transmits the data in the majority of current Western (besides Sweden) combat aircraft. More advanced data-link technology (TTNT etc) are being prepared for the F-35 and future upgrades of legacy aircraft.

Conan wrote:
Why is Europe investing so heavily in Neuron and other LO UCAV designs?



405 million Euros is not heavily.[/quote]

And yet NG has had a total of $90m in funding announced...

Pretty heavy in comparison...

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 14:41
by Caprice
F16guy wrote:As a user of SAAB technology,...at least a recipient of information from SAAB technology, I can honestly say...it looks good but it 'ain't' as good as some of the guys on the forum are making it out to be. Now I don't have it in my jet, but the guys I do know who do use it and then pass me the information from the system...they like several other systems better. Not saying the current system won't eventually be able to do what the controllers want, it just can't now and isn't up to the standards they were trained on. Oh and I know it probably is a degraded export system with out all the bells and whistles, but it has too many issues to be as new as it is.

Don't want to get involved in the other sandbox fight so I will just comment this... :D

I'm no expert on data links but The Czechs and Hungarians which as I guess you refer to, havent't bought the TIDLS groundstations which is necessary for the system to fully function as a national datalinksystem(They don't get the full air picture on the screens). That is, I think, the the reason it "isn't up to the standards they were trained on". As it is now the pilots "only" get active information in flight between four aircraft no AEW etc. AFAIK, it hasn't anything to do with "a downgraded export system", SAAB is a small player they can't afford to do so.

But I read there was some issues regarding classification, don't know though if that has been resolved, hope so.

But in the end as a Nato member I doubt these countries will throw money on a system that was developed to work on a national level only no matter how good it is(or bad if you prefer).

To add one thing - the implementation of Gripen in these AF was done a little to hastly, in my opinion so things was/is not perfect...not that I have any insight, just the picture I get.

Regards C.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 16:56
by andreas77
Conan wrote:I noticed you left out this quote from Bill Sweetman in that very article though.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind, and will retain that status until the F-22 enters service


Pretty recent isn't it?


No I didnt leave that part out (Man, youre really seeing what you want to see!)

The article is from 2004 and the F-22 entered service in 2005.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h ... _n25960251



Conan wrote:I am prepared to admit that in the mid to late 90's, Gripen's data-link was something fairly special. Now the capability inherent in it is standard and nothing to rave about.

Link 16 as I mentioned earlier is actually a standard. Various terminals provide Link 16 capability, but MIDS-LVT is the system that actually transmits the data in the majority of current Western (besides Sweden) combat aircraft. More advanced data-link technology (TTNT etc) are being prepared for the F-35 and future upgrades of legacy aircraft.



So now Link-16 is better because its a standard? TIDLS can do things Link-16 cant do, just admit it. What system became operational in the late 90s making the TIDLS nothing to "rave about"? Which other operative datalink system can do the things TIDLS can do? MIDS-LVT is a transmitter terminal for Link-16, whats your point? Will the TTNT incorporate realtime radar data fusion? Link-16 has some capabilities TIDLS doesnt, thats the reason why SWAF use both in the Gripen and TTNT looks promising.


Conan wrote:
Andreas77 wrote:
Conan wrote:Why is Europe investing so heavily in Neuron and other LO UCAV designs?


405 million Euros is not heavily.


And yet NG has had a total of $90m in funding announced...

Pretty heavy in comparison...


405 millions is peanuts (whats the JSF budget?) and the Neuron project will result in a tech demonstrator, just like the Gripen demo project. Theres a lot of more money to be put in the Gripen NG project before its a product SAAB can sell. The Eurofighter just entered service. The french still have 60 Rafales to build, thats like 15 Neuron projects. Do you still think were investing heavily in UCAVs in europe?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 18:48
by dwightlooi
andreas77 wrote:I never said predominantly.

The drag is not bigger because the volume is larger, but because its MUCH larger. What do you think would happen with the Gripen performance if SAAB made the fuselage wider in order to store 2 x 2 AMRAAMs and if each compartment was 2/3 of the F-35 weapons bay? You would end up with a heavier plane with smaller wings, higher wingloading, more drag and worse performance than the Gripen of today carrying 4 AMRAAMS under the wings.

And if volume is not a factor, why didnt LM make room for 6 2000lb bombs?

Weapons on pylons hanging under wings still allows for airflow around the wing, such airflow can be useful.

From that picture you can also tell that the F-35 is designed primarily as an attack aircraft. The weapons bay is half a meter longer than the AMRAAM (because of the AGM-154) but if it was shorter, wider and lower there would be room for more than 3 AMRAAMs.


If Saab had made the Gripen with an internal bay for 4 AMRAAMs whose internal volume is 2~3 times the volume of the missiles themselves they'll end up with an aircraft whose in flight drag is most likely significantly lower than the current Gripen C flying with 4 pylons and AMRAAMs on them. That is pretty much a given. The reason they didn't do it is probably because it'll be a much more complicated design with doors which must open quickly, ejector launch, flow issues with the doors opening at high speeds, etc.


The bays will (1) probably not add a tangible amount of drag to the aircraft when place in the location behind the intakes (ala F-35) because they won't change frontal area much. (2) Probably be smaller than 2/3 the size of the F-35 bays which are designed around the 4.13m long 500mm class JSOW.

In the old days... when engine power is scarce and CFD isn't even dreamed of, the F-102/106 interceptors for instance had huge internal bays not for stealth but for drag reduction.

The important thing is this... the F-35 has ~2.4 times more thrust than the Gripen and is only about twice as heavy. It is also unlikely to have 2.4 times more drag but less so. As far as wing loading... that is not a good measure of turning performance. At cruise, in fact, smaller wings = lower drag. At high AoA, a fighter like the -35 or -22 gets as much as 50~60% of its lift from the body not the wings.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 18:58
by Corsair1963
Beagle79 wrote:Su27 is the benchmark by which 4th G fighters are measured; try to see Su27 as 70’s F16AB and Su30/35 as 21st Century’s F16CD and more, much more.

Russia launched PAK-FA for the same reason we launched ATF/F22. As for the comparative passive sensor detection ranges, your guess is just as good as anyone else’s, Corsair. Historically, Russia is known to design and field insanely potent missiles and radars, FYI.



Sorry, in the real world I doubt you could back up that claim. When was the last time a Soviet/Russian Fighter destroyed a Western Fighter with a insanely potent missile. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 20:09
by F16guy
I'm no expert on data links but The Czechs and Hungarians which as I guess you refer to,


No, I'm referring to me using SAAB technology in the above post and watching guys I work with try to control off of it. But to be fair, I have no experience with TIDLS.

Historically, Russia is known to design and field insanely potent missiles and radars, FYI.


Insanely when used in this context is not correct.

They have a different design and construction philosophy than the West. They definetly approach this area differently than western engineers, but nothing they have built so far is 'Insanely' potent with regards to radars and missiles.

ECM is another story. Had you used 'Insanely' with regard to ECM, then I'd concede you knew what you were talking about but not in regards to Radars or Radar missiles.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 20:19
by Beagle79
Hum, let’s see, Corsair: S. Spicher (MiG25 vs. F/A18C), S. O’Grady (SA6 vs. F16 Bk50), D. Zelko (SA3 vs. F117 Stealth). Shall I go on?

Our weapon systems evolve, and so do our potential adversaries', “in real life” indeed. Meanwhile, Su30/35 and S300/400 are both in the market.

F16Guy, of course and whenever there is ECM, there is ECCM. There's a good reason why Israelis keeps on training their pilots to use their guns in spite of having advance missiles in her inventory.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 20:47
by Corsair1963
Beagle79 wrote:Hum, let’s see, Corsair: S. Spicher (MiG25 vs. F/A18C), S. O’Grady (SA6 vs. F16 Bk50), D. Zelko (SA3 vs. F117 Stealth). Shall I go on?

Our weapon systems evolve, and so do our potential adversaries', “in real life” indeed. Meanwhile, Su30/35 and S300/400 are both in the market.

F16Guy, of course and whenever there is ECM, there is ECCM. There's a good reason why Israelis keeps on training their pilots to use their guns in spite of having advance missiles in her inventory.



Well, I am hardly impressed when you can only name one air-to-air kill and that was over 17 years ago.............. :?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 21:14
by Casey
dwightlooi wrote: [
If Saab had made the Gripen with an internal bay for 4 AMRAAMs whose internal volume is 2~3 times the volume of the missiles themselves they'll end up with an aircraft whose in flight drag is most likely significantly lower than the current Gripen C flying with 4 pylons and AMRAAMs on them. That is pretty much a given. The reason they didn't do it is probably because it'll be a much more complicated design with doors which must open quickly, ejector launch, flow issues with the doors opening at high speeds, etc.


The bays will (1) probably not add a tangible amount of drag to the aircraft when place in the location behind the intakes (ala F-35) because they won't change frontal area much. (2) Probably be smaller than 2/3 the size of the F-35 bays which are designed around the 4.13m long 500mm class JSOW.

In the old days... when engine power is scarce and CFD isn't even dreamed of, the F-102/106 interceptors for instance had huge internal bays not for stealth but for drag reduction.

The important thing is this... the F-35 has ~2.4 times more thrust than the Gripen and is only about twice as heavy. It is also unlikely to have 2.4 times more drag but less so. As far as wing loading... that is not a good measure of turning performance. At cruise, in fact, smaller wings = lower drag. At high AoA, a fighter like the -35 or -22 gets as much as 50~60% of its lift from the body not the wings.


If the design of the F-35 doesn't add a lot of drag, can you please explain why the F-35 has a top speed of only M1.6, despite its huge engine?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 21:14
by einstein
Energo wrote:
As I just elaborated in a different forum, the Aftenposten figure is way out of propotions. Keeping our fleet of 57 F-16s airborne amounts to about 0.5 billion NOK pr. year, including maintenance and fuel. That's for 10 000 flight hours yearly. The F-35 fleet will be both smaller and - most likely - less costly to operate, thus there is no rationale behind Aftenpostens suggestion that Janes is claiming that the Gripen will cost 1 billion NOK less pr. year to operate

Einstein writes: What´s the cost for show stoppers..

F-16 had a good hydraulic system from start, advanced with tube system installed in a very space saving way in fuel tanks, but at little risk - there was lot of experience from airliners

F-35 hydraulic packages (EHA´s) have a few flights in a F-16 after years of work to get that aircraft up ( ref Aviation Week), a NASA test in F-18 - and - with probably fundamental -cooling problems
Maybe 70 flights now in F-35, with one shortage in a qualified unit ( and with rumours about leakage)
Then this potential nightmare installation set up:

X-35 with two central systems had a typical total of six sensors and four bleed/refills -
centrally non vibrational and easily located , type F-16 and other fighters, compared to:

F-35 with 10 packages, has 20 bleed/refills and 50 sensors spread out in a stealth A/C

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 21:26
by SpudmanWP
Holy cow....

I'm gone for a weekend and this thread exploded.....

I just wish it would have been because someone added something substantive to the thread.

To that point, Beagle79, nobody credible has ever said that American tech, and stealth specifically, is perfect. Just better ;)

Your bad example of combat losses is just sad... specifically the F-117 example. Those same F-117s (and B-2s) flew thousands of sorties in two Iraq wars, through the nastiest SAM and AAA environments without ever getting scratched. The F-117 that was lost was due to very bad tactics when choosing ingress and egress routes. Combine that with the F-117s very limited situational awareness and the problem was compounded.

Now as to the F-35.. It's all-aspect stealth (yes, it manages it's heat signature as well) is much better (RSC-wise) than the F-117 and even better than the B-2.

It will, at some point, have a combat loss. What I, and others, have said is that it will survive much, much longer in combat that any other fighter, save the F-22.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 21:31
by F16guy
Ahh...you changed the game, beagle79. Yes, I'll admit the former Soviet Union and Russia built and continue to build some great SAM's, but I thought you were talking about Air to Air radars and missiles.

Casey,
A design spec is one thing and what a plane can do is another. The quoted top speed that you are using is what the design has to meet. I'll bet it will do better. Besides are you talking about parasite drag (sounds like you are) or induced drag? Parasite drag on the F-35 should actually be fairly small based on the clean design which it sounds like you think is big on the F-35, induced drag is what goes up with increased speed and is a function of lift. The F-35 has a lot of thrust with that big engine so it should be able to get well beyond M1.6, although their may be other reasons for the limit, probably not the drag you are thinking of though.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 21:34
by SpudmanWP
einstein... let it rest already.

The EHAs have finished their development cycle with over 13 years of development and flights without any documented example of a maneuver, heat or leakage problem.

But by all means, continue to tell us how they will fall out of the sky because they can't maneuver compared to a central-equipped MIG/SU.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 21:36
by SpudmanWP
:evil: ARGH!!!! Damn double post :bang:

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 22:33
by Casey
F16guy wrote:Casey,
A design spec is one thing and what a plane can do is another. The quoted top speed that you are using is what the design has to meet. I'll bet it will do better. Besides are you talking about parasite drag (sounds like you are) or induced drag? Parasite drag on the F-35 should actually be fairly small based on the clean design which it sounds like you think is big on the F-35, induced drag is what goes up with increased speed and is a function of lift. The F-35 has a lot of thrust with that big engine so it should be able to get well beyond M1.6, although their may be other reasons for the limit, probably not the drag you are thinking of though.


I haven't seen ANY claim that the F-35 will have a top speed anything above M1.6. Not one single source, other than F-35 fanboys! Not even LM claims that it can do any more than M1.6, papers I saw when i worked in the Norwegian NDMA said top speed of M1.6 etc, etc, etc. No source has given any other top speed! Or do you claim that a 747 is as aerodynamic as a Concorde? Do you think it is accidentially that the Concorde looked the way it did, or that the 747 is as aerodynamically efficient as a Concord or a Starfighter?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 23:37
by johnwill
Casey,
I posted this yesterday, but evidently you didn't see it, didn't believe it, or chose to ignore it.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Much more significant to max speed is the inlet design. Look at the inlet for any 2.5 mach airplane and you'll see a complex, heavy, expensive device. Compare the F-15 and F-16 inlets and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So to answer your question, if the F-35 max speed is 1.6, it tells me the designers came up with a simple, low-cost, light weight inlet that enables the airplane to meet its design requirements. It tells me NOTHING about its aerodynamics, because there is NO significant relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, maybe I can expand that a little for you. The F-35 inlet is optimized for its speed range requirement. If the USAF wanted to go 2.0 mach, the inlet could be re-designed to accomplish that. However, to optimize it for 2.0, it would lose efficiency at lower mach numbers. Obviously no one (except you) wants to compromise the lower speed perfrmance just to fly 2.0 mach for a very limited amount of time, perhaps never.

The F-22 inlet is obviously optimized for higher speeds than the F-35. so it can fly faster. It is designed for supersonic cruise, the F-35 is not. Simple enough for you?

The F-35 has the speed performance the customer wants, not what you want.

Now about your silly statements concerning the 747 vs Concorde. The 747 is more aerodynamically efficient than the Concorde because it can move more people farther and faster than the Concorde at far less cost.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 00:42
by Casey
johnwill wrote:Casey,
I posted this yesterday, but evidently you didn't see it, didn't believe it, or chose to ignore it.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Much more significant to max speed is the inlet design. Look at the inlet for any 2.5 mach airplane and you'll see a complex, heavy, expensive device. Compare the F-15 and F-16 inlets and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So to answer your question, if the F-35 max speed is 1.6, it tells me the designers came up with a simple, low-cost, light weight inlet that enables the airplane to meet its design requirements. It tells me NOTHING about its aerodynamics, because there is NO significant relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, maybe I can expand that a little for you. The F-35 inlet is optimized for its speed range requirement. If the USAF wanted to go 2.0 mach, the inlet could be re-designed to accomplish that. However, to optimize it for 2.0, it would lose efficiency at lower mach numbers. Obviously no one (except you) wants to compromise the lower speed perfrmance just to fly 2.0 mach for a very limited amount of time, perhaps never.

The F-22 inlet is obviously optimized for higher speeds than the F-35. so it can fly faster. It is designed for supersonic cruise, the F-35 is not. Simple enough for you?

The F-35 has the speed performance the customer wants, not what you want.

Now about your silly statements concerning the 747 vs Concorde. The 747 is more aerodynamically efficient than the Concorde because it can move more people farther and faster than the Concorde at far less cost.


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... ess_1.html

Read the article from Code One. You actually don't need very sophisticated inlets for an aircraft designed t top off at M2.0. It's when you want higher speeds than that you need very sophisticated inlets. You mentioned F-16 and F-15, they are excellent examples of that! The F-16 is limited to M2.0, while the F-15 can approach speeds of up to M2.5! So the imlet design of the F-16, Gripen AND the F-35 are of simple design. In other words: The inlet design of the F-35 has NOTHING to do with its lack of speed. Aerodynamcs, on the other hand, has everything to to with it.

When I said aerodynamic efficient, I meant aerodynamics that enables flight at high speed without a lot of power needed. Was that difficult to understand?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 00:50
by dwightlooi
Casey wrote:
If the design of the F-35 doesn't add a lot of drag, can you please explain why the F-35 has a top speed of only M1.6, despite its huge engine?


(1) We don't know that it is limited to M1.6. All we know is that the public specs calls for greater than M1.6 -- hence 1.6+

(2) In any case, even if it is limited to M1.6 it may not be drag limited to that speed. The aircraft may be intake limited given its DSI intake design which is great for mass, stealth and cruise efficiency, but not necessarily the best design for slowingly Mach 2 air to subsonic velocities for engine consumption. The F-22 is another intake limited design. It cruises at M1.7+ but its top speed may not be much higher than M2 because it may start to experience supersonic flow into the compressor face sooner than say a variable intake aircraft like the F-15. The F-22 does use a diverter and has intake overpressure vent doors. At very high speeds doors on top of the fuselage open and a flap bleeds intake air off to cause dilution of the remaining flow slowing it down, but this is very inefficient and may not be very effective compared to variable intakes. The F-35 has neither diverters nor intake bleeds.

Image
DSI Intake in action... Basically the forward swept intake lips forces shock waves onto the "bump" in front of the intake mouth. This in turn pushes the boundary flow outwards such that most of it misses the intake mouth and is hence not ingested. Traditional intakes simply holds the intake mouth about an couple of inches above the fuselage sides such that the turbulent boundary flow is not ingested but passes under the intake and diverted with a diverter wedge. At cruise speeds diverters are a tad draggier than DSIs, not to mention heavier and more difficult to make stealthy. However, DSIs relies on a shock front off the front lips and the its relationship to the position of the bump and intake mouth. As speeds increases, the shock angle increases and the working front moves back on the bump. At some point it won't adequately prevent boundary ingestion. In addition, most fixed intakes like the F-16 or Gripen intakes are 2-shock designs relying on 2 shock fronts for slowing air down for the engine. These two fronts typically emanates from the diverter lip and the intake's outer lip. A DSI intake does not have the diverter lip shock front and has to rely on the intake lip and the upper and lower swept lips.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 02:47
by Corsair1963
Casey wrote:
johnwill wrote:Casey,
I posted this yesterday, but evidently you didn't see it, didn't believe it, or chose to ignore it.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Much more significant to max speed is the inlet design. Look at the inlet for any 2.5 mach airplane and you'll see a complex, heavy, expensive device. Compare the F-15 and F-16 inlets and you'll see what I'm talking about.

So to answer your question, if the F-35 max speed is 1.6, it tells me the designers came up with a simple, low-cost, light weight inlet that enables the airplane to meet its design requirements. It tells me NOTHING about its aerodynamics, because there is NO significant relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, maybe I can expand that a little for you. The F-35 inlet is optimized for its speed range requirement. If the USAF wanted to go 2.0 mach, the inlet could be re-designed to accomplish that. However, to optimize it for 2.0, it would lose efficiency at lower mach numbers. Obviously no one (except you) wants to compromise the lower speed perfrmance just to fly 2.0 mach for a very limited amount of time, perhaps never.

The F-22 inlet is obviously optimized for higher speeds than the F-35. so it can fly faster. It is designed for supersonic cruise, the F-35 is not. Simple enough for you?

The F-35 has the speed performance the customer wants, not what you want.

Now about your silly statements concerning the 747 vs Concorde. The 747 is more aerodynamically efficient than the Concorde because it can move more people farther and faster than the Concorde at far less cost.


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... ess_1.html

Read the article from Code One. You actually don't need very sophisticated inlets for an aircraft designed t top off at M2.0. It's when you want higher speeds than that you need very sophisticated inlets. You mentioned F-16 and F-15, they are excellent examples of that! The F-16 is limited to M2.0, while the F-15 can approach speeds of up to M2.5! So the imlet design of the F-16, Gripen AND the F-35 are of simple design. In other words: The inlet design of the F-35 has NOTHING to do with its lack of speed. Aerodynamcs, on the other hand, has everything to to with it.

When I said aerodynamic efficient, I meant aerodynamics that enables flight at high speed without a lot of power needed. Was that difficult to understand?


Sorry, youngman but you need to get off this kick. That types like the F-15 are somehow better because they have a higher top speed. (i.e. Mach 2.5) Which, has been explained over and over that such speeds are extremely rare and are not under combat conditions regardless. Really, what is more important is good acceleration rates in the high subsonic to low mach 1 range. Along with a high speeds that can be sustained for long periods........While current 4th Generation Fighters may have a higher top speed in some cases. They just can't maintain those speeds for any useful period of time. Especially, carrying the usual external stores...........So, in the real world your Mach 2.5 F-15 Eagle rarely gets past Mach 1.2 and burns up it fuel very quicky. While, the F-35 just cruises along at Military Power.


Really, I think you will be in for quite a surprise when the F-35 enters service. As its real world performance is going to be ASTONISHING! :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 03:15
by johnwill
Casey,
Since you persist in the false belief that the Concorde is more aerodynamically "efficient" than the 747, please consider the following facts.

1. The cruise lift/drag ratio for the Concorde is 7.4, while it is 17.0 for the 747. Which is more efficient?

2. The Concorde drag coefficient at cruise is 50% higher than the 747 at cruise. Which is more efficient?

3. The empty weight per seat of the Concorde is more than three times that of the 747. Whch is more efficient?

4. The Concorde and the 747 use about the same amount of fuel to cover the same distance, but the 747 carries four times as many people. Which is more efficient?

5. The Concorde spends a significant amount of time subsonic, where the L/D ratio is 4, while the 747 flies there all the time at L/D of 17. Which is more efficient?

The Concorde was a magnificant effort, a truly beautiful airplane, and a total commercial failure. The 747 is still being built after more than 30 years and has made billions for its builder and operators.

The Concorde looks sleek and low drag. Looks deceive!!

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 04:20
by Conan
Beagle79 wrote:Hum, let’s see, Corsair: S. Spicher (MiG25 vs. F/A18C), S. O’Grady (SA6 vs. F16 Bk50), D. Zelko (SA3 vs. F117 Stealth). Shall I go on?

Our weapon systems evolve, and so do our potential adversaries', “in real life” indeed. Meanwhile, Su30/35 and S300/400 are both in the market.

F16Guy, of course and whenever there is ECM, there is ECCM. There's a good reason why Israelis keeps on training their pilots to use their guns in spite of having advance missiles in her inventory.


One single air to air kill in the last 40 odd years? Even that one is extremely dubious, with significant evidence existing that the F/A-18 was NOT shot down by a MiG-25, but rather victim of a mid-air collision.

The great F-117 story. Again significant doubt on the validity of the claims. There is just as much evidence to show that the F-117 flew into unguided AAA as there is proving an SA-3 hit it.

SA-6 v an F-16. Wow. These "insanely potent" missiles have managed to acquire and shoot down one single legacy non-LO Western fighter aircraft.

Insanely potent?

Insanely hyped is more like it when real world results are considered...

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 04:22
by Conan
Casey wrote:If the design of the F-35 doesn't add a lot of drag, can you please explain why the F-35 has a top speed of only M1.6, despite its huge engine?


Have a good look at the inlets used on the aircraft... :)

Once again, who said this IS the max? It's the REQUIREMENT. Aircraft have been known to exceed their requirements on occasion...

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 04:39
by Corsair1963
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:If the design of the F-35 doesn't add a lot of drag, can you please explain why the F-35 has a top speed of only M1.6, despite its huge engine?


Have a good look at the inlets used on the aircraft... :)

Once again, who said this IS the max? It's the REQUIREMENT. Aircraft have been known to exceed their requirements on occasion...




Its worth noting that the intakes on the F-35 are capable of speeds up to at least Mach 2............as tested on a F-16 development aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 06:37
by einstein
SpudmanWP wrote:einstein... let it rest already.

The EHAs have finished their development cycle with over 13 years of development and flights without any documented example of a maneuver, heat or leakage problem.

But by all means, continue to tell us how they will fall out of the sky because they can't maneuver compared to a central-equipped MIG/SU.


Enough is enough

But electric and hydraulic power systems are the most important in an aircraft
And you don´t sell aircraft on how good they are
They are just supposed to work

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 07:41
by geogen
andreas77 wrote:
geogen wrote:Andreas,

But regarding who can see whom first in frontal view: either an Su-27 with IRST or F-35 with APG-81?? Perhaps this was highly speculative (and depends on other variables). But just maybe the EOTS could see an opponent before he sees with IRST?

Regards-


The scenario in the movie clip was that the Su-27 (or maybe its even a Su-35) could not discover the F-35 from behind but the F-35 could see the Sukhoi in frontal view using EO DAS (The Sukhoi was following the F-35).


Oh, OK, thanks for clarifying that. I thought you proclaimed Su-27 could detect F-35 in head-to-head using IRST, before F-35 could even detect Su-27 w/radar. No prob..

I'm pretty sure even the Gripen NG would have superior first detection of head-on Su-27, employing future 2015+ AESA sensor suite as planned.

Cheers..

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 08:47
by scruffer
All this talk of the f-35 vs X reminds me of the crazy debates about the f-22 vs all the other front line fighters...

Funny thing (if i remember correctly) the main arguments against the f-22 was it gave up too much speed and agility in favor of stealth.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 16:49
by Meteor
Wow! This thread really took off. Who knew?

As I mentioned previously, weapons purchases are made with three factors in mind; technical capabilities, economics, and politics. We've discussed technical capabilities and economic factors in the Norwegian competition to a great extent. It would seem that the general consensus is that the F-35 is somewhat more capable than the Gripen, and that the F-35 is also somewhat more expensive than the Gripen. What hasn't been discussed is the third factor; politics.

This poll of Norwegians regarding their preference recently came out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8021340

In summary, the Norwegian public were;

18% in favor of purchasing 48 F-35s.
37% in favor of purchasing 48 Gripens.
45% had no opinion, or didn't know enough to comment.

The primary reason for the 2:1 preference for the SAAB product appears to be that most Norwegians would prefer a more Euro-centric stance with their Scandinavian neighbors. In the case of democratically representative governments (like Norway) they usually follow the wishes of the majority. Would any of our Scandinavian posters on this thread comment?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:08
by lamoey
The majority of the Norwegian population will by US standards be considered "liberals", which to some on this board is considered a swearword. With that in mind, if this was 8 years ago, with Clinton still in office, the poll results would have been much different. Indeed if the poll was done prior to the recent election the result may be different today. In one way the F-35 have the same problem McCain had, needing to distance himself from George W. Bush, but only time will tell if the F-35 succeeds, where McCain did not.

As most Norwegians would not know enough about the two aircrafts it is basically a beauty contest based on the popularity of the two aircraft's parent countries. The politicians, however, are supposed to know more details and would be able to make a more balanced judgment, but votes may be the deciding factor.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:08
by muir
Meteor wrote:Wow! This thread really took off. Who knew?

As I mentioned previously, weapons purchases are made with three factors in mind; technical capabilities, economics, and politics. We've discussed technical capabilities and economic factors in the Norwegian competition to a great extent. It would seem that the general consensus is that the F-35 is somewhat more capable than the Gripen, and that the F-35 is also somewhat more expensive than the Gripen. What hasn't been discussed is the third factor; politics.

This poll of Norwegians regarding their preference recently came out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8021340

In summary, the Norwegian public were;

18% in favor of purchasing 48 F-35s.
37% in favor of purchasing 48 Gripens.
45% had no opinion, or didn't know enough to comment.

The primary reason for the 2:1 preference for the SAAB product appears to be that most Norwegians would prefer a more Euro-centric stance with their Scandinavian neighbors. In the case of democratically representative governments (like Norway) they usually follow the wishes of the majority. Would any of our Scandinavian posters on this thread comment?



Well, I´m from Sweden even though my mom's from Norway so I´ve spent quite a lot of time there. My guess is they´ll go with the F-35, they opted out of joining the EU so they´re not as "euro-friendly" as some others are. They´re an oilexporting country so they can easily find the money if they want to. The older generations still remember the war and what some of them felt as the swedish betrayal, might not factor in much nowadays since most of those who remember is really old but still. One important aspect would be who's actually in power when the decision is due. A more leftist gov would probably work against the F-35, a more conservative goverment would be more likely to favor it. I read the other day there were rumours that the Typhoon might become a contender again. Apparently norwegian officials should have asked eurofighter re-enter the competition. Time will tell if there´s any truth in that I suppose.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:27
by loke
muir wrote:Well, I´m from Sweden even though my mom's from Norway so I´ve spent quite a lot of time there. My guess is they´ll go with the F-35, they opted out of joining the EU so they´re not as "euro-friendly" as some others are. They´re an oilexporting country so they can easily find the money if they want to. The older generations still remember the war and what some of them felt as the swedish betrayal, might not factor in much nowadays since most of those who remember is really old but still. One important aspect would be who's actually in power when the decision is due. A more leftist gov would probably work against the F-35, a more conservative goverment would be more likely to favor it. I read the other day there were rumours that the Typhoon might become a contender again. Apparently norwegian officials should have asked eurofighter re-enter the competition. Time will tell if there´s any truth in that I suppose.

I'm from Norway... :)

It is correct that many Norwegians are sceptical to EU; however most Norwegians are positive (in general) to Nordic collaboration. There are some people that still talk about how Sweden acted during the war, but I don't think that will stop closer collaboration with Sweden if that's what the politicians decide they want to do. Right now the Nordic countries are working towards a closer collaboration on defence.

Currently we have a center-left goverment. At least one of the parties in that goverment clearly prefers the Gripen, but that's also a small party and it cannot veto the others. Had there been a right-wing goverment, then there would probably not have been a competition at all; Norway would simply have ordered F-35.

One thing that has not been mentioned in this thread (or I missed it?) is the offsets. LM does not offer traditional offsets, but still they have signed minor contracts with a few Norwegian companies and said that chances are good that those companies will get larger contracts if Norway buys F-35. Nobody knows how big those "offsets" would be, but it seems a maximum would be 100% of the value of contract.

Saab offer traditional industrial offsets: Up to 50 billion NOK! That's a lot! And LM of course cannot and will not try to compete with that.

We have a team of professionals that have been analyzing the two tenders since april this year. Shortly they will give their recommendation to the goverment which will announce the winner on December 19.

The leader of this team has not said what plane they will recommend however he has said that they will give a "clear" (i.e., unambigous) recommendation. So, presumably, they will recommend the F-35.

However the government will make the decision.

I would say it's 50-50 who will get this contract. F-35 may win on capabilities, but Gripen wins on costs, huge offsets, and perhaps on politics?


L

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:54
by loke
I have the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that some people on this thread are under-estimating the Gripen NG.

Also I notice that many tend to fall in the old trap of arranging dog fights between the two candidates and try to predict who will win. Last time I checked Russia had no plans of purchasing neither Gripen nor F-35 :)

Instead, should we not look at what situations Norway may face?

Apart from the odd Dane that invades our ski slopes, the main potential hazard to Norway seems to be from Russia. However Norway is a NATO member, so a Russian invasion of Norway seems unlikely, to say the least.

What may happen is a quarrel on resources in the arctic region between Russia and Norway that could escalate into a military conflict. Russia would need to keep NATO out, so it would be a high intensity but very short in time. Norways goal would be to avoid such a conflict, by trying to find a compromise that Russia would find interesting and at the same time signal that a military solution would be too costly since Norway would fight back (and lose, but not without inflicting some damage).

Perhaps some of the lessons from the Falkland wars could be relevant? UK was of course superior militarly but Argentina did manage to inflict some damage using e.g. the Exocet missile. So with the "right" tools a small nation can cause havoc.

Now, if Russia were to go for a "military solution", what would they do on the aviation side? My guess would be that they would open the ball by sending a large number of stealth cruise missiles towards the one (and only) military air base in Norway. Coming as a surprise attack, Norway would shortly be without an air force --- and those planes that survive cannot take off until the landing strip has been repaired -- by that time the conflict may already be over and negotiations have started.

In such a scenario it seems that it does not matter that much whether we buy F-35 or Gripen NG.

However, buying Gripen opens some new possibilities, like synergies and closer collaboration with Sweden. Instead of having one airport in Norway, we could operate a second joint Norwegian/Swedish airport in Sweden, covering northern Sweden and Northern Norway. This would pose a dilemma for the Russians: Bombing a NATO country in one day is Bad; bombing a EU country on the same day is Worse. If they choose to bomb only the Norwegian air base, well then 24 angry Gripen NG would be ready to inflict some pain and damage. With some missiles like NSM and perhaps a few Taurus those Gripen would be able to bite back.


L

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 19:19
by lamoey
Loke,

Norway has lots of places to scatter any surviving assets in case of an attack. In my days in the RNoAF we practiced it regularly. I even have pictures on this site of such landings at Leknes.

Sweden is a different sovereign nation with a history of not taking sides during conflicts, so they would probably be the last place we could go, if we wanted to continue the fight. Read your history man...

EU is dependent on Russian oil and gas and can't do anything or the lights go out. Russia have already demonstrated that ability

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 19:26
by loke
I'm sure you have all seen the Youtube video of the Red Flag pilot talking about SU-30MKI and the French :D

The most interesting piece of info (IMHO) was what he said about the Mig and that the combination of low RCS and efficient EWS made the Migs "invisible" to the F-15/F-16. Interesting because Gripen has also a very low RCS, and a very good EW system. That seems to make it "invisible" to many other airplanes.

I do not know if this jamming would work against the F-22 or F-35, however that is not really the relevant question -- the relevant question is, would it work against the Russian aircrafts? I may be wrong but I have the impression that the Russians are still far behind the West when it comes to advanced radar techniques and EWS. If this is so, then for a2a scenarios the Gripen NG (and other 4.5 gen a/c like SH and Rafale) will remain with a very high survivability.

Another interesting thing about the Gripen: Just like the F-35 it uses fuel to cool components in the plane. A person I talked to once claimed Gripen actually is second only to F-22 in terms of IR signature. Perhaps he was lying? I don't know. But using fuel to cool down components would open some interesting possibilities in terms of IR signature reduction techniques.

Regarding drag: Today's Gripen can reach Mach 1.1 "on a cold day" wearing one drop tank, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. I would not be surprised if a clean F-16 could do the same, but: 1) that would be a clean F-16 and 2) the F16 engines have much more thrust than the RM12 engine. Now, imagine that we replace the RM12 with F414 which has 22% more thrust. I don't think drag will be a big problem in an a2a config, and that's presumably when you need low drag?

Range and loiter time: Gripen NG will be able to do a 1200 km mission with a2a config, including 30 mins on station.

Recon mission: 5 hours according to an article in Janes'.

The AESA will presumably be "weaker" than the F-35 radar, but how will it compare to the Russian stuff? Besides these days with networking the radar range may not be that important anymore?

It will not have DAS, but it will have MAWs and FLIR/IRST. Not the same but it does offer a huge improvement over what we got currently. The computers and databuses in NG will not be the same as in the current Gripen; it will be new stuff.

And until now Saab have been very good at upgrading: Hardware upgrades every 3 years and software upgrades 1-2 times a year. Seldom giant leaps, but small steps making sure that one is always two steps ahead of the latest the Russians are using. That's what's important for neutral Sweden, and perhaps that would also be good enough for Norway?


Some info about Gripen NG:

http://www.ntva.no/seminarer/manus/eddy-270207.pdf

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/JSF15_ERIC_GRIPEN_DEMOROLLOUT2008.pdf

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf


L

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 19:39
by loke
lamoey wrote:Loke,

Norway has lots of places to scatter any surviving assets in case of an attack. In my days in the RNoAF we practiced it regularly. I even have pictures on this site of such landings at Leknes.

Sweeden is a different soveraign nations with a history of not taking sides during conflicts, so they would probably be the last place we could go, if we wanted to continue the fight. Read your history man...

EU is dependant on Russian oil and gas and can't do anything or the lights go out. Russia have allreay demonstrated that ability

Things change... :)

Actually there are plans for much closer Nordic defence collaboration than ever before:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/dep/forsvarsminister_anne-grete_strom-erichs/taler_artikler/2008/forsterket-nordisk-forsvarssamarbeid-.html?id=535628

And the above may just be the beginning:

http://www.barentsobserver.com/barents-founding-father-takes-on-nordic-cooperation.4493046-58932.html

One of the things that are being discussed (but so far only informally) is actually to operate a common Norwegian/Swedish airbase. :)

Yes, we could also use scattered airfields in Norway. Gripen would be well suited for that as well, with a small logistic footprint, it was after all designed for the Swedish "BAS-90" concept.


Interestingly, Thorvald Stoltenberg will deliver his report on Nordic defence collaboration at roughly the same time as Norway will announce the winner of the fighter competition... But that's probably just a coincidence? Or will a "positive" report increase the chances of Gripen? Whereas a "negative" report will increase the chances of F-35? I am speculating here, but this is an internet forum so why not? :wink:


L

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 19:54
by lamoey
Thorvald Stoltenberg is the father of Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister. I would be surprised if the date of the two is not planned to coincide, as one gives away the others thunder, regardless what decision they make.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 21:27
by Corsair1963
Sorry, the Gripen is no more capable than a late model F-16 and possibly less. So, I personally see little gain from a performance aspect. As for economical viewpoint the Gripen NG likely has some advantages. That said, we are not talking about purchasing a new car. As military aircraft are for the defense of ones country. Also, while some bring it up. You never know what the future may bring as history has taught us over and over again. With Europe learning that lesson the hard way twice in the last century alone! Funny, by Norway purchasing the Gripen. Wouldn't it just be shoulder more of the defense burden on its Allies? Let's also not forget that Norway is obligated to the NATO Alliance. Which, means Norway may have to fight is some far away place not just in its own back yard.........If, Norway does purchase the Gripen. It could drive up the price of the F-35 that its neighbor will have to buy. The very same nations that Norway would count on in a time of crisis. Personally, I am not to sure they would be happy with such a decision...... :2c:

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 22:18
by F16guy
Regarding drag: Today's Gripen can reach Mach 1.1 "on a cold day" wearing one drop tank, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. I would not be surprised if a clean F-16 could do the same, but: 1) that would be a clean F-16 and 2) the F16 engines have much more thrust than the RM12 engine. Now, imagine that we replace the RM12 with F414 which has 22% more thrust. I don't think drag will be a big problem in an a2a config, and that's presumably when you need low drag?


F-16 isn't clean when we fly over the Mach in Mil power where I'm at. We always have a centerline store and missiles. Granted it is not a 'Go to War' config but we are able to get 1.05-06 with that config in level flight.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 22:33
by Casey
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, the Gripen is no more capable than a late model F-16 and possibly less. So, I personally see little gain from a performance aspect. As for economical viewpoint the Gripen NG likely has some advantages. That said, we are not talking about purchasing a new car. As military aircraft are for the defense of ones country. Also, while some bring it up. You never know what the future may bring as history has taught us over and over again. With Europe learning that lesson the hard way twice in the last century alone! Funny, by Norway purchasing the Gripen. Wouldn't it just be shoulder more of the defense burden on its Allies? Let's also not forget that Norway is obligated to the NATO Alliance. Which, means Norway may have to fight is some far away place not just in its own back yard.........If, Norway does purchase the Gripen. It could drive up the price of the F-35 that its neighbor will have to buy. The very same nations that Norway would count on in a time of crisis. Personally, I am not to sure they would be happy with such a decision...... :2c:


Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago. So your claim that Gripen is no more capable than the F-16 is obviously not correct. I guess your claim is a result of the usual traditional american nationalism. And all european nations cannot by the F-35, as someone will have to escort it on missions with threat from fighters, as the F-35, with its F-86-class performance, cannot take up the fight with modern fighters. And Norway need a multirole fighter that in the end may be forced to defend our country, not just participate on missions against rather primitive arab nations that can not fight against anything made after 1950.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 22:51
by Meteor
Casey wrote:Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago. So your claim that Gripen is no more capable than the F-16 is obviously not correct. I guess your claim is a result of the usual traditional american nationalism. And all european nations cannot by the F-35, as someone will have to escort it on missions with threat from fighters, as the F-35, with its F-86-class performance, cannot take up the fight with modern fighters. And Norway need a multirole fighter that in the end may be forced to defend our country, not just participate on missions against rather primitive arab nations that can not fight against anything made after 1950.


Don't bother to react, guys. Reasoned discussion and rational thought will not apply in this case...

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 23:11
by loke
F16guy wrote:
Regarding drag: Today's Gripen can reach Mach 1.1 "on a cold day" wearing one drop tank, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. I would not be surprised if a clean F-16 could do the same, but: 1) that would be a clean F-16 and 2) the F16 engines have much more thrust than the RM12 engine. Now, imagine that we replace the RM12 with F414 which has 22% more thrust. I don't think drag will be a big problem in an a2a config, and that's presumably when you need low drag?


F-16 isn't clean when we fly over the Mach in Mil power where I'm at. We always have a centerline store and missiles. Granted it is not a 'Go to War' config but we are able to get 1.05-06 with that config in level flight.

That's interesting, previous reports I have seen have talked about a clean F-16. What missiles are you talking about, BTW?

Can you also reach mach1.1 applying the mil power an RM12 would give you?


L

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 23:17
by Casey
Meteor wrote:
Casey wrote:Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago. So your claim that Gripen is no more capable than the F-16 is obviously not correct. I guess your claim is a result of the usual traditional american nationalism. And all european nations cannot by the F-35, as someone will have to escort it on missions with threat from fighters, as the F-35, with its F-86-class performance, cannot take up the fight with modern fighters. And Norway need a multirole fighter that in the end may be forced to defend our country, not just participate on missions against rather primitive arab nations that can not fight against anything made after 1950.


Don't bother to react, guys. Reasoned discussion and rational thought will not apply in this case...


Or: You missed the point completely!

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 23:43
by loke
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, the Gripen is no more capable than a late model F-16 and possibly less. So, I personally see little gain from a performance aspect. As for economical viewpoint the Gripen NG likely has some advantages. That said, we are not talking about purchasing a new car. As military aircraft are for the defense of ones country. Also, while some bring it up. You never know what the future may bring as history has taught us over and over again. With Europe learning that lesson the hard way twice in the last century alone! Funny, by Norway purchasing the Gripen. Wouldn't it just be shoulder more of the defense burden on its Allies? Let's also not forget that Norway is obligated to the NATO Alliance. Which, means Norway may have to fight is some far away place not just in its own back yard.........If, Norway does purchase the Gripen. It could drive up the price of the F-35 that its neighbor will have to buy. The very same nations that Norway would count on in a time of crisis. Personally, I am not to sure they would be happy with such a decision...... :2c:

I thought we were talking about Gripen NG and not present-day Gripen. Or do you think that NG will be less capable than F-16? Would you care to explain why?

Regarding your other comment:

Some of today's NATO members have no aircrafts at all!

Other prominent members (e.g. Germany and France) have no plans to purchase F-35 but seem to plan on relying on 3. gen and 4. gen a/c for the foreseable future

Also consider that Norway can offer capabilities that many other NATO members don't have. For instance submarines. We also have frigates specially developed to operate in arctic environments.

One example: NATO member Denmark currently have no submarines. Let's say Denmark buys F-35 and Norway buys Gripen. The money we save we spend on new submarines, so we keep our submarine fleet.

In a future conflict Denmark can contribute F-35, whereas Norway can contribute subs. And Gripen, for that matter. I don't see why Gripen NG not will be able to do the tasks F-16 currently do today? I would not fly above double-digit SAMs with a 4.gen fighter, but that is a rather limited world view I think. Once those are taken out 4.gen fighter jets can contribute a lot just like today.

Norway also contributes with special forces, like in Afghanistan right now. The US seems to appreciate that...

Do you want us to get rid of our subs and our special forces and rather buy F-35? Do you really think a handful of F-35 is going to make a huge difference to a military organization that will have thousands of the aircrafts? And why?

Also, your idea about Norway not buying 48 F-35 will drive up the price... is probably not based in reality. If the US should reduce their numbers -- now that may have an impact. But cutting 48 a/c from an estimated total of more than 3000 will not affect the price.

Finally: I mentioned Germany (Typhoon) and France (Rafale) above. In particular the Typhoon has been an unbelivable money sink. Money that could have been spent much more wisely. Gripen is actually very cost-effective.


L

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 06:49
by geogen
Note to the RNoAF..

IMHO, go with a future tactical aircraft which as a primary design specification, can operate from roadways and short runways.

In any hypothetical future major combat involving super-power adversaries, your main runways will be some of the first to go as you're just in the way. Sorry..

Best to create an entire spec-ops logistics strategy, enabling mobile refueling, maintenance and re-arming (for all squadrons) at any major highway across the country, within 6-12 hrs alert.

That would triple the deterrence value of your future tactical air power over-night.

Furthermore, perhaps Sweden and Norway could jointly develop/procure an anti-cruise-missile early warning high-altitude airship platform (on station 24/7). These could also be armed possibly with NCADE, SM-2 class, or Meteor variants for anti-cruise missile intercept. The strategic message being given: Please don't attempt to embolden one's national militancy objectives and geo-strategic propaganda points at our expense.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 07:40
by F16guy
Can't guess what a RM12 would give the F-16. Carrying a 9m, Electronic instrumentation pod for debrief, ECM Pod or centerline 300 gal tank.


Casey. Wow, F-86 class flying characteristics? I don't even know where to begin and its not worth it.
By the way, for someone who is not nationalistic or europe-centric nice jab at your friends from across the pond. Well, I hope we are your friends.

Oh and I know some times we often beat the USA is Number 1 drum too loudly.

I'll be forthright and say the 39 is a nice plane and has good capes and it will get better. I just don't expect it to have to escort the F-35, unless the mission where the two planes are utilized calls for decoys.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 08:23
by Casey
F16guy wrote:Casey. Wow, F-86 class flying characteristics? I don't even know where to begin and its not worth it.
By the way, for someone who is not nationalistic or europe-centric nice jab at your friends from across the pond. Well, I hope we are your friends.

Oh and I know some times we often beat the USA is Number 1 drum too loudly.

I'll be forthright and say the 39 is a nice plane and has good capes and it will get better. I just don't expect it to have to escort the F-35, unless the mission where the two planes are utilized calls for decoys.


Read my last post once again.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 09:40
by F16guy
Sorry dude, re read it several times, but I'm still no smarter.

If you are employing sarcasm one of three things happened: it was stripped away on its path from your computer to the F-16.net server. I'm incapable of detecting it since I have no sense of humor, or I'm incapable of detecting it since I have no sense of humor.

I'm just happy to be able to type, really.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 13:57
by dwightlooi
Casey wrote:Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago. So your claim that Gripen is no more capable than the F-16 is obviously not correct. I guess your claim is a result of the usual traditional american nationalism. And all european nations cannot by the F-35, as someone will have to escort it on missions with threat from fighters, as the F-35, with its F-86-class performance, cannot take up the fight with modern fighters. And Norway need a multirole fighter that in the end may be forced to defend our country, not just participate on missions against rather primitive arab nations that can not fight against anything made after 1950.


Are you trolling?

(1) The F-35A's performance with a full A2A warload can best be described as being similar to an F-16 or F-18 with zero external stores or pylons and better than either with any kind of a practical combat load. This includes achievable combat speeds, acceleration, climb and agility. This IS actually a design requirement -- to match or exceed F-16/18 performance in all respects while reducing RCS 1000 fold and extending range by a margin of 1.8~2.5x.

(2) If you believe that this is somehow akin to an F-86. I don't think there is much anyone can or should say to you...

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 14:28
by loke
Casey wrote:Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago.


I find this to be very interesting...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/d04900.pdf

Look at figure 2 on page 11. Now, if I did my math correctly the gap from F/A-18 to SH block 1 was estimated to 64%, from SH block I to SH block II 106%(!) and from SH block II to F-35 a mere 54%. The jump from F-18 to SH block II was 237%.

The jump in capabilities seems to be bigger from F-18 to SH than from SH to F-35.


I think that a combination of low RCS and effective ESW, together with updates all the other bits and pieces (IRST, HMI, MAWs) supplemented by modern missiles (IRIS-T, Meteor, etc) can prolong the lifes of 4.5 gen a/cs like Superhornet and Gripen NG. They will never become "5. gen" but then again they will most likely meet a/c at that levels in the foreseeable future.




L

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 16:34
by johnwill
Loke wrote:
Look at figure 2 on page 11. Now, if I did my math correctly the gap from F/A-18 to SH block 1 was estimated to 64%, from SH block I to SH block II 106%(!) and from SH block II to F-35 a mere 54%. The jump from F-18 to SH block II was 237%.

The jump in capabilities seems to be bigger from F-18 to SH than from SH to F-35.


Not true! In absolute terms (the ones that really count) the increment from SH II to F-35 is the largest of all the increments shown. The percentage jumps you list all have different bases, so are invalid comparisons. That's a simple advertising agency trick, but it won't work here.


For example, the jump from SH I to SH II is shown as 106% and the jump from SH II to F-35 is 54%, so it must be less, right? NO!! The 106% is 106% of 0.316, but the 54% is 54% of 0.65. :nono:

If you are comparing the jump from F-18C/D to SH II with the jump from SH II to F-35, also invalid. To be a valid comparison, you should compare it with an F-35 "Block II" ten years down the road. :nono:

Another point - the reason the jump from F-18C/D to SH "seems" impressive is that the F-18 is so poor, not that the SH is so wonderful. :nono:

I don't care at all if you want to criticize the F-35. However, please try to use logical arguments, not ad agency fluff.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 17:08
by andreas77
There is nothing wrong with Lokes analysis, its just basic facts. If you compare relative difference thats the numbers you end up with, nothing to point fingers about. And why should we judge the F-35 performance based a non-existing version nobody knows anything about?

And how does LMs "400% better than anything else" fit with that figure...?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 17:19
by loke
johnwill wrote:Loke wrote:
Look at figure 2 on page 11. Now, if I did my math correctly the gap from F/A-18 to SH block 1 was estimated to 64%, from SH block I to SH block II 106%(!) and from SH block II to F-35 a mere 54%. The jump from F-18 to SH block II was 237%.

The jump in capabilities seems to be bigger from F-18 to SH than from SH to F-35.


Not true! In absolute terms (the ones that really count) the increment from SH II to F-35 is the largest of all the increments shown. The percentage jumps you list all have different bases, so are invalid comparisons. That's a simple advertising agency trick, but it won't work here.


For example, the jump from SH I to SH II is shown as 106% and the jump from SH II to F-35 is 54%, so it must be less, right? NO!! The 106% is 106% of 0.316, but the 54% is 54% of 0.65. :nono:

If you are comparing the jump from F-18C/D to SH II with the jump from SH II to F-35, also invalid. To be a valid comparison, you should compare it with an F-35 "Block II" ten years down the road. :nono:

Another point - the reason the jump from F-18C/D to SH "seems" impressive is that the F-18 is so poor, not that the SH is so wonderful. :nono:

I don't care at all if you want to criticize the F-35. However, please try to use logical arguments, not ad agency fluff.

Well, I think it is interesting to look at the "gap" from one generation to the next. One way of doing it is to do the simple calculations that I did. If you don't like it, fine, you made your point abundantly clear.

It does not change the fact that according to the GAO analysis the F-18 user would experience a plane that is "100% more capable" when switching from F-18 to SH whereas the SH block II user will experience a plane that is "50% more capable" when switching from SH 2 to F-35. I think that is a very interesting observation. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

The Finns seem to be quite happy with their F-18s, by the way.

Edit: It was not really my intention to sound so negative towards the F-35, actually the part I found most interesting with the GAO analysis was that it seems to indicate that SH is a very, very capable plane. Although I may be wrong..


L

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 17:42
by Casey
dwightlooi wrote:
Casey wrote:Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago. So your claim that Gripen is no more capable than the F-16 is obviously not correct. I guess your claim is a result of the usual traditional american nationalism. And all european nations cannot by the F-35, as someone will have to escort it on missions with threat from fighters, as the F-35, with its F-86-class performance, cannot take up the fight with modern fighters. And Norway need a multirole fighter that in the end may be forced to defend our country, not just participate on missions against rather primitive arab nations that can not fight against anything made after 1950.


Are you trolling?

(1) The F-35A's performance with a full A2A warload can best be described as being similar to an F-16 or F-18 with zero external stores or pylons and better than either with any kind of a practical combat load. This includes achievable combat speeds, acceleration, climb and agility. This IS actually a design requirement -- to match or exceed F-16/18 performance in all respects while reducing RCS 1000 fold and extending range by a margin of 1.8~2.5x.

(2) If you believe that this is somehow akin to an F-86. I don't think there is much anyone can or should say to you...


You completely missed the point with my answere to Corsair1963. Try read Corsair1963's post again, then read my reply to him.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 19:52
by loke
dwightlooi wrote:
Casey wrote:Norwegian F-16-pilots I spoke to said they were not much of a threat to Swedish Gripen pilots during an exercise some months ago. So your claim that Gripen is no more capable than the F-16 is obviously not correct. I guess your claim is a result of the usual traditional american nationalism. And all european nations cannot by the F-35, as someone will have to escort it on missions with threat from fighters, as the F-35, with its F-86-class performance, cannot take up the fight with modern fighters. And Norway need a multirole fighter that in the end may be forced to defend our country, not just participate on missions against rather primitive arab nations that can not fight against anything made after 1950.


Are you trolling?


Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, the Gripen is no more capable than a late model F-16 and possibly less. So, I personally see little gain from a performance aspect. As for economical viewpoint the Gripen NG likely has some advantages. That said, we are not talking about purchasing a new car. As military aircraft are for the defense of ones country. Also, while some bring it up. You never know what the future may bring as history has taught us over and over again. With Europe learning that lesson the hard way twice in the last century alone! Funny, by Norway purchasing the Gripen. Wouldn't it just be shoulder more of the defense burden on its Allies? Let's also not forget that Norway is obligated to the NATO Alliance. Which, means Norway may have to fight is some far away place not just in its own back yard.........If, Norway does purchase the Gripen. It could drive up the price of the F-35 that its neighbor will have to buy. The very same nations that Norway would count on in a time of crisis. Personally, I am not to sure they would be happy with such a decision...... :2c:


Is Corsair1963 trolling?


L

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 20:11
by johnwill
Casey, it seems many people miss your points. Could it be your points are extremely obtuse and obscure?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 20:38
by johnwill
Loke wrote:
Well, I think it is interesting to look at the "gap" from one generation to the next. One way of doing it is to do the simple calculations that I did. If you don't like it, fine, you made your point abundantly clear.


Of course, it's interesting to look at the gap. It is what it is. I don't like it or dislike it. I'm saying that your interpretation of the chart is not valid, that's all. I'm a stickler for accuracy in data interpretation. Your intrepretation reminds me of Mark Twain's thoughts on lies (please, I'm not calling you a liar).


Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." :lol:

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 20:52
by loke
johnwill wrote:Loke wrote:
Well, I think it is interesting to look at the "gap" from one generation to the next. One way of doing it is to do the simple calculations that I did. If you don't like it, fine, you made your point abundantly clear.


Of course, it's interesting to look at the gap. It is what it is. I don't like it or dislike it. I'm saying that your interpretation of the chart is not valid, that's all. I'm a stickler for accuracy in data interpretation. Your intrepretation reminds me of Mark Twain's thoughts on lies (please, I'm not calling you a liar).


Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." :lol:

OK:

Joe The Plumber makes 100 000 dollars a year and increases his salary by 5000.

Barack makes 1 million dollars a year and increases his salary by 50,000.



Which of the following statements are not valid:

1. JTP increases his salary by 5%
2. B increases his salary by 5%
3. JTP increases his salary by 5000 dollars
4 B increases his salary by 50,000 dollars

Edit: To expand this a little. lets say JTP gets a 10% increase and B gets a 5% increase. Now, which statements are valid:

A. JTP gets a 10% increase, vs B's 5% increase -- JTP gets a bigger jump in his salary than B*

B. JTP gets 10,000 dollars increase, vs B's 50,000 dollar increase, B increases his salary by mor than JTP**


* implicitly understood: in relative terms

** implicitly understood: in absolute terms.

It should be well known and understood to the educated reader that both approaches are equally valid and conveys different types of information.


L

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 21:16
by Casey
johnwill wrote:Casey, it seems many people miss your points. Could it be your points are extremely obtuse and obscure?


Loke got it spot on.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 22:42
by johnwill
Wrong again, Loke. In your excellent examples, you compare only one stage of increase in salary. Let me expand your example.

Joe the plumber makes $100,000 per year. He gets a $20,000 raise. That is a 20% increase, to $120,000. Then he gets a $22,000 raise. That is only an 18.3% raise. You say the first raise is bigger (20% vs 18.3%). I say the second raise is bigger ($22,000 vs $20,000). One doesn't spend percentages, one spends dollars.

That is the kind of comparison you are using in the F-18 - SH - F-35 case. In your original post, you used only a case (A) comparison (JTP gets a 10% increase, vs B's 5% increase -- JTP gets a bigger jump in his salary than B) . Different types of information indeed.

I'm pleased the Finns are happy with their F-18s. I said they were so poor because they represented a regression of capability compared to the F-14 (in your chart), although they were developed about 10 years later. You may say they were less expensive than the F-14 (then year dollars), but then you'd have to factor in the relative costs of the SH and F-35 too. I don't think you want to go there.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 02:04
by energo
loke wrote:I think that a combination of low RCS and effective ESW, together with updates all the other bits and pieces (IRST, HMI, MAWs) supplemented by modern missiles (IRIS-T, Meteor, etc) can prolong the lifes of 4.5 gen a/cs like Superhornet and Gripen NG. They will never become "5. gen" but then again they will most likely meet a/c at that levels in the foreseeable future.


One reason the US branches do not wan't more 4. gen fighters is the lack of survivability from unknown theatre threats. You might be able to deal with the ones you know are there, but - as in good tradition - the one who has the element of surprise usually wins the fight. The F-35 maintains that advantage whether it's on the first day of the battle, or the 10th.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 02:18
by energo
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:
johnwill wrote:Casey, your insight into the maneuver capability of the F-35 is amazing. Can you tell us the source of this insight??

The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies.


Actually, the requirement called for a mach 1.5 dash capability whereas the objective was mach 1.6. The F-35 meets or exceeds many of the set objectives, including accelleration, top-end dash speed and AOA performance.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 03:07
by Corsair1963
energo wrote:
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:
johnwill wrote:Casey, your insight into the maneuver capability of the F-35 is amazing. Can you tell us the source of this insight??

The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies.


Actually, the requirement called for a mach 1.5 dash capability whereas the objective was mach 1.6. The F-35 meets or exceeds many of the set objectives, including accelleration, top-end dash speed and AOA performance.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo


Do you have a source for the mach 1.5 dash capability???

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 04:01
by Meteor
Once again on the F-35 pricing subject...

This was from LM on the price of the Israeli F-35I:

Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice president and general manager of the JSF program, estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in 2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected 2014 dollars.

The article goes on to say that the total program cost for 75 Israeli F-35s will work out to almost $200 million per aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3823104

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 04:34
by Corsair1963
Meteor wrote:Once again on the F-35 pricing subject...

This was from LM on the price of the Israeli F-35I:

Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice president and general manager of the JSF program, estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in 2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected 2014 dollars.

The article goes on to say that the total program cost for 75 Israeli F-35s will work out to almost $200 million per aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3823104


The rather large price hike is because of all the goodie Israel wants to add to the F-35. Which, has nothing to do with your standard F-35 that most nations will receive...........As a matter of fact the components are of Israeli origin. :shock:


Maybe they should consider buying off the rack.......... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 04:56
by energo
Corsair1963 wrote:
energo wrote:
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:The F-35 has a top speed of 1.6 mach because that's what the requirement specifies.


Actually, the requirement called for a mach 1.5 dash capability whereas the objective was mach 1.6. The F-35 meets or exceeds many of the set objectives, including accelleration, top-end dash speed and AOA performance.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo


Do you have a source for the mach 1.5 dash capability???


The 2001 JSF Operational Requirements Document. More precisely it defined a requirement for a mach 1.5 dash at +30000 feet.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 06:40
by geogen
Meteor wrote:Once again on the F-35 pricing subject...

This was from LM on the price of the Israeli F-35I:

Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice president and general manager of the JSF program, estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in 2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected 2014 dollars.

The article goes on to say that the total program cost for 75 Israeli F-35s will work out to almost $200 million per aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3823104


MoD needs to chill out IMHO. LM is talking about $80 unit flyaway. The $200m/unit is about the total program cost estimate, including Infrastructure, training, parts, etc, and as Corsair said: the 'Israeli unique-sovereign modifications'. Infrastructure portion alone should be substantial?

Personally, if it comes down to UK not getting full tech-transfer rights, I would support them making a similar, sovereign 'UK-unique' software/avionic model order... (Assuming extra costs)

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 14:17
by Conan
Casey wrote:
Or: You missed the point completely!


You have NO point.

All you've demonstrated is a complete lack of ANY knowledge whatsoever of modern air combat aircraft.

Congratulations.

Go and do some reading and come back once you can actually make a point and justify it.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 14:21
by Casey
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:
Or: You missed the point completely!


You have NO point.

All you've demonstrated is a complete lack of ANY knowledge whatsoever of modern air combat aircraft.

Congratulations.

Go and do some reading and come back once you can actually make a point and justify it.


You can't read at all, can you?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 14:23
by Conan
loke wrote:
The Finns seem to be quite happy with their F-18s, by the way.

Edit: It was not really my intention to sound so negative towards the F-35, actually the part I found most interesting with the GAO analysis was that it seems to indicate that SH is a very, very capable plane. Although I may be wrong..


L


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

VERY happy with them...

But then, show me a Hornet user that ISN'T happy with their current generation Hornets?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 16:26
by lamoey
The comparison between Hornets, SH's and F-35 is interesting, and probably a well ballanced and considered judgement, but more interesting is where would the G-NG fall in the graph. Personally I would expect it to fall between SH block I and block II. Any takers?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 16:45
by Beazz
Norway picks U.S plane over Swedish competitor
Thursday November 20, 2008 10:34:06 EST
OSLO, Nov 20 (Reuters) - The Norwegian government said on Thursday that it would pick Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over Swedish Saab's Gripen to replace its ageing F-16 war planes. (Reporting by Aasa Christine Stoltz and Terje Solsvik) Keywords: NORWAY FIGHTERPLANE/ (aasachristine.stoltz@reuters.com; +47 22 93 69 02; Reuters messaging: rm://aasachristine.stoltz.reuters.com@reuters.net)



COPYRIGHT

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 16:46
by Meteor
lamoey wrote:The comparison between Hornets, SH's and F-35 is interesting, and probably a well ballanced and considered judgement, but more interesting is where would the G-NG fall in the graph. Personally I would expect it to fall between SH block I and block II. Any takers?


The reason that the Gripen NG is not included is because the F-18A/B/C/D/E/F and the F-35B/C can all land on an aircraft carrier. The Gripen can't, thus the it's kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

The F-18E/F was designed more than 10 years ago. It's mission was to replace the A-6E, since the original A-12 replacement was cancelled. The resultant airplane is a large, heavy, large payload, carrier capable, strike aircraft with a pretty good air-to-air capability and a two-man cockpit.

The Gripen NG is being designed today for operational service 10 years from now. It is a lightweight, small, non-carrier capable, single-seat, agile air-to-air machine with decent air-to-ground capability.

I think that comparing the Gripen NG and the F-18E/F is sort of like comparing the F-16 and the F-15E; they're both good aircraft, but not really comparable.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 16:52
by Meteor

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 17:33
by muir
Funny thing, according to Swedish media the total expenditure for the F-35 is 6 billion less than the Gripen.

edit: That would roughly be a bit less than 1 billion dollars.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 17:48
by lamoey
NORWAY HAS CHOOSEN F-35. DISCUSSION OVER. THANKS EVERYBODY

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 22:32
by observer
Conan wrote:
loke wrote:
The Finns seem to be quite happy with their F-18s, by the way.

Edit: It was not really my intention to sound so negative towards the F-35, actually the part I found most interesting with the GAO analysis was that it seems to indicate that SH is a very, very capable plane. Although I may be wrong..


L


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

VERY happy with them...

But then, show me a Hornet user that ISN'T happy with their current generation Hornets?


One of the reasons Finns Hornet choice was the they use widened highways as emergency and wartime bases and F/A-18 is carrier fighter with landing hook and Finnnish F/A-18 has those and in order to use those short strips.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 23:32
by Corsair1963
observer wrote:
Conan wrote:
loke wrote:
The Finns seem to be quite happy with their F-18s, by the way.

Edit: It was not really my intention to sound so negative towards the F-35, actually the part I found most interesting with the GAO analysis was that it seems to indicate that SH is a very, very capable plane. Although I may be wrong..


L


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

VERY happy with them...

But then, show me a Hornet user that ISN'T happy with their current generation Hornets?


One of the reasons Finns Hornet choice was the they use widened highways as emergency and wartime bases and F/A-18 is carrier fighter with landing hook and Finnnish F/A-18 has those and in order to use those short strips.



Sorry, most Western Landbased Fighters have arresting gear to use on runways or roads for emergency landings................Including such types as the F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, etc. etc. etc. 8)

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 03:46
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.
Welcome to the boards.. but your way wrong.

The F-35 will be replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, and others. Did you notice all the fighters that it will be replacing?

While the US will be using it in a secondary role (like the F-15 / F-16 roles), all the international partners, with the possible exception of the UK, will use it as their top of the line A2A fighter. It will be able to do anything a F-16 can do... only better.


Evidently, as Norway just selected the F-35..................Who's next! :lol:

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 05:45
by Raptor_claw
lamoey wrote:NORWAY HAS CHOOSEN F-35. DISCUSSION OVER. THANKS EVERYBODY
"Discussion over"???
You would think so, wouldn't you? Perhaps you haven't noticed the re-activated "YF-22 vs YF-23" thread. A competition that has been over for almost 20 years. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 15:16
by Conan
Casey wrote:
Conan wrote:
Casey wrote:
Or: You missed the point completely!


You have NO point.

All you've demonstrated is a complete lack of ANY knowledge whatsoever of modern air combat aircraft.

Congratulations.

Go and do some reading and come back once you can actually make a point and justify it.


You can't read at all, can you?


No...

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 19:02
by lamoey
Raptor_claw wrote:
lamoey wrote:NORWAY HAS CHOOSEN F-35. DISCUSSION OVER. THANKS EVERYBODY
"Discussion over"???
You would think so, wouldn't you? Perhaps you haven't noticed the re-activated "YF-22 vs YF-23" thread. A competition that has been over for almost 20 years. :roll:


You are by all means correct, but as far as the reason I started this thread, that discussion is now purely academical.

I must say it has been a good thread though. Lots of insight from people on both sides of the issue, som serious, some to outrage and some just stupid.

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 19:30
by nam11b
Just a quick touch of math. 48 A/C at 2.5 billion is roughly 52 million a piece. Not a bad price for 5th gen fighters. I wonder if that will be a realistic flyaway cost per airplane

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 03:06
by lamoey
nam11b wrote:Just a quick touch of math. 48 A/C at 2.5 billion is roughly 52 million a piece. Not a bad price for 5th gen fighters. I wonder if that will be a realistic flyaway cost per airplane


Using the date of the report that the goverment based their decision on, and the exchange rate that day the price per copy, for 48 F-35, is $57 million.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 04:46
by Corsair1963
observer wrote:
Conan wrote:
loke wrote:
The Finns seem to be quite happy with their F-18s, by the way.

Edit: It was not really my intention to sound so negative towards the F-35, actually the part I found most interesting with the GAO analysis was that it seems to indicate that SH is a very, very capable plane. Although I may be wrong..


L


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

VERY happy with them...

But then, show me a Hornet user that ISN'T happy with their current generation Hornets?


One of the reasons Finns Hornet choice was the they use widened highways as emergency and wartime bases and F/A-18 is carrier fighter with landing hook and Finnnish F/A-18 has those and in order to use those short strips.



I wonder what model of the F-35 Finland is interested in???

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2013, 20:29
by gtx

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2013, 21:56
by lamoey


That guy believes his own BS

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2013, 22:00
by spazsinbad
The silliness continues in the 6.5Mb PDF made available from the site: http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/f-35-brief

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2013, 22:32
by gtx
Yeah, some of these are really pathetic. They actually do a dis-service to the aircraft they are trying to promote. If I was SAAB I would be trying to shut up some of these fools since they don't do the Gripen any favours.

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 02:09
by JetTest
Just what every modern fighter needs, stealthy "chimes". Quite an entertaining read. A true expert analysis...

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 03:12
by count_to_10
JetTest wrote:Just what every modern fighter needs, stealthy "chimes". Quite an entertaining read. A true expert analysis...

Particularly when you get to things like "internal weapon's carriage adds drag" or the Grippen has high maneuverability but the F-35 doesn't.

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 09:49
by gtx
The scary thing IMHO is that there are people out there who think this was a very valid and strong argument for the Gripen.

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 10:00
by gtx

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 06:08
by grinner68
count_to_10 wrote:
JetTest wrote:Just what every modern fighter needs, stealthy "chimes". Quite an entertaining read. A true expert analysis...

Particularly when you get to things like "internal weapon's carriage adds drag" or the Grippen has high maneuverability but the F-35 doesn't.


So what is the current F-35's maximum sustained turn rate?

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 10:56
by spazsinbad
Probably you will enjoy reading this blogpost then?

The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change 17 Apr 2013 SMSgt Mac
"PART 1 Introduction
I can’t remember when I saw so many media outlets, bloggers, and just general ‘people’ with their panties in a wad over something they didn’t really understand ..."

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -spec.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 18:42
by bigjku
grinner68 wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
JetTest wrote:Just what every modern fighter needs, stealthy "chimes". Quite an entertaining read. A true expert analysis...

Particularly when you get to things like "internal weapon's carriage adds drag" or the Grippen has high maneuverability but the F-35 doesn't.


So what is the current F-35's maximum sustained turn rate?


What is the maximum sustained turn rate of the Gripen in a go to war configuration? A clean one? Link please.

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 20:58
by neurotech
I joke that a Gripen NG comes with a Space Shuttle External Tank :D The F-35 is sustained turn rate is about 5Gs from what I recall. Not airshow F-16 beating, but at combat loads, its respectable, compared to a loaded F-16C.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2013, 08:39
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:
observer wrote:
Conan wrote:
loke wrote:
The Finns seem to be quite happy with their F-18s, by the way.

Edit: It was not really my intention to sound so negative towards the F-35, actually the part I found most interesting with the GAO analysis was that it seems to indicate that SH is a very, very capable plane. Although I may be wrong..


L


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

VERY happy with them...

But then, show me a Hornet user that ISN'T happy with their current generation Hornets?


One of the reasons Finns Hornet choice was the they use widened highways as emergency and wartime bases and F/A-18 is carrier fighter with landing hook and Finnnish F/A-18 has those and in order to use those short strips.



I wonder what model of the F-35 Finland is interested in???


Sorry to reply to this only about five years late, but I just noticed this. I bet that Finland would be most interested in the A-version although other versions would have some very useful features to us also. The reason I think F-35A version would be preferred is simply the cost as it is the cheapest version to buy and operate. We have very much smaller defense budget than for example Norway which is buying only 52 F-35As. We might have money for about half of that (somewhere between 25-40 aircraft is my bet, if the financial situation doesn't change much) and buying more expensive versions (B or C) would reduce even that.

Actually thinking this through, the proposed F-35A version for Canada and Norway with drag chute might be the best fit for Finnish requirements. It will definitely have somewhat longer landing distance than our current Hornets landing on wire, but still short enough I think.

Both B and C would have many good qualities for dispersed operations, but I think they might be too costly for the added capabilities. C has folding wings for shorter wingspan, but A and B are also very compact aircraft (pretty close to F-16 or Saab Viggen which Sweden has used in dispersed operations), so the folding wings might not be very necessary. C model could be used with arresting wires like current Hornets and has strengthened landing gear to allow more violent short distance landings. Of course B model has the best landing (and takeoff) capability, but would be more expensive which would mean lesser numbers. think A version with drag chute would be good enough in every respect and cost issues would lead to buying it rather than any other version.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 18:12
by aaam
Interestingly, until the USMC was directed to reduce its buy of Bs and order Cs, the C was teh most expensive version.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 11:09
by zero-one
came across this link written by Picard578 (seems familliar)
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... n-vs-f-35/

Picard578 wrote:F-35's basic configuration is similar to F-16, however lack of LERX, and use of lower-performance but stealth-friendly chimes for high AoA lift enhancement, means that it will have far less body lift than F-16 to help compensate for its high wing loading, and wing lift will also be smaller at high AoA. Result will be (for a modern fighter) disastrous turn rate.

Further, it has internal carriage, which adds drag compared to low-drag AAMs and pylons, and its far higher weight also means more inertia that has to be overcome.

Gripen is, on the other hand, built for maneuverability. Close-coupled canards, wing-body blending, and wing shape all help increase lift during maneuvers, allowing aircraft to both achieve higher angles of attack, and to turn tighter at same angle of attack. Particularly canards create vortices that reattach air flow to the wing at high angles of attack. Aside from helping air flow over the wing, Gripen’s canards also help air flow over the body. Canard also has advantage over tail as the control surface – as center of gravity for modern aircraft is towards rear of the aircraft, usage of canard results in longer moment arm than it is case with tail. Further, Gripen has large degree of wing-body blending, and it’s wing loading is also far lower than that of F-35.

While thrust-to-weight ratio is below 1 for both aircraft, Gripen has far lower drag than F-35, partly compensating for F-35s superior thrust-to-weight ratio. While F-35 achieves maximum of Mach 1,6, clean or not, Gripen can achieve speeds of over Mach 2 clean


Are his points Valid?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 12:18
by cantaz
Mostly the same BS half truths Mac already disspelled in his multipart write up.

Patrick guy doesn't distinguish between instantaneous and sustained turns and why they matter, talks about wing blending and shaping for the Gripen but doesn't give F-35 credit for having the same, clearly has a delta fetish, talks about excessive AoA without justifying why it matters, same for a useless higher clean speed.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 12:26
by popcorn
Never knew internal carriage added drag :roll:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 12:44
by enrico
It does, for half the mission distance. Doy.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 13:01
by hornetfinn
No, they are not. Chines (not chimes) are not lower-performance compared to LERX. Hell, F-22 has chines and definitely has excellent high AoA capabilities. F-35 has higher AoA limits than JAS Gripen (50 vs. 28), although there are claims that Gripen now has about the same AoA capabilties than F-35 when both are clean. According to aerodynamics publications, both LEX/LERX and chines have very good vortex generation properties. As far as I understand, chines are more complex to implement but can generate more lift at low AoA and of course are more stealth friendly.

His point that F-35 has more weight and more inertia to overcome is of course correct, but then what? F-22 has much more weight and has excellent maneuverability.

I really doubt Gripen has lower comparative drag than F-35 in most combat configurations. In some light air-to-air configurations it might be possible.

If you follow the link, most of the stuff there is pretty much crap. He claims F-35A costs 197 million USD flyaway and Gripen C costs only 40 million. Thus he thinks that one could field 5 times the number of Gripens than F-35s... He also claims that Gripen has far lower IR and visual signature, but naturally not providing any evidence for this claim.

Of course he also claims that Gripen NG, EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale are all equally 5th generation as F-22 and F-35...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 14:11
by mk82
Geez Zero One...I think you know the answer to your own question! That Picard dude did a great job promoting the Gripen....it has less than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.....wow that Gripen is the bomb (yeah I know, he was probably referring to a combat/strike configured Gripen...still)!!!!! Picard must also be living on a magical planet where the air can flow through solid objects (internal carriage adds drag....really!?) Hate to see how much drag is induced by EFTs, TGPs and external ordnance on his planet!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 14:32
by zero-one
mk82 wrote:Geez Zero One...I think you know the answer to your own question! !


I remember now why this name was so familiar, "Picard578" was the same guy who posted the Rafale vs F-35 video on youtube.

We had a lengthy debate on the 2 planes kinematic performance.

My Stand: The F-35 is comparable to the Rafale in some asspects like in T/W ratio when both are loaded with the same weight. Superior in others like in high AOA performance and departure resistance/recovery. and slightly inferior on some asspects like sustained turn performance specially at high altitude.

His stand: that the F-35 is the worst performing aircraft in modern history and putting it in the same sentence as the mighty Eurocanards is an insult.

He said that the Vorticies produced by the chines of the F-35 are relatively weak and bubbles formed in water tunnel testing causing the vorticies to fail.

When I countered with the F-22, he said that the F-22 has inheritly lower wing loading to begin with and does not need to rely as much on Chines for aditional lift.

As uswal you can't state pilot claims with these guys as they think Pilot's will say anything for a few more bucks on their paycheck.

Anyway, just wanted to get your oppinion at his claim that the Vorticies produced by the Chines are weak and does not contribute much to lift unlike Canards or LERX.

Thanks.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 16:19
by XanderCrews
enrico wrote:It does, for half the mission distance. Doy.


True, he also doesn't mention bombs though, which the last 30 years have been what come off the airplane in the middle part with the AAMs remaining on board about 99.99 percent of the time.

The Gripen NG is an F-5/F-20 class airplane. there is nothing wrong with that, its just when people think its going to "punch above it weight" and compete with middle weights and heavier fighters is where things start to get --> :roll:

No one is going to doubt the maneuverability and quickness of an F-5/F-20. Its great for dogfight practice, we weren't rattle bombing the aggressors gray and sending them to the front in the 90s and 00s though. Canada has experience with F-5s as well which is what all the Gripens for Canada fanboys forget. The RCAF has been there done that already.

BTW telling a gripen fan that a Gripen, even an advanced model is basically an F-5 or F-20 will create a kind of Fanboy incredible hulk of tears and rage.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 04:51
by mk82
Zero one, I think Hornetfinn has given you a very good answer. I would not waste my time with this Picard character who obviously does not know much about the F35's aerodynamic characteristics (for example - the F35 has quite a substancial blended body wing design which most armchair "experts" fail to realise) and talks out of his **** alot of the time!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 14:13
by enrico
Sure, a supercruising F-5 with Meteor, AESA, IRST, serious EW...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 14:51
by hornetfinn
enrico wrote:Sure, a supercruising F-5 with Meteor, AESA, IRST, serious EW...


Well, that is not very impressive when JAS Gripen NG enters service. Calling it a modern F-20 is pretty close to reality with JAS Gripen A-D being pretty much modern day F-5 (although not nearly as popular). F-20 also had pretty good avionics and was otherwise pretty good small fighter, but limited by the small size and being too late to market.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 15:15
by mixelflick
hornetfinn wrote:
enrico wrote:Sure, a supercruising F-5 with Meteor, AESA, IRST, serious EW...


Well, that is not very impressive when JAS Gripen NG enters service. Calling it a modern F-20 is pretty close to reality with JAS Gripen A-D being pretty much modern day F-5 (although not nearly as popular). F-20 also had pretty good avionics and was otherwise pretty good small fighter, but limited by the small size and being too late to market.


I don't think this is accurate, note even close IMO. A super-cruising F-5 with AESA, IRST and meteor doesn't even exist, except on paper somewhere.

Correct?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 16:40
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
enrico wrote:Sure, a supercruising F-5 with Meteor, AESA, IRST, serious EW...


Well, that is not very impressive when JAS Gripen NG enters service. Calling it a modern F-20 is pretty close to reality with JAS Gripen A-D being pretty much modern day F-5 (although not nearly as popular). F-20 also had pretty good avionics and was otherwise pretty good small fighter, but limited by the small size and being too late to market.


I don't think this is accurate, note even close IMO. A super-cruising F-5 with AESA, IRST and meteor doesn't even exist, except on paper somewhere.

Correct?


Ask yourself why that is. :wink:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 20:27
by neurotech
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Well, that is not very impressive when JAS Gripen NG enters service. Calling it a modern F-20 is pretty close to reality with JAS Gripen A-D being pretty much modern day F-5 (although not nearly as popular). F-20 also had pretty good avionics and was otherwise pretty good small fighter, but limited by the small size and being too late to market.


I don't think this is accurate, note even close IMO. A super-cruising F-5 with AESA, IRST and meteor doesn't even exist, except on paper somewhere.

Correct?


Ask yourself why that is. :wink:

Because supercruise endurance of a F-5 sized fighter would be quite short, probably measured in minutes. Fuel Fraction on air superiority fighters like the F-22 and Su-30 significantly higher for a reason.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 21:22
by XanderCrews
enrico wrote:Sure, a supercruising F-5 with Meteor, AESA, IRST, serious EW...


A T-38 can super cruise, And before you say "yeah bit it won't have weapons" well i'm betting Gripen NG won't be able to supercruise with weapons either.

So all those missiles you listed can't be used to super cruise. As for "serious" EW I'm standing by to see what the definition of serious is.

In the spirit of misery loving company, I can't wait for the Gripen NG to begin flight testing. Hopefully none of them crash like the original.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 21:24
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
I don't think this is accurate, note even close IMO. A super-cruising F-5 with AESA, IRST and meteor doesn't even exist, except on paper somewhere.

Correct?


The Gripen NG also only exists on paper.

First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.

A first production example will follow close behind, with Saab targeting military type certification in early 2018, clearing the way for deliveries to Sweden and then Switzerland later the same year, in the MS21 software standard.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... gs-396977/

Slow down Saab!

So we can expect to see our super F-5 with a new radar and IRST, when the US Navy is declaring IOC on the F-35C. congrats Saab. You have managed to produce a less capable, more expensive block 60 F-16, 15 years later. Amazing! How did they do it!?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 21:34
by disconnectedradical
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I don't think this is accurate, note even close IMO. A super-cruising F-5 with AESA, IRST and meteor doesn't even exist, except on paper somewhere.

Correct?


The Gripen NG also only exists on paper.

First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.

A first production example will follow close behind, with Saab targeting military type certification in early 2018, clearing the way for deliveries to Sweden and then Switzerland later the same year, in the MS21 software standard.


So we can expect to see our super F-5 with a new radar and IRST at the price of a late block F-16, when the US Navy is declaring IOC on the F-35C. congrats Saab.


I'd be a bit careful in calling the Gripen NG a paper aircraft, since it will be inducted into the Brazilian Air Force. Frankly the Gripen is a great aircraft for its value, and not every country needs all the bells and whistles that the F-35 provides.

I'm not sure why these two aircraft are being compared in the first place, since they are designed for different missions and overall capabilities, as their price tag suggests.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 21:37
by XanderCrews
disconnectedradical wrote:
I'd be a bit careful in calling the Gripen NG a paper aircraft, since it will be inducted into the Brazilian Air Force.



I don't see how Brazil buying it means there are examples flying in any form yet... short of a single concept demonstrator that is unrepresentative of what is being promised.

Frankly the Gripen is a great aircraft for its value, and not every country needs all the bells and whistles that the F-35 provides.


Early reports are not looking that way. The Gripen may be cheap, but the Gripen NG is looking pretty expensive, especially for what you get. Not every country needs an F-35 I'll agree with that, but compared to an F-16?

I'm not sure why these two aircraft are being compared in the first place, since they are designed for different missions and overall capabilities, as their price tag suggests.



What is the price difference BTW?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 21:55
by enrico
The fuel fraction of an F-22 is higher than exactly what?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 22:22
by sprstdlyscottsmn
enrico wrote:The fuel fraction of an F-22 is higher than exactly what?

@0.288, not much.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 22:43
by spazsinbad
Sweetman says the Gripen NG IRST will be better than anyone - better than all the rest - simply the best (do I hear a song coming on?). :doh: :devil: :D You will have to read the first sentences of the blog post to geddit.

Quite Special And Not At All Boring 18 Mar 2014 Bill Sweetman

"...It took a Scot, Selex-ES' Bob Mason, to make one of the most dramatic claims, confirming on the record what's been talked about quietly for a few years: state-of-the-art infrared search and track (IRST) systems can detect and track stealthy aircraft at the kind of ranges associated with beyond-visual-range engagements, whether or not they are using afterburner....

...Hiding from IRST is difficult for anything flying much above 300 knots. There have been isolated reports that the F-22 uses an active cooling system to deal with hot-spots at high speed, but that raises problems -- the heat has to go somewhere.
Like Russia's work on advanced VHF radars, IRST does not mean that stealth is dead. However, it does raise the bar for stealth, particularly in an air-to-air engagement. It makes it more difficult for a low-RCS fighter to engage its adversary without being detected itself -- if both are using IRST, detection may be mutual. (At the same time, the much better electronic warfare systems on modern flighters have redefined "low probability of detection" for a stealth attacker's radar.)
The F-35's electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) is described as having an IRST function. However, like other air-to-ground targeting sensors, it operates in the IR mid-wave band; IRST uses long-wave IR, which is better at long range. Neither is it optimised for the kind of very rapid "step-stare" scanning that an IRST uses to cover a wide area.”

SOURCE: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 4dd5c347b0


WHICH POINTS TO?
Gripen Sensors Claim Counter-Stealth Performance Bill Sweetman 17 Mar 2014
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

"...The IRST can give the radar a very accurate azimuth and elevation to the target, which allows it to focus its energy and increase the probability of achieving detection and track on a low-RCS target, Mason says. The AESA provides virtually instantaneous beam-steering within its ±70-deg. scan, but the repositioner is slower. One concept to be demonstrated will be the use of two Gripen radars and the TAU-Link to provide a wide-angle picture to both targets.

The new IFF is designed to provide low-latency coverage over the radar's entire field of view and to its maximum range, and is independent of the radar. That approach has been selected to furnish the best possible information on cooperating targets (such as friendlies and commercial traffic), allowing the IRST and radar to concentrate on potentially hostile aircraft.

Selex-ES is now delivering what it calls “C-model” sensors to Saab for installation on the Demo and the three JAS 39E development aircraft. These units are built to production standards, Mason says, but have not undergone the full range of tests required for full qualification. The C-Model IRST is expected to fly on the Demo imminently, the radar is being delivered to Linkoping and the IFF will arrive later in the year."

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/image ... p-Saab.jpg

SOURCE: [NO SECOND PAGE!] http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 671791.xml

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 22:45
by cantaz
I'm not sure why these two aircraft are being compared in the first place, since they are designed for different missions and overall capabilities, as their price tag suggests.


Blame Canada.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 23:43
by disconnectedradical
XanderCrews wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
I'd be a bit careful in calling the Gripen NG a paper aircraft, since it will be inducted into the Brazilian Air Force.



I don't see how Brazil buying it means there are examples flying in any form yet... short of a single concept demonstrator that is unrepresentative of what is being promised.

Frankly the Gripen is a great aircraft for its value, and not every country needs all the bells and whistles that the F-35 provides.


Early reports are not looking that way. The Gripen may be cheap, but the Gripen NG is looking pretty expensive, especially for what you get. Not every country needs an F-35 I'll agree with that, but compared to an F-16?

I'm not sure why these two aircraft are being compared in the first place, since they are designed for different missions and overall capabilities, as their price tag suggests.



What is the price difference BTW?


Admittedly I don't know the price difference, but I'd imagine that an overall less capable platform would also be less expensive to procure and maintain. My hunch is that the Gripen NG (designated the JAS 39E, I think) will cost somewhat less than a FRP F-35A (which should be in the 85 to 95 million range).

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 00:06
by hb_pencil
disconnectedradical wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
I'd be a bit careful in calling the Gripen NG a paper aircraft, since it will be inducted into the Brazilian Air Force.



I don't see how Brazil buying it means there are examples flying in any form yet... short of a single concept demonstrator that is unrepresentative of what is being promised.

Frankly the Gripen is a great aircraft for its value, and not every country needs all the bells and whistles that the F-35 provides.


Early reports are not looking that way. The Gripen may be cheap, but the Gripen NG is looking pretty expensive, especially for what you get. Not every country needs an F-35 I'll agree with that, but compared to an F-16?

I'm not sure why these two aircraft are being compared in the first place, since they are designed for different missions and overall capabilities, as their price tag suggests.



What is the price difference BTW?


Admittedly I don't know the price difference, but I'd imagine that an overall less capable platform would also be less expensive to procure and maintain. My hunch is that the Gripen NG (designated the JAS 39E, I think) will cost somewhat less than a FRP F-35A (which should be in the 85 to 95 million range).


You imagined wrong. Its about the same price.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 01:20
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Sweetman says the Gripen NG IRST will be better than anyone - better than all the rest - simply the best (do I hear a song coming on?). :doh: :devil: :D You will have to read the first sentences of the blog post to geddit.


Oh thank god, bill has something to be happy about!! A Magical IRST!!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 02:21
by mk82
Yes indeedy....a magical IRST that still can't function well in clouds or adverse weather! I think good ole Bill is forgetting that the Gripen NG still has a RCS of a barn door relative to a VLO fighter. The Gripen NG will still be at a disadvantage when engaging a VLO advesary/fighter aircraft (especially a networked advesary). I have to add though....if the Gripen NG does what it says on the can (armed with meteor missiles).....its a potent FLANKER KILLAH :D!!!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 02:27
by XanderCrews
mk82 wrote:Yes indeedy....a magical IRST that still can't function well in clouds or adverse weather! I think good ole Bill is forgetting that the Gripen NG still has a RCS of a barn door relative to a VLO fighter. The Gripen NG will still be at a disadvantage when engaging a VLO advesary/fighter aircraft (especially a networked advesary). I have to add though....if the Gripen NG does what it says on the can (armed with meteor missiles).....its a potent FLANKER KILLAH :D!!!


He kind of mentioned it real quick that it wouldn't have any LO characteristics, then quickly went back to the IRST.

This IRST really is a big deal, I didn't realize how much credit we were giving it, when we called it an F-5 with an IRST-- Because apparently it really is the main selling point. :doh: Hot damn that makes it worth the $107 million each the swiss are reportedly paying! So I would like to declare from here on out that the the Gripen NG is not just an F-5 with an IRST, its an F-5 with an amazing super IRST, that is not at all a modified PIRATE, that bill sweetman is selling as the second coming.

apologies all around. All hail the 21st century F-5.

cantaz wrote:
I'm not sure why these two aircraft are being compared in the first place, since they are designed for different missions and overall capabilities, as their price tag suggests.


Blame Canada.


LOL nice!

Looking at the start of the thread though, its Norway baby.

And here we are 6 years later from when the thread started, and no NATO country has selected it, its lost in more than a few competitions, withdrew from Canadian bidding, and is still 5 years away from production... Shocking.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 08:20
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
enrico wrote:Sure, a supercruising F-5 with Meteor, AESA, IRST, serious EW...


Well, that is not very impressive when JAS Gripen NG enters service. Calling it a modern F-20 is pretty close to reality with JAS Gripen A-D being pretty much modern day F-5 (although not nearly as popular). F-20 also had pretty good avionics and was otherwise pretty good small fighter, but limited by the small size and being too late to market.


I don't think this is accurate, note even close IMO. A super-cruising F-5 with AESA, IRST and meteor doesn't even exist, except on paper somewhere.

Correct?


Of course not because it's a jet from ancient history. But F-20 had about as impressive avionics and performance in 1980's standards than what JAS Gripen NG will have in 2020's standards. F-5 was also pretty good for 1960's to 1970's standards.

JAS Gripen NG will be the same in the future environment. It will have pretty good avionics and pretty good performance when lightly loaded. It will also suffer from small size as it cannot hope to compete with F-35 in weapons load and combat range (it can do either but not both). That might not be a real problem for many air forces if it was cheap, but it seems to be rather expensive jet. Especially since it's not a stealth jet as F-35 is. With Gripen NG you buy a pretty advanced small 4+ generation jet with a quite a big price tag, just like EF Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. With F-35 you buy a really advanced 5th generation VLO stealth jet with much more capabilities and pretty similar price tag.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 09:41
by mk82
I welcome our F5 with super amazing IRST overlords :p

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 11:52
by loke
hb_pencil wrote:You imagined wrong. Its about the same price.

Well that depends. If Sweden, Brazil, change their minds and don't buy it and if no other but Sweden country buys it then it will probably be in the same price range.

However with just a few export customers the price will drop far below the F-35.

Brazil concluded it was far cheaper than both Rafale and SH, and Switzerland also concluded it was much cheaper than the others. At the same time Dassault and Boeing are sufficiently convinced that they can compete with against the F-35 on price that they entered the Canadian competition against the F-35. So if F-35 cost > Rafale/SH cost > Gripen E cost, I guess it should be quite simple to draw some conclusions on F-35 costs vs Gripen E costs.

Having said that, it is silly to compare Gripen E and F-35; they are in completely different classes.

If you look at recent competitions, Gripen E is mainly competing against the Rafale, Typhoon, SH, and to a lesser degree against the F-16. Gripen E lost in India, but won in Switzerland and Brazil.

Since this is the F-16 site it is also interesting to notice that in recent competitions the F-16 has not really fared well. It lost in India, and was either not included or not short-listed in Switzerland, Brazil, Malaysia, Norway, Canada, Denmark. Thus it is interesting to note that several countries that dismiss F-16 stil includes the Gripen E in their competitions, which seems to indicate that Gripen E is by many countries considered more attractive than the latest F-16.

Of course F-16 has "won" contracts in other places in the last few years but that has been without any competitions to my knowledge...

There is quite a lot of interest in Gripen in Asia, and also some interest in some African and South American countries. I predict Saab will thrive on the Gripen E, expanding from the current 5 Gripen C/D countries to perhaps double the number when Gripen E countries get online. And that's enough for a small player like Saab, and a small but modern a/c like Gripen E.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 11:57
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
A T-38 can super cruise, And before you say "yeah bit it won't have weapons" well i'm betting Gripen NG won't be able to supercruise with weapons either.

So all those missiles you listed can't be used to super cruise. As for "serious" EW I'm standing by to see what the definition of serious is.

In the spirit of misery loving company, I can't wait for the Gripen NG to begin flight testing. Hopefully none of them crash like the original.

How old are you?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 12:08
by popcorn
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-397222/

Gripen AESA configured with 1000 T/R modules. Nose size matters.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 12:29
by loke
popcorn wrote:http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/selex-advances-gripen-e-sensor-testing-397222/

Gripen AESA configured with 1000 T/R modules. Nose size matters.

Yes, Gripens AESA is smaller than the AESA of the F-35, SH, and also the future AESA of Typhoon (currently being developed) but it has the same size as the Rafale AESA.

It would probably not make sense to have a bigger AESA on Gripen; it aims at being a low-cost alternative to countries that don't have the need (and/or cannot afford) slightly bigger but also slightly more capable fighters like Rafale/SH/Typhoon, and that also are not considering the F-35, for various reasons.

Also, even if a larger AESA could fit it would require more power and more cooling, again it would not make sense on such a small fighter. If you want a bigger AESA buy a bigger fighter :)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 12:33
by hornetfinn
popcorn wrote:Gripen AESA configured with 1000 T/R modules. Nose size matters.


Yes it does. Gripen AESA should have pretty much half the range of APG-81 given similar technology. Of course it will have the advantage of having larger FOV due to swashplate mechanism, which seems to be absent in APG-81 (mainly due to stealth requirements).

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 12:54
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:Gripen AESA configured with 1000 T/R modules. Nose size matters.


Yes it does. Gripen AESA should have pretty much half the range of APG-81 given similar technology.

Why would APG-81 have double the range if technology level had been the same? I thought APG-81 was around 1200 T/R modules; is this incorrect?

I also suspect the APG-81 has a much longer range than the Raven not just due to antenna size but also more advanced and mature AESA technology.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 13:18
by enrico
Willy waving about radar max range is a bit silly anyway. What you need is adequate range to support a missile engagement. More than that is just shining a bigger flashlight and giving your position away.

Also, all the modules in the world don't eliminate the fact that aperture area is still part of the range equation (cos all the modules in the world don't catch the trons that whizz past your antenna). They may give you more transmit power (if the rest of the system can handle it) but that's a very inefficient way to increase range and of course the absolute opposite of LPI/LPD.

Hmm, if a T-38 can supercruise, then an F-20 with a slightly bigger airframe and 2.5X the dry thrust, must have been able to sustain at least M=1.5. Cor blimey guv!

Also I do like the IRST countermeasure: Hide your stealth wonderjet in a cloud? You guys travel by air a lot? Notice how the sun is usually shining through the windows before the drinks carts start to roll? Does that tell you something?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 14:25
by loke
enrico wrote:Willy waving about radar max range is a bit silly anyway. What you need is adequate range to support a missile engagement. More than that is just shining a bigger flashlight and giving your position away.

Also, all the modules in the world don't eliminate the fact that aperture area is still part of the range equation (cos all the modules in the world don't catch the trons that whizz past your antenna). They may give you more transmit power (if the rest of the system can handle it) but that's a very inefficient way to increase range and of course the absolute opposite of LPI/LPD.

Agree; to remain as stealthy as possible I imagine one would either use LPI or perhaps turn off the radar completely and rely on IR, EM "noise" from the opponent and off-board sensors.

It seems some people sometimes forget that even "previous generation" a/c like Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen E will have sensitive RWR; so if another a/c, even an F-35 , comes in with the radar at full power, the 4.5 gen fighters most likely will detect the F-35 first, if the 4.5 gen is in "listening mode" only. I guess that's why the networking is so important, as is the IR-sensors and the AESA with advanced LPI.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 15:11
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:How old are you?


Don't know why the number of 29th birthdays I've had matters, but good to see you again, welcome back to the thread



loke wrote:
It would probably not make sense to have a bigger AESA on Gripen; it aims at being a low-cost alternative to countries that don't have the need (and/or cannot afford) slightly bigger but also slightly more capable fighters like Rafale/SH/Typhoon, and that also are not considering the F-35, for various reasons.


I think comparing it to more expensive fighters like typhoon and rafale doesn't make much sense, its going to come out the winner there. But how does it compare to lighter and more relatable F-16?

You see the dirty little secret about the Gripen NG is that it isnt cheap. the original Gripen? sure. the NG? nope! And none of the gripens fans like Sweetman are ready to make that fact well known. So you can find people who are writing long glowing things about the Gripen NG who have not actually checked the price and are going off the legacy gripen instead. that and a discredited jane's chart that shows $4700 CPFH and preaching about what a light and cheap practical little plane it is. I guess the Swiss and the Brazilians are just overpaying.

In fact does Sweetman mention price at all in either of those articles? Now contrast that with the myriad F-35 articles he has written, does he ever NOT mention price? Now he mentions it in the above articles in the comments:

But make it fair and adjust for life-cycle costs. One F-22 versus four JAS 39E (with sixteen Meteors and eight IRIS-T), and remember what they called the Gripens at their first Red Flag....


umm ok. Life cycle costs? When the big rumors about what the Swiss were paying for the NG first came out sweetman was taken aback, he then made sure to emphasize that the "Cheap/light" fighter was expensive up front but that didn't matter because you made it up on the back end with a cheap CPFH. so in other words ignore the steep initial cost up front because it will be worth it in the end, which has never been his concession with the F-35.

Well according to Time.com (in 2011) the F-22's CPFH is nearly $70K, divide by four and you are looking at $17,500 CPFH for the Gripen NG. wow! an F-16 is $22.5 CPFH. so 4 F-16s for 5 NGs? Or to put it another way you can operate 3 NGs for 2 F-35s.

And thats assuming it goes well, keep in mind SAAB is looking at a pretty small force of Gripen NGs. this can quickly elevate the price of spare parts, escalating the cost of operation. much more than $4,700

Saying something is cheaper than a Rafale or Typhoon or F-22 isn't saying much. Why does a Gripen NG cost more than a late block F-16? and how long does it take to realize that "savings" of 5K per hour after spending millions up front? Again I was under the impression that the point of a "cheap/light" fighter is that it would be cheap. There are rumors that the NGs CPFH may approach the $21,000 mark as well.

as hb pencil pointed out, the ZOMG expensive F-35 and the Cheap NG are very comparable price wise... is that weird to anyone else?


Also, even if a larger AESA could fit it would require more power and more cooling, again it would not make sense on such a small fighter. If you want a bigger AESA buy a bigger fighter :)


If you want a bigger anything, you have to buy a bigger fighter thats a huge part of the problem.

Willy waving about radar max range is a bit silly anyway. What you need is adequate range to support a missile engagement. More than that is just shining a bigger flashlight and giving your position away.


I guess thats one way of looking at it...

Also I do like the IRST countermeasure: Hide your stealth wonderjet in a cloud? You guys travel by air a lot? Notice how the sun is usually shining through the windows before the drinks carts start to roll? Does that tell you something?


I think the larger point was that atmospheric conditions affect IRSTs. the IRST threat is not new either. I know Bill is going to try and spin this into a revolutionary new system, but its still an IRST. an IRST on a fighter that has zero LO improvements, and who's EW avionics is limited by budget and a need to keep it "cheap."

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 15:15
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:Agree; to remain as stealthy as possible I imagine one would either use LPI or perhaps turn off the radar completely and rely on IR, EM "noise" from the opponent and off-board sensors.

It seems some people sometimes forget that even "previous generation" a/c like Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen E will have sensitive RWR; so if another a/c, even an F-35 , comes in with the radar at full power, the 4.5 gen fighters most likely will detect the F-35 first, if the 4.5 gen is in "listening mode" only. I guess that's why the networking is so important, as is the IR-sensors and the AESA with advanced LPI.


How does a non-stealth (not LO) aircraft turn its radar off and become invisible to radar? Am I missing something?

So you are trying to tell me that a 4.5 generation aircraft "most likely will detect the F-35 first," if the f-35s radar is on full, and the 4.5 gen aircraft that can be picked up on radar normally, will not be seen if its "in listening mode?"

because if you shut off and hide all your sensors no one can see you:

http://barbwire.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... sTruth.jpg

If you want to say the F-35 will be detected, I don't agree but ok. but trying to say it would be detected first? How do you hide from radar in a non LO platform? (hint: the answer is not "turn off your radar")

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 15:43
by enrico
Mr Long Name

Why don't you try passive (reading) mode?

The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.

The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel.


So I guess that would be ten Gripens versus one F-22. Hals- und Beinbruch, old boy.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 16:00
by XanderCrews
enrico wrote:Why don't you try passive (reading) mode?

The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.

The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel.


So I guess that would be ten Gripens versus one F-22. Hals- und Beinbruch, old boy.


Likewise:

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/ent ... -gripen-ng

Why are the Brazilians paying $4 billion for 36? and why are the Swiss spending $3.47 billion for 22? those are some incredibly steep procurement costs.

Thanks for linking to the article you quote as well.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 16:27
by enrico
Dead link is dead.

If you've been in this business, or taking an intelligent interest in it, for more than a couple of weeks, you should have learned two things:

1 - Total package procurement costs are always high.
2 - Comparing one nation's total package with another's is generally impossible.

For instance, if you look here...

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/si ... 52-upgrade

.. it looks as if Singapore could pay as much for new radars and computers as the RSWaF is paying for what is virtually a new airplane. However, the comparison's probably not valid.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 16:29
by SpudmanWP
loke wrote:Why would APG-81 have double the range if technology level had been the same? I thought APG-81 was around 1200 T/R modules; is this incorrect?


There are several reasons why the APG-81 has a much better range:

1. It has ~1626 T&R modules
2. The larger size of the array means that more of the reflected energy is collected
3. More mature technology
4. Faster computers

Image

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 16:39
by andreas77
XanderCrews wrote:
Why are the Brazilians paying $4 billion for 36? and why are the Swiss spending $3.47 billion for 22? those are some incredibly steep procurement costs.



Steep or not, its comparable to F-16 (block 52?)

"US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin is to sell 24 F-16 jet fighters to Egypt in a 3.2 billion dollar deal, a company spokesman said Tuesday."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... rhCQ?hl=en

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 16:46
by enrico
Can you explain how module count determines range? Do all T/R modules from all manufacturers produce the same power?

Also, a source for the "faster computers" in the APG-81 vs. Raven would be useful (can you give details, Tflops &c?), as would accurate measurements of antenna size.

That Canadian site is back up. Seen it before. Some major misapprehensions about manufacturing economics.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 17:25
by XanderCrews
If you've been in this business, or taking an intelligent interest in it, for more than a couple of weeks, you should have learned two things:


bold card for you to play.

1 - Total package procurement costs are always high.


true, I just think its odd that Canada is paying 9 billion for 65 F-35s (138.4 million per) and the Swiss are paying 3.47 for 22 (157.7 million per) NGs. For an airplane that is "$43 million?" Thats pretty incredible. There are also some reports from European publications that put the number at closer to 100 million.

I know its all tomato/tomatoe, but for a cheap light fighter, thats kind of expensive.

2 - Comparing one nation's total package with another's is generally impossible.


indeed but both brazil and the swiss (which is more formalized) is pretty high for "43 million dollar" airplane wouldn't you say?

Steep or not, its comparable to F-16 (block 52?)

"US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin is to sell 24 F-16 jet fighters to Egypt in a 3.2 billion dollar deal, a company spokesman said Tuesday."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... rhCQ?hl=en


Right, but thats a problem for an airplane that is supposed to be "cheaper"

enrico wrote:Some major misapprehensions about manufacturing economics.



Im all ears

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 17:26
by SpudmanWP
More modules means more radiated power.

No, all modules are not alike. Given that this is NG’s third AESA fighter radar (APG-77/80/81), its tech maturity is high.

The F-35 has already moved from single core CPU cards to Quad core ones. They will get another update in Block 3i and every odd Block after that (5/7/etc). Obviously specific details are classified but the basic plans & schedule are publicly known.

AESA radar T&R modules have to be spaced apart based on their frequency in order to function. So two radars of the same frequency (X-Band) where one has 60% more T&R modules will be roughly 60% larger in area.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 17:32
by XanderCrews
enrico wrote:Mr Long Name

Why don't you try passive (reading) mode?

The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.

The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel.


So I guess that would be ten Gripens versus one F-22. Hals- und Beinbruch, old boy.


Oh its from Bill Sweetman? I wonder why you didn't link to his article... Don't you think its confusing that the same author that said the operating cost would be around 7,500 and you could operate 4 for an F-22 CPFH that would make the F-22 only 30K to operate. Something doesn't add up... Did bill forget to add the "1" in front that CPFH number? Why would the same guy give vastly different prices:

The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel.


--Bill Sweetman

But make it fair and adjust for life-cycle costs. One F-22 versus four JAS 39E (with sixteen Meteors and eight IRIS-T),


-- Bill Sweetman.

So are F-22s only 30K CPFH?

OR is the answer that the NG costs an extra 10K to operate than the old gripen?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 18:13
by enrico
I just think its odd that Canada is paying 9 billion for 65 F-35s (138.4 million per) and the Swiss are paying 3.47 for 22 (157.7 million per) NGs. For an airplane that is "$43 million?" Thats pretty incredible.

There's a difference between a politician's words and a firm fixed-price contract? That's mega-incredible.

Spud - Does the F-35 radome look 25% wider and deeper than Gripen's? That's what you'd need for 60 per cent bigger aperture.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 18:14
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
enrico wrote:Why don't you try passive (reading) mode?

The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.

The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel.


So I guess that would be ten Gripens versus one F-22. Hals- und Beinbruch, old boy.


Likewise:

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/ent ... -gripen-ng

Why are the Brazilians paying $4 billion for 36? and why are the Swiss spending $3.47 billion for 22? those are some incredibly steep procurement costs.

Thanks for linking to the article you quote as well.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 18:17
by XanderCrews
enrico wrote:I just think its odd that Canada is paying 9 billion for 65 F-35s (138.4 million per) and the Swiss are paying 3.47 for 22 (157.7 million per) NGs. For an airplane that is "$43 million?" Thats pretty incredible.

There's a difference between a politician's words and a firm fixed-price contract? That's mega-incredible.


9 billion is what the independent KPMG Audit found... if you have been studying this for longer than a couple weeks, yada yada.

The vote for the Swiss referendum includes the cost.

so I guess I need clarification on which part you think is untrue, and a credible source would be nice as well if its not asking too much.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 20:01
by SpudmanWP
enrico wrote:Spud - Does the F-35 radome look 25% wider and deeper than Gripen's? That's what you'd need for 60 per cent bigger aperture.


Wider, yes.. Deeper, it does not have to be.

The Gripen uses a swashplate which means that the AESA array has to sit farther in front of the bulkhead and have enough clearance to rotate. Because the APG-81 sits directly on the firewall, it uses more of the available space.

Btw, you will not likely see an F-35 with its radome open since it’s not designed to be opened for the life of the airframe. If it ever is, it will likely be during depot level maintenance.

Here is an example of two circles where the larger one has 60% larger surface area than the smaller one. The difference in diameter is not that great.

Image

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 20:59
by andreas77
XanderCrews wrote:Right, but thats a problem for an airplane that is supposed to be "cheaper"


Why? We dont have all the details about what is icluded in the two offers/contracts but if we would assume that they are equal I wold say that the almost equal price is a problem for the F-16, the Gripen E is a more advanced fighter (AESA, IRST, All GaN-antenna EW-suite, 6 x PAWS-2 IR-sensors, 1 x widescreen cockpit display, satcoms, sensor-fusing datalink, METEOR and Iris-T integrated) and with more than 4000 produced F-16s, why havent the economy of scale pushed the price of a block 52 much lower than the price of the more modern Gripen E (which has PERHAPS 60 + 22 + 36 aircrafts on order)?


The swiss Gripen contract includes a lot of things that new users needs to buy, such as initial spares, training for pilots and ground crew, mission planning systems, logistics system/tools/equipment and also weapons. I actually dont believe all of that is included in the Egypt F-16 follow-up order, since they already use the F-16.




Singapore is upgrading 60 F-16 block 52 for $40 million per plane (adding AESA radar, helmets, navigation equipment, coms/cockpit upgrades and the integration of weapons)

http://defense-update.com/20140115_singapore_aesa.html

Compare that with the $42 million Gripen C -> E upgrade current users of the Gripen can have. That package gives you a brand new plane that is far more capable than your old one and with 0 hours. OK, you have to stick to your old ejection seat, gun, canopy and some elevons, but I still think its a bargain...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 21:41
by treebeard
loke wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:You imagined wrong. Its about the same price.

Well that depends. If Sweden, Brazil, change their minds and don't buy it and if no other but Sweden country buys it then it will probably be in the same price range.

However with just a few export customers the price will drop far below the F-35.

Brazil concluded it was far cheaper than both Rafale and SH, and Switzerland also concluded it was much cheaper than the others. At the same time Dassault and Boeing are sufficiently convinced that they can compete with against the F-35 on price that they entered the Canadian competition against the F-35. So if F-35 cost > Rafale/SH cost > Gripen E cost, I guess it should be quite simple to draw some conclusions on F-35 costs vs Gripen E costs.

Having said that, it is silly to compare Gripen E and F-35; they are in completely different classes.

If you look at recent competitions, Gripen E is mainly competing against the Rafale, Typhoon, SH, and to a lesser degree against the F-16. Gripen E lost in India, but won in Switzerland and Brazil.

Since this is the F-16 site it is also interesting to notice that in recent competitions the F-16 has not really fared well. It lost in India, and was either not included or not short-listed in Switzerland, Brazil, Malaysia, Norway, Canada, Denmark. Thus it is interesting to note that several countries that dismiss F-16 stil includes the Gripen E in their competitions, which seems to indicate that Gripen E is by many countries considered more attractive than the latest F-16.

Of course F-16 has "won" contracts in other places in the last few years but that has been without any competitions to my knowledge...

There is quite a lot of interest in Gripen in Asia, and also some interest in some African and South American countries. I predict Saab will thrive on the Gripen E, expanding from the current 5 Gripen C/D countries to perhaps double the number when Gripen E countries get online. And that's enough for a small player like Saab, and a small but modern a/c like Gripen E.

I think much depends on your definition of price. Because what's cheap?

I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that the life cycle costs of a small, single engined Gripen E is lower compared to the heavier, twin-engined Rafale, Super Hornet or Eurofighter. It's more attractive than it's main Western competiter, the 'advanced' F-16 (latest blocks), on behalf of industrial opportunities such as partnerships, offsets and shared source codes that grants possibilities for quickly integrating domestic weaponry. Apart from that, it's theoretically a new platform and as such not threatened by closing production lines. While it may not be operational as soon as the latest F-16s, it will compensate for this on the long run. It will be operated by at least Brasil and Sweden, and buying them in the coming decade means that you can follow the mid-life updates of these nations rather than being a 'lead nation' on yourself. The F-16 will be put on a pension plan by most leading nations in the next (two?) decades, which means that major updates won't be very forthcoming. Buying a F-16-like platform with the intention of using it for 30 to 40 years does requires some form of MLU, which can be an expensive enterprise when having to pay for it alone.

When compared to the F-35, however, the same goes for the Gripen E. The F-35 will not only be operated by more nations, but will also by used by more nations that are willing and able to keep their platforms state of the art, as their air forces are used more proactively and as such require them to be nothing less than the best of the best. MLUs will not be limited to software updates, but will also have to address hardware issues from time to time, much like the F-16. These updates will be cheaper for those who can follow the lead of the United States, whom by itself will field tenfold the amount of total Gripen Es likely to be produced (economies of scale). Which brings us to the definition of costs. The F-16 appears to be the cheapest of them all, yet only on behalf of procurement. Using them for longer periods might prove to be costly, for the reasons mentioned above. The Gripen E may be cheaper in procurement and probably will be cheaper in terms of operating costs compared to the F-35, but will not be as "cheap" when you vector in MLUs, higher costs of integrating and implementing new technology and/or weaponry. It will also be inferior to the F-35 on technological and operational fronts, which means you'll either need more of them to accomplish the same task of one F-35, or limit your overall ability to use force (same goes for F-16). I agree that both planes are in a different class, but the same goes for the twin-engined platforms they were compared with in Brasil and Switzerland. When push comes to shove, neither of these countries are an active actor on the world stage that require superior capability as much as they require the affordable 'middle ground'.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 21:47
by bumtish
The cost quoted here for Switzerland (Gripen E) and Canada (F-35A) are both acquisition phase costs, if memory serves me right on the latter, with the biggest difference that a lease of Gripen C/D is included in the Swiss cost, in case the E is not ready. IIRC the lease is valued at around $300M and as such they are comparable.

The $43M a pop only apply to Sweden. First of all this is a flyaway cost, built with 25% (?) reused parts from C/Ds.

Sweden’s remanufactured aircraft will retain almost none of the previous airframe, but will reuse parts of its fuel and air systems, plus its ejection seat, windshield, canopy and outer wing elevons.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... gs-396977/


Further, at the open meeting in the Swedish Defence Committee, it was revealed that:

1) The Gripen system cost over the next 30 years would be 90 billion Swedish kroner ($14.4B);

2) The savings from not buying a foreign system compared to the chosen solution (Gripen E) is 30 billion Swedish kroner ($5B);

3) Half of the savings in 2) come from not having to introduce a new combat aircraft type, re-use of/not having to adapt existing infrastructure;

4) Gripen E development and upgrades are not funded beyond 2026. It is expected that foreign customers will pay for further development/upgrades and if this fails to materialize, "they will have to have another look at the funding."

For those who understand Swedish, the open meeting in the Swedish defence committee http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Utskott-EU-n ... doctype=ou

The take home messages are:

a) Export customers do not have a pool of partially used Gripen for cannibalization; export customers do not have existing infrastructure to reuse. Thus, the package price can be expected to be much higher for export customers.

b) The Swedish Defence estimated that the Gripen system is 90 billion SEK and 30 billion SEK over the competion, but half comes from reuse of existing infrastructure (on top of the savings from parts reuse). Further, upgrades are only funded for approximately (less) 1/3 of the lifetime of the system. Thus, the price for exports customers is darn close to the competitors if we go by the Swedish defence's own recommendation to their government!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 21:51
by treebeard
andreas77 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Right, but thats a problem for an airplane that is supposed to be "cheaper"


Why? We dont have all the details about what is icluded in the two offers/contracts but if we would assume that they are equal I wold say that the almost equal price is a problem for the F-16, the Gripen E is a more advanced fighter (AESA, IRST, All GaN-antenna EW-suite, 6 x PAWS-2 IR-sensors, 1 x widescreen cockpit display, satcoms, sensor-fusing datalink, METEOR and Iris-T integrated) and with more than 4000 produced F-16s, why havent the economy of scale pushed the price of a block 52 much lower than the price of the more modern Gripen E (which has PERHAPS 60 + 22 + 36 aircrafts on order)?


The swiss Gripen contract includes a lot of things that new users needs to buy, such as initial spares, training for pilots and ground crew, mission planning systems, logistics system/tools/equipment and also weapons. I actually dont believe all of that is included in the Egypt F-16 follow-up order, since they already use the F-16.




Singapore is upgrading 60 F-16 block 52 for $40 million per plane (adding AESA radar, helmets, navigation equipment, coms/cockpit upgrades and the integration of weapons)

http://defense-update.com/20140115_singapore_aesa.html

Compare that with the $42 million Gripen C -> E upgrade current users of the Gripen can have. That package gives you a brand new plane that is far more capable than your old one and with 0 hours. OK, you have to stick to your old ejection seat, gun, canopy and some elevons, but I still think its a bargain...

As far as I know the Swiss are likely to pay around $110 million for new-build Gripen Es (depending on the referendum), and it's rumoured that the Swedes are paying 15 to 30% more than the Swiss may. I guess when you add up the procurement prices of the Gripen A/B, their update to C/D and finally to E, alongside the natural development costs, the total package becomes slightly more expensive then the EUR45 million that was so profoundly put in the media when they pitched their NG programme in 2002-2008.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 22:27
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
If you've been in this business, or taking an intelligent interest in it, for more than a couple of weeks, you should have learned two things:


bold card for you to play.

1 - Total package procurement costs are always high.


true, I just think its odd that Canada is paying 9 billion for 65 F-35s (138.4 million per) and the Swiss are paying 3.47 for 22 (157.7 million per) NGs. For an airplane that is "$43 million?" Thats pretty incredible. There are also some reports from European publications that put the number at closer to 100 million.

I know its all tomato/tomatoe, but for a cheap light fighter, thats kind of expensive.

2 - Comparing one nation's total package with another's is generally impossible.


indeed but both brazil and the swiss (which is more formalized) is pretty high for "43 million dollar" airplane wouldn't you say?

Steep or not, its comparable to F-16 (block 52?)

"US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin is to sell 24 F-16 jet fighters to Egypt in a 3.2 billion dollar deal, a company spokesman said Tuesday."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... rhCQ?hl=en


Right, but thats a problem for an airplane that is supposed to be "cheaper"

enrico wrote:Some major misapprehensions about manufacturing economics.



Im all ears

comparing those package prices are probably very difficult so perhaps it's better to refrain from doing so. However; Switzerland concluded that Gripen E was significantly cheaper than Rafale (and Typhoon which is even more expensive); Brazil concluded that Gripen E was significantly cheaper than both Rafale and SH.

One surprising thing here is that Rafale, Typhoon, and SH are all competing against F-35 in Canada; I don't know about Eurofighter but Dassault and Boeing both believe they can make offers that are significantly cheaper than LM.

Perhaps both Dassault and Boieng are clueless? Even if we assume that they are way off and Rafale/SH will have roughly the same price as F-35; still it is tempting to guess that Gripen E will be cheaper than Rafale/SH/F-35 since two countries independently reached the conclusion that E is significantly cheaper than Rafale/SH. (at least compared to two of them).


How does Gripen E compare to F-16 block 52? I may be wrong but so far I don't think they have competed against eachother anywhere. Gripen E competed against F-16 "block60-70-xv" (or whatever it's called) in India, Brazil, and Holland. F-16 lost all those competitions (was not even shortlisted in India and Brazil), and Gripen E won in Brazil.

In all other competitions, the Gripen E has or is competing mainly against Rafale, Typhoon, SH; in the "odd competition" also against Su-35 or F-35. But never against F-16 block 52. Is Gripen E cheaper or more expensive than bl. 52? Who cares? They are clearly not competing in the same segment. Gripen E is more modern, and even F-16 block 60/70 has so far lost out to what I term the "4.5 gen fighters" in all competitions it has been in so far (and in many cases it did not even make it to the competition!)

My guess is: Rafale, SH, F-35 are roughly in the same price level; Gripen E will be significantly cheaper (assuming that Brazil signs the contract)

As for capabilities, no need to go there. F-35 is by far superior to the 4.5 gen fighters, and the bigger Rafale/SH/Typhoon are for most (but not all...) parameters superior to the lightweight and cheaper Gripen E.

To conclude; unless F-35 is unavailable (due politics or other reasons) there is no reason to even start considering anything but the F-35. IF F-35 is unavailable, then the air force needs to determine: capabilities vs. cost. Brazil and Switzerland concluded Gripen E, since they had limited budgets and not a need for the extra capabilities; India concluded Rafale since requirements to capabilities were much higher than for Switzerland and Brazil.

It will be interesting to see what Malaysia will choose; the only thing we know for sure is that it will be neither F-35 nor F-16...Is the exclusion of F-16 political? Probably not, since SH is in the race.

The most boring competition will of course be Canada. It is so obvious that as F-35 partner they will choose the F-35. In particular I still cannot comprehend why Dassault and Eurofighter even bother trying. In the highly unlikely case that they do not choose the F-35 then they will go for the SH. Saab had learned their lesson and pulled out. I suspect that with the sole exception of Denmark, Saab will avoid competing against F-35 in the future, just like LM don't bother trying to compete against Gripen E with bl. 50/52.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 22:34
by spazsinbad
Selex advances Gripen E sensor testing 20 Mar 2014 Craig Hoyle

"...A final hardware version of the Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array radar was shipped to Saab’s Linköping site in Sweden from the UK in mid-March, along with its power supply, receiver and processor, for installation in development aircraft 39-7. Featuring 1,000 transmit/receive modules, the sensor also will use a repositioner, to increase its field of regard to +/-100˚.

Also being installed is the aircraft’s Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) sensor head (file image below) and processor unit, which will deliver a passive, long-range detection and identification capability, against even stealthy threats out to beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile engagement range.

The IRST package was flown aboard a helicopter in Nerviano, Italy earlier this year, and is “detecting and tracking, with a very low false-alarm rate,” says Bob Mason, executive vice-president, radar and advanced targeting at Selex ES’s Airborne & Space Systems division...."

SOURCE: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-397222/

RADAR: http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=54709
&
IRST: http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=54790

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 22:48
by treebeard
Actually, the Gripen C/D was ranked inferior to the F-16 'Advanced' option in the Dutch 2001 evaluation. In 2008, the Gripen 'NG' was put on an equal footing with the F-16 'Advanced', as both aircraft did 'not differ much in relation to the offered capabilities and price'. Since then, several new upgrades and enhancements have been put forward for the F-16 (F-16IN, F-16V, SABR package etcetera). While my earlier reservations still stand, I wouldn't discount the latest F-16 purely on their performance. There are other determinant factors other than performance when buying a new fighter aircraft platform is concerned.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2014, 23:16
by XanderCrews
comparing those package prices are probably very difficult so perhaps it's better to refrain from doing so. However; Switzerland concluded that Gripen E was significantly cheaper than Rafale (and Typhoon which is even more expensive);


No surprise there.

Brazil concluded that Gripen E was significantly cheaper than both Rafale and SH.


There is more to the story than that, but sure why not?

One surprising thing here is that Rafale, Typhoon, and SH are all competing against F-35 in Canada; I don't know about Eurofighter but Dassault and Boeing both believe they can make offers that are significantly cheaper than LM.


Its not just about being "cheaper", its also capability, requirements emphasized, and industrial perks and offsets and of course other politics.

Perhaps both Dassault and Boieng are clueless? Even if we assume that they are way off and Rafale/SH will have roughly the same price as F-35; still it is tempting to guess that Gripen E will be cheaper than Rafale/SH/F-35 since two countries independently reached the conclusion that E is significantly cheaper than Rafale/SH. (at least compared to two of them).


Again there is more to the price than just whats on the cost line on contract day. simply basing every country's decision about winners or losers on price alone is grossly simple and quite wrong.

based on that logic the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen NG because that is what Norway selected.

How does Gripen E compare to F-16 block 52? I may be wrong but so far I don't think they have competed against eachother anywhere. Gripen E competed against F-16 "block60-70-xv" (or whatever it's called) in India, Brazil, and Holland. F-16 lost all those competitions (was not even shortlisted in India and Brazil), and Gripen E won in Brazil.


Block 52s and block 60 F-16s are only used by Israel, Greece, Korea, Egypt, UAE, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan (agreed on), Chile (50+) and the US

trying to use those competitions (especially how disastrous the Indian Contract has gone with Rafale) as a measurement is not that great.

I am willing to bet, though I am not sure that one of the reasons the F-16 is not being entered into these competitions or is being entered and scoring low is that with 5 assembly lines throughout the world there are not many offsets to offer, surely not enough to compete with Dassalt who offer everything whether they can provide it or not. Moreover many countries have simply opted for the late block F-16s sans competition. UAE funded the block 60 outright.

For Brazil the F-18 got the nod over F-16 because there is hope of the navy buying aircraft for their navy as well. I don't think LM even tried with the Swiss because they were happy with their hornets and Boeing had the best shot to win of all the american options (even then it was going to be a steep climb) So how well do F-16s do in competition where their odds of winning are very low right off the bat? not great.

My guess is: Rafale, SH, F-35 are roughly in the same price level; Gripen E will be significantly cheaper (assuming that Brazil signs the contract)


based on....?

Look all I am trying to say is this:

I don't think the Gripen NG is nearly as "cheap" as it is being made out to be. next, "cheap" is relative. is it cheap compared to a F-22? yes. even at 85-95 million it is, but is that "cheap" compared to an F-16? not really no. This is where the term Value comes up a fly away super hornet last FY was $66.9 million. Which is a lot more bang for the buck. Now before you say "well yeah but guy with the long name, the swiss didn't pick the SH" well they didn't because it wouldn't fit into their mountainside hangers, so Boeing withdrew. It was then the cheapest of what was left in the competition, compared to some notoriously expensive euro canards. So the Swiss went for it.

So yes in order to compare value we must also compare performance but right out of the gate if NG is anything near 60 million thats expensive for what is supposed to be a cheap light fighter. Thats damn near the cost of a medium weight, multirole, carrier bird.

And what is happening is that when people talk about Gripen performance they use the NG stats, and when price comes up they use the Jas 39C numbers. Bill sweetman seems to be doing exactly that, its deceptive and it would never be tolerated with an aircraft company that Bill didn't show a heavy bias to.

Now Sweetman even mentioned that there is a chance the NG weighs as much as an F-16A empty. Thats cool, but if its no longer a "light fighter", and its no longer "cheap", then what is the Gripen NG? Can we kill and bury the F-5/F-20/Gripen LWF cheap fighter meme? The next time someone suggests just buying a bunch of Gripen NGs, instead of looking at it as the "plucky underdog" can we look at it for what it is?

Initial reports for the Brazil deal have it at 4.5 billion for 36. 125 million procurement each. Thats an incredible amount of extras for a 43 million dollar airplane.

So thats my point, the way sweetman tells it, its an awesome deal. But if its 2 or even 2.5 that amount he quoted then its not awesome. That doesn't mean that the Swiss should buy F-35s, it just means its not "cheap". If thats the case the people who rail against the F-35 while advocating NGs because the NGs are "cheaper" are dead wrong. If you want to buy the NG for other reasons (like the swiss or the brazilians) more power to you, but there seems to be a conspiracy amongst western media to portray it as this "golden solution" little airplane that is just a "free lunch" of capability for next to nothing.

treebeard wrote:As far as I know the Swiss are likely to pay around $110 million for new-build Gripen Es (depending on the referendum), and it's rumoured that the Swedes are paying 15 to 30% more than the Swiss may. I guess when you add up the procurement prices of the Gripen A/B, their update to C/D and finally to E, alongside the natural development costs, the total package becomes slightly more expensive then the EUR45 million that was so profoundly put in the media when they pitched their NG programme in 2002-2008.


Thank you

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 03:39
by diupa
Are you all forgetting the other values​​? You can't do the math on this since we don't know exactly what Brazil asked to them. It was not a US$ 4.5 bi deal to all (Saab, Dassault and Boeing).

Dassault's offer for what Brazil wanted was US$ 8.2 bi.
Boeing's offer for what Brazil wanted was US$ 7.5 bi.

Sources (I have more but in Portuguese...):

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bra ... ram-04179/

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacio ... deal.shtml

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/12/19/bra ... w-fighters

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 07:34
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:I don't think the Gripen NG is nearly as "cheap" as it is being made out to be. next, "cheap" is relative. is it cheap compared to a F-22? yes. even at 85-95 million it is, but is that "cheap" compared to an F-16? not really no. This is where the term Value comes up a fly away super hornet last FY was $66.9 million. Which is a lot more bang for the buck. Now before you say "well yeah but guy with the long name, the swiss didn't pick the SH" well they didn't because it wouldn't fit into their mountainside hangers, so Boeing withdrew. It was then the cheapest of what was left in the competition, compared to some notoriously expensive euro canards. So the Swiss went for it.

Initial reports for the Brazil deal have it at 4.5 billion for 36. 125 million procurement each. Thats an incredible amount of extras for a 43 million dollar airplane.



It seems you believe SH cost roughly the same as Gripen E?

How then do you explain that in the SH offer to Brazil for 36 SH the price was 7.5 billion? That's a whooping 208 million USD per plane!!! Seems the mature, cost-effective SH suddenly became horribly expensive.... To make matters even worse, the SH offer included sigificantly less TOT than the Gripen offer to Brazil. So you pay much more and get very little TOT back.

It seems you are picking and matching the information that suits you.

Regarding SH in Switzerland; Boeing was very interested in that competition but pulled out very early when they realized the size of the budget -- they claimed the SH was "too advanced" for Switzerland (read: too expensive).


Also; there is a significant difference is both price and capabilities between F-16 block 50/52 and F-16 block 60+. You cannot treat them as one and the same.

Of course Gripen E is not "cheap" compared to F-16 bl. 52, I already told you that. However as already pointed out they are not really competing against eachother. It's like comparing the price of a 10-year old car with the price of a car that has not left the factory yet.

As for all those direct selection and sales of F-16: they are not competitions, and thus provides no information other than that those countries first and foremost wanted US fighters. Only competitions with a proper RFP process can provide some sort of information.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 11:20
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
enrico wrote:Willy waving about radar max range is a bit silly anyway. What you need is adequate range to support a missile engagement. More than that is just shining a bigger flashlight and giving your position away.

Also, all the modules in the world don't eliminate the fact that aperture area is still part of the range equation (cos all the modules in the world don't catch the trons that whizz past your antenna). They may give you more transmit power (if the rest of the system can handle it) but that's a very inefficient way to increase range and of course the absolute opposite of LPI/LPD.

Agree; to remain as stealthy as possible I imagine one would either use LPI or perhaps turn off the radar completely and rely on IR, EM "noise" from the opponent and off-board sensors.

It seems some people sometimes forget that even "previous generation" a/c like Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen E will have sensitive RWR; so if another a/c, even an F-35 , comes in with the radar at full power, the 4.5 gen fighters most likely will detect the F-35 first, if the 4.5 gen is in "listening mode" only. I guess that's why the networking is so important, as is the IR-sensors and the AESA with advanced LPI.


JAS Gripen NG will likely have good enough radar for most tasks. Better radar performance would be good for engaging low observable targets likel PAK-FA, cruise missiles or stealthy ships. Radar range is easiest to roughly estimate from public radar parameters. Other features of radars are very difficult to estimate without having access to specifications of their internals. But because the thread is about comparing F-35 to JAS Gripen NG, I just threw one comparison between the two in to air.

Higher max output power would not make F-35 any more detectable as it will use just enough power to support tracking each target (just like I suppose Raven AESA will). For searching new targets every AESA will use much more power but the beam is so narrow and antenna has so small sidelobes that detecting it will be very difficult depending on other LPI/LPD features. It would be by far the easiest when the radar beam flashes the target aircraft. But generally the beam would be very weak after target tracking has been initialized. I don't think there should be very large difference between detecting APG-81 or Selex Raven transmissions. Of course F-35 also has very advanced EW system. One thing is that to find F-35, the enemy has to use much more power than to find JAS Gripen NG.

There are many ways to improve AESA radar range and main ways are increasing the size of the antenna, increasing the number of T/R modules (related to antenna size), increasing average output power and decreasing losses. Size of the array and T/R module count affect the radar antenna transmit and receive gain. Basically the larger radar will see further away using same power if everything else is equal.

And yes, APG-81 seems to have over 1600 modules. 1200 module number was an approximation made when APG-77 was supposed (and likely then did) to have about 1500 modules. That was about 15 years ago and current module count for APG-77(v)1 seems to be over 2000. As you can see 2000/1600=1.25 and 1500/1200=1.25. It's just that technology has progressed during those 15 years and module count has increased. That's also why Raven AESA has 1000 modules as opposed to 680 or so in FGA-29 version in MiG-35m despite them being very close in size. Russians simply are using much older tech T/R modules than Selex is using in their radar.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 12:46
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:Higher max output power would not make F-35 any more detectable as it will use just enough power to support tracking each target (just like I suppose Raven AESA will). For searching new targets every AESA will use much more power but the beam is so narrow and antenna has so small sidelobes that detecting it will be very difficult depending on other LPI/LPD features. It would be by far the easiest when the radar beam flashes the target aircraft. But generally the beam would be very weak after target tracking has been initialized. I don't think there should be very large difference between detecting APG-81 or Selex Raven transmissions. Of course F-35 also has very advanced EW system. One thing is that to find F-35, the enemy has to use much more power than to find JAS Gripen NG.

I agree, the max output power is not that relevant. However in discussions on another forum with a person who has professional experience with these things, he made it clear that on the basis of the laws of physics, the a/c that is silently listening will always have advantage in terms of detection, compared to the a/c that is actively using the radar to scan.

Of course LPI/LPD is changing this somewhat but he still believed that if the listener is on roughly the same technological level, it would detect the transmitter, before the transmitter would be able to detect the listener. He used the comparison of finding somebody in a dark forest with a torch. If the person hiding in the forest has a good eyesight he would in most cases detect the torch at quite a distance.

Thus if the Gripen E uses modern sensors and have some decent algorithms to detect LPI/LPD sources it may detect that somebody is out there scanning, searching.

You say that Gripen would need to use a lot of power to see the F-35; of course, and of course the F-35 would detect the Gripen long before Gripen could spot the F-35. Thus the most prudent thing for the Gripen would be to not transmit at all, and just listen with all sensors, both IR and radar/EM sensors.

How would the F-35 then find the Gripen, if it's completely silent? Would it rely on it's LPI/LPD algorithms being much better than those that Gripen E uses to detect such transmissions, and use the radar, or would it also remain silent and rely on IR?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 13:05
by hornetfinn
JAS Gripen is fairly cheap to operate, but not that amazing. Finnish Air Force has stated about five years ago that flight hour costs of Finnish F(/A)-18C/D was about 5,000€ which was then very close to what Swedish Air Force stated for their Gripens. Of course the total flight hour costs are definitely higher for both if we calculate all of them as USAF does (including salaries of personnel, upgrades, support, base operations, program management, etc.).

According to this: http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf F-22 variable flight hour costs were actually 19,750$ including repairs, spares, consumables and fuel. With all the costs even remotely related to F-22 it balloons up to about 50,000$ figure which could well be about 70,000$ today. Overall we can conclude that you can operate about 26 JAS Gripen C/D for the cost of ten F-22. F-35 has much lower operating and acquisition costs than F-22 and you could probably operate 15 JAS Gripens for the cost of ten F-35s.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 13:13
by enrico
The bogey who is using radar isn't necessarily the bogey who's going to shoot you.

Listening is the big deal - and three areas of improvement (ESM, EA and reduced RCS) - have made LPI/LPD tracking much harder than it was when the "Gen5" architecture was defined. That is, can I successfully track a -10/-20dBsm target that has directional DRFM jamming, without being located by his ESM? It's a lot more difficult than a 5m2 target that has a simple RWR and a moderate-power noise jammer.

A thought on costs: The inherent production cost delta between Gripen and Rafale/Typhoon is limited. They all need the same sensors and mission avionics, a cockpit, FCS/VMS, landing gear, hydraulics & power &c. The G airframe is smaller but built in the same way. The single biggest saving is eliminating one engine.

Nonetheless, Gripen was cheaper to buy than Rafale, by a useful but not huge margin. Where it killed the competition was on operating cost - and the Swiss know operational costs, because RUAG sells support services worldwide.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 13:52
by castlebravo
loke wrote:I agree, the max output power is not that relevant. However in discussions on another forum with a person who has professional experience with these things, he made it clear that on the basis of the laws of physics, the a/c that is silently listening will always have advantage in terms of detection, compared to the a/c that is actively using the radar to scan.

Of course LPI/LPD is changing this somewhat but he still believed that if the listener is on roughly the same technological level, it would detect the transmitter, before the transmitter would be able to detect the listener. He used the comparison of finding somebody in a dark forest with a torch. If the person hiding in the forest has a good eyesight he would in most cases detect the torch at quite a distance.


That depends on how noisy the environment is. Imagine a forest filled with various lights constantly turning on and off randomly, and you need to find a particular flashlight. An LPI radar transmits in a random pattern of pulse widths and frequencies that only it knows. It can look for a return matching that pattern and pull in a signal that is much lower than the noise while the RWR can not.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 14:02
by loke
castlebravo wrote:
loke wrote:I agree, the max output power is not that relevant. However in discussions on another forum with a person who has professional experience with these things, he made it clear that on the basis of the laws of physics, the a/c that is silently listening will always have advantage in terms of detection, compared to the a/c that is actively using the radar to scan.

Of course LPI/LPD is changing this somewhat but he still believed that if the listener is on roughly the same technological level, it would detect the transmitter, before the transmitter would be able to detect the listener. He used the comparison of finding somebody in a dark forest with a torch. If the person hiding in the forest has a good eyesight he would in most cases detect the torch at quite a distance.


That depends on how noisy the environment is. Imagine a forest filled with various lights constantly turning on and off randomly, and you need to find a particular flashlight. An LPI radar transmits in a random pattern of pulse widths and frequencies that only it knows. It can look for a return matching that pattern and pull in a signal that is much lower than the noise while the RWR can not.

If you assume that the listener has no knowledge of LPI/LPD then for sure the sender has a big advantage; but if the listener understand the LPI/LPD techniques then it will be in a much better position to detect such signals. And you always have the basic phycis principle that the incoming signal at the position of the listener is much stronger than the return signal.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 14:05
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:How would the F-35 then find the Gripen, if it's completely silent? Would it rely on it's LPI/LPD algorithms being much better than those that Gripen E uses to detect such transmissions, and use the radar, or would it also remain silent and rely on IR?


Maybe using APG-81 to accurately track JAS Gripen at very long ranges due to relatively high RCS of Gripen (in comparison to F-35)? JAS Gripen would only know that there is some radar painting it for very short time in infrequent intervals from some direction. It would not know what it is (due to very variable radar waveform), how far it is (due to AESA tracking power management) or what the closing speed is. The same would likely be true for F-35 if it's painted by Raven AESA. F-35 would have the benefit that it would require hundreds of times more power to detect/track than JAS Gripen NG, making the job of EW system very much easier. A fighter flying around without own radar is all good if other radars (other fighters and surveillance) can detect and track the enemy. This would not work too well if the mission is to shoot down attacking aircraft or attain air superiority over enemy territory or to protect own attack aircraft (like other Gripens) against enemy fighters. This would be especially so against VLO fighters like F-35 or even LO fighters like PAK-FA.

As these two will For a nation considering buying either, it will depend a lot of the environment they are destined. If a nation does not have potential enemy nations with modern and numerous air forces or air defenses now or in the foreseeable future, I think JAS Gripen NG will be very fine aircraft. If however potential enemy nations have those, I think it'd be much better to go for F-35. Of course it all depends also on politics and very many other factors.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 14:44
by enrico
F-35 would have the benefit that it would require hundreds of times more power to detect/track than JAS Gripen NG, making the job of EW system very much easier.

Detect maybe, track maybe not. Track means overpowering the EW.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 14:49
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:If you assume that the listener has no knowledge of LPI/LPD then for sure the sender has a big advantage; but if the listener understand the LPI/LPD techniques then it will be in a much better position to detect such signals. And you always have the basic phycis principle that the incoming signal at the position of the listener is much stronger than the return signal.


Knowing LPI/LPD would not be nearly enough. Pretty much every advanced nation has enough knowledge and expertise in LPI/LPD techniques. The listener would have to first realize there is a signal in the first place and not just noise. Then the listener would have to extract a lot of information from the signal to know what signal it really is. Then the listener would have to correlate the received signal to make some kind of tracking possible. That is easy with MSA and even PESA radars as they pretty much always transmit with the same power and waveform and signal parameters along a narrow bandwidth, making the job very easy. Against AESA radars that is not easy as they can vary the transmit power and waveform with every beam and also transmit over a very wide bandwidth and hopping frequency with every pulse. The transmitter always has the advantage of knowing what kind of signals it has sent out and what to expect back.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 14:58
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:How would the F-35 then find the Gripen, if it's completely silent? Would it rely on it's LPI/LPD algorithms being much better than those that Gripen E uses to detect such transmissions, and use the radar, or would it also remain silent and rely on IR?


Maybe using APG-81 to accurately track JAS Gripen at very long ranges due to relatively high RCS of Gripen (in comparison to F-35)? JAS Gripen would only know that there is some radar painting it for very short time in infrequent intervals from some direction. It would not know what it is (due to very variable radar waveform), how far it is (due to AESA tracking power management) or what the closing speed is. The same would likely be true for F-35 if it's painted by Raven AESA. F-35 would have the benefit that it would require hundreds of times more power to detect/track than JAS Gripen NG, making the job of EW system very much easier. A fighter flying around without own radar is all good if other radars (other fighters and surveillance) can detect and track the enemy. This would not work too well if the mission is to shoot down attacking aircraft or attain air superiority over enemy territory or to protect own attack aircraft (like other Gripens) against enemy fighters. This would be especially so against VLO fighters like F-35 or even LO fighters like PAK-FA.

As these two will For a nation considering buying either, it will depend a lot of the environment they are destined. If a nation does not have potential enemy nations with modern and numerous air forces or air defenses now or in the foreseeable future, I think JAS Gripen NG will be very fine aircraft. If however potential enemy nations have those, I think it'd be much better to go for F-35. Of course it all depends also on politics and very many other factors.

The relationship between the RCS of Gripen and F-35 does not come into play when the APG-81 is searching for the Gripen E, so I don't understand why you mention it in your first sentence above? It's the RCS of the target which is important to consider in such a case, not the RCS of the transmitter! We know that the RCS of Gripen E is not that of a VLO a/c; but we also know that it is significantly lower than the RCS of Gripen C, which again is significantly lower than the RCS of the F-16.

Anyway I never said Gripen E would be able to even start to match the F-35 in any sense; I merely try to point out that finding it using a radar without letting it know that it has been found, may not be as easy as some people here think. In particular I think it will be very hard to track a Gripen E without the E knowing that it is being tracked.... Tracking a target is harder than merely detecting it, AFAIK.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 15:08
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:How would the F-35 then find the Gripen, if it's completely silent? Would it rely on it's LPI/LPD algorithms being much better than those that Gripen E uses to detect such transmissions, and use the radar, or would it also remain silent and rely on IR?


Maybe using APG-81 to accurately track JAS Gripen at very long ranges due to relatively high RCS of Gripen (in comparison to F-35)? JAS Gripen would only know that there is some radar painting it for very short time in infrequent intervals from some direction. It would not know what it is (due to very variable radar waveform), how far it is (due to AESA tracking power management) or what the closing speed is. The same would likely be true for F-35 if it's painted by Raven AESA. F-35 would have the benefit that it would require hundreds of times more power to detect/track than JAS Gripen NG, making the job of EW system very much easier. A fighter flying around without own radar is all good if other radars (other fighters and surveillance) can detect and track the enemy. This would not work too well if the mission is to shoot down attacking aircraft or attain air superiority over enemy territory or to protect own attack aircraft (like other Gripens) against enemy fighters. This would be especially so against VLO fighters like F-35 or even LO fighters like PAK-FA.

As these two will For a nation considering buying either, it will depend a lot of the environment they are destined. If a nation does not have potential enemy nations with modern and numerous air forces or air defenses now or in the foreseeable future, I think JAS Gripen NG will be very fine aircraft. If however potential enemy nations have those, I think it'd be much better to go for F-35. Of course it all depends also on politics and very many other factors.

The relationship between the RCS of Gripen and F-35 does not come into play when the APG-81 is searching for the Gripen E, so I don't understand why you mention it in your first sentence above? It's the RCS of the target which is important to consider in such a case, not the RCS of the transmitter! We know that the RCS of Gripen E is not that of a VLO a/c; but we also know that it is significantly lower than the RCS of Gripen C, which again is significantly lower than the RCS of the F-16.

Anyway I never said Gripen E would be able to even start to match the F-35 in any sense; I merely try to point out that finding it using a radar without letting it know that it has been found, may not be as easy as some people here think. In particular I think it will be very hard to track a Gripen E without the E knowing that it is being tracked.... Tracking a target is harder than merely detecting it, AFAIK.


Because comparing JAS Gripen NG to F-35 against common enemy radar makes it valid. Enemy radar searching for JAS Gripen NG will have much easier time than searching for F-35. The job of RWR/ESM system in F-35 would be much easier than that of JAS Gripen NG because enemy radar has to use much more power to detect/track F-35 than to detect/track JAS Gripen NG. While JAS Gripen NG might have advanced RWR system, F-35 has at least as advanced system and has the added benefit of much lower RCS. Tracking is of course harder than detecting but EW system can do only so much to beat radar and at some point it can't. For F-35 that point is much, much closer to the radar than in any 4th generation fighter, even JAS Gripen NG.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 15:21
by popcorn
A PAK-FA or any modern fiighter would be able to detect,,track and target a Gripen using radar. Would a Gripen be able to do the same using it's EW suite exclusively?. What if the opponent has an AWACS which all modern air forces have. Gripen would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 15:49
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Maybe using APG-81 to accurately track JAS Gripen at very long ranges due to relatively high RCS of Gripen (in comparison to F-35)? JAS Gripen would only know that there is some radar painting it for very short time in infrequent intervals from some direction. It would not know what it is (due to very variable radar waveform), how far it is (due to AESA tracking power management) or what the closing speed is. The same would likely be true for F-35 if it's painted by Raven AESA. F-35 would have the benefit that it would require hundreds of times more power to detect/track than JAS Gripen NG, making the job of EW system very much easier. A fighter flying around without own radar is all good if other radars (other fighters and surveillance) can detect and track the enemy. This would not work too well if the mission is to shoot down attacking aircraft or attain air superiority over enemy territory or to protect own attack aircraft (like other Gripens) against enemy fighters. This would be especially so against VLO fighters like F-35 or even LO fighters like PAK-FA.

As these two will For a nation considering buying either, it will depend a lot of the environment they are destined. If a nation does not have potential enemy nations with modern and numerous air forces or air defenses now or in the foreseeable future, I think JAS Gripen NG will be very fine aircraft. If however potential enemy nations have those, I think it'd be much better to go for F-35. Of course it all depends also on politics and very many other factors.

The relationship between the RCS of Gripen and F-35 does not come into play when the APG-81 is searching for the Gripen E, so I don't understand why you mention it in your first sentence above? It's the RCS of the target which is important to consider in such a case, not the RCS of the transmitter! We know that the RCS of Gripen E is not that of a VLO a/c; but we also know that it is significantly lower than the RCS of Gripen C, which again is significantly lower than the RCS of the F-16.

Anyway I never said Gripen E would be able to even start to match the F-35 in any sense; I merely try to point out that finding it using a radar without letting it know that it has been found, may not be as easy as some people here think. In particular I think it will be very hard to track a Gripen E without the E knowing that it is being tracked.... Tracking a target is harder than merely detecting it, AFAIK.


Because comparing JAS Gripen NG to F-35 against common enemy radar makes it valid. Enemy radar searching for JAS Gripen NG will have much easier time than searching for F-35. The job of RWR/ESM system in F-35 would be much easier than that of JAS Gripen NG because enemy radar has to use much more power to detect/track F-35 than to detect/track JAS Gripen NG. While JAS Gripen NG might have advanced RWR system, F-35 has at least as advanced system and has the added benefit of much lower RCS. Tracking is of course harder than detecting but EW system can do only so much to beat radar and at some point it can't. For F-35 that point is much, much closer to the radar than in any 4th generation fighter, even JAS Gripen NG.


I thought we were talking about F-35 and Gripen E; now you are suddenly involving a common enemy radar? If you make such changes in the scenarios please inform us! Besides in the previous post you talked about the APG-81 which is the radar in the F-35, funny that you choose that one as a "common enemy radar"...

As I said already; Gripen E stands no real chance against the F-35 (unless the F-35 pilot is blind, deaf, drunk, etc). The best Gripen E pilot can hope for is to try to avoid being detected by not emitting anything, and hope for the best. My point was that due to lower RCS, and due to several good sensors, and due to some very intersting ECM/ECCM, and due to sensor fusion, and due to much improved missile chaffs/flare/decoy systems I am guessing that Gripen E will have a better chance of surviving than e.g. the standard bl. 50, or any flanker for that matter. However it seems clear that the E pilots can just forget about fighting; hiding, running, and just trying to stay alive would be the only sensible thing to try.

Of course there is the extreme opposite; the kamize option that I described in the PAK FA thread. But then you need a very large number of Gripen, and a large number of kamikaze pilots...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 15:53
by loke
popcorn wrote:A PAK-FA or any modern fiighter would be able to detect,,track and target a Gripen using radar. Would a Gripen be able to do the same using it's EW suite exclusively?. What if the opponent has an AWACS which all modern air forces have. Gripen would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location.

And what if the Gripen pilots are linked up to AWACs radars? The other "modern fighter" would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location :)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 17:28
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:It seems you believe SH cost roughly the same as Gripen E?


If you paid attention I actually postulated that the Gripen E cost more Flyaway.

How then do you explain that in the SH offer to Brazil for 36 SH the price was 7.5 billion? That's a whooping 208 million USD per plane!!! Seems the mature, cost-effective SH suddenly became horribly expensive....



That is a simple answer:

1. As people have already noted procurement packages are different than fly away cost.

2. this price included R & D fees (The swedes waived this in the case of the Swiss for example) and US FMS sales fees This adds to the cost. The Swedes are always willing to offer more free stuff

3. I was talking about flyaway cost.

4. when mentioning procurement cost, I was comparing it to procurement cost.

To make matters even worse, the SH offer included sigificantly less TOT than the Gripen offer to Brazil. So you pay much more and get very little TOT back.


This has to do with the Super Hornet already in production. With the Gripen NG still years from production you can offer more industrail offsets, for Boeing its hard to move a section of the factory from St. Loius to Brazil.

It seems you are picking and matching the information that suits you.


It seems you don't understand what you are talking about.

Regarding SH in Switzerland; Boeing was very interested in that competition but pulled out very early when they realized the size of the budget -- they claimed the SH was "too advanced" for Switzerland (read: too expensive).


You should read up a little more on that. If you think that the only reason was price, you havn't done your homework.

As for all those direct selection and sales of F-16: they are not competitions, and thus provides no information other than that those countries first and foremost wanted US fighters. Only competitions with a proper RFP process can provide some sort of information.


I guess hundreds of fighters sold really doesn't prove anything. you're right. Far better to look at vastly complex and complicated and convoluted international competitions to get to the bottom of the truth. So far Brazils, the Swiss, and the Indian competition havn't produced a single airplane. We may want to give it a few years. The Super Hornet looked too expensive for the swiss competition (among other things you havn't bothered to check out) but in retrospect it was actually less flyaway than the Gripen. Also the Gripen still has to survive a referendum in Switzerland. Maybe nothing "wins" in the swiss competition.

Lastly an anecdotal note I ran into some Boeing people after they "lost" in india. You have never seen a happy bunch of blokes. They dodged a bullet with India. You see one of the things that has happened before and will happen again I am sure, is that American Firms really try not to overpromise or lie. European firms have no problem with this. Once Boeing and even before them LM realized that to win in India you would have to promise them the moon at a rock bottom price and not turn any damn profit, they were fine with losing there. The French "won" because they overpromised. Since then the price of the Rafale for india has "magically" doubled and they are still in contract hell. For Brazil there was a desire for carrier capable airplanes which is why the F-16 went out early-- emphasis on a particular requirement for a particular country. It happens.

So these competitions are actually about the worst way to try and conclude things because they can be pretty crazy and arbitrary. You seem to think they are just big competitions to see which planes is cheaper, and the cheaper one always wins. using your logic, if the F-35 won in Norway its because its cheaper than the gripen NG. So sure whatever. I'll take it. Or maybe we can acknowledge that these competitions have hundreds of details beyond flyaway cost?


You say that Gripen would need to use a lot of power to see the F-35; of course, and of course the F-35 would detect the Gripen long before Gripen could spot the F-35.


Done in one.

How would the F-35 then find the Gripen, if it's completely silent? Would it rely on it's LPI/LPD algorithms being much better than those that Gripen E uses to detect such transmissions, and use the radar, or would it also remain silent and rely on IR?


Because the GRipen stands out on Radar and the F-35 doesn't? and as others have pointed out while the NG would have to use some serious razzle dazzle to find an F-35, an NG will stand out to anything with a radar?

Your whole scenario here is predicated on the idea that with two airplanes that are equal in LO, that the one with more electronic noise, and radar will be detected first by an aircraft that is passively listening.

The problem is the Gripen NG will show up on radar, because its not an LO aircraft. This is so basic I don't know why we even brought this whole scenario up in the first place.

Two F-35s may play electronic warfare chicken with each all day, but that won't be the case F-35 vs NG. Its not a fair fight and the Gripen NG is playing defense the second it takes off.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 18:50
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:

If you paid attention I actually postulated that the Gripen E cost more Flyaway.


How then do you explain that in the SH offer to Brazil for 36 SH the price was 7.5 billion? That's a whooping 208 million USD per plane!!! Seems the mature, cost-effective SH suddenly became horribly expensive....



That is a simple answer:

1. As people have already noted procurement packages are different than fly away cost.

2. this price included R & D fees (The swedes waived this in the case of the Swiss for example) and US FMS sales fees This adds to the cost. The Swedes are always willing to offer more free stuff

3. I was talking about flyaway cost.

4. when mentioning procurement cost, I was comparing it to procurement cost.

To make matters even worse, the SH offer included sigificantly less TOT than the Gripen offer to Brazil. So you pay much more and get very little TOT back.


This has to do with the Super Hornet already in production. With the Gripen NG still years from production you can offer more industrail offsets, for Boeing its hard to move a section of the factory from St. Loius to Brazil.

It seems you are picking and matching the information that suits you.


It seems you don't understand what you are talking about.

Regarding SH in Switzerland; Boeing was very interested in that competition but pulled out very early when they realized the size of the budget -- they claimed the SH was "too advanced" for Switzerland (read: too expensive).


You should read up a little more on that. If you think that the only reason was price, you havn't done your homework.

As for all those direct selection and sales of F-16: they are not competitions, and thus provides no information other than that those countries first and foremost wanted US fighters. Only competitions with a proper RFP process can provide some sort of information.


I guess hundreds of fighters sold really doesn't prove anything. you're right. Far better to look at vastly complex and complicated and convoluted international competitions to get to the bottom of the truth. So far Brazils, the Swiss, and the Indian competition havn't produced a single airplane. We may want to give it a few years. The Super Hornet looked too expensive for the swiss competition (among other things you havn't bothered to check out) but in retrospect it was actually less flyaway than the Gripen. Also the Gripen still has to survive a referendum in Switzerland. Maybe nothing "wins" in the swiss competition.

Lastly an anecdotal note I ran into some Boeing people after they "lost" in india. You have never seen a happy bunch of blokes. They dodged a bullet with India. You see one of the things that has happened before and will happen again I am sure, is that American Firms really try not to overpromise or lie. European firms have no problem with this. Once Boeing and even before them LM realized that to win in India you would have to promise them the moon at a rock bottom price and not turn any damn profit, they were fine with losing there. The French "won" because they overpromised. Since then the price of the Rafale for india has "magically" doubled and they are still in contract hell. For Brazil there was a desire for carrier capable airplanes which is why the F-16 went out early-- emphasis on a particular requirement for a particular country. It happens.

So these competitions are actually about the worst way to try and conclude things because they can be pretty crazy and arbitrary. You seem to think they are just big competitions to see which planes is cheaper, and the cheaper one always wins. using your logic, if the F-35 won in Norway its because its cheaper than the gripen NG. So sure whatever. I'll take it. Or maybe we can acknowledge that these competitions have hundreds of details beyond flyaway cost?


You say that Gripen would need to use a lot of power to see the F-35; of course, and of course the F-35 would detect the Gripen long before Gripen could spot the F-35.


Done in one.

How would the F-35 then find the Gripen, if it's completely silent? Would it rely on it's LPI/LPD algorithms being much better than those that Gripen E uses to detect such transmissions, and use the radar, or would it also remain silent and rely on IR?


Because the GRipen stands out on Radar and the F-35 doesn't? and as others have pointed out while the NG would have to use some serious razzle dazzle to find an F-35, an NG will stand out to anything with a radar?

Your whole scenario here is predicated on the idea that with two airplanes that are equal in LO, that the one with more electronic noise, and radar will be detected first by an aircraft that is passively listening.

The problem is the Gripen NG will show up on radar, because its not an LO aircraft. This is so basic I don't know why we even brought this whole scenario up in the first place.

Two F-35s may play electronic warfare chicken with each all day, but that won't be the case F-35 vs NG. Its not a fair fight and the Gripen NG is playing defense the second it takes off.

If you paid attention to what you wrote you would perhaps see that what cost you were referring to was not very clear from your text. At least not to me. I guess my reading skills are poor then.

In one paragraph you talked about the fly-away of SH, and in the next you talked about Gripen costing 125 million USD per piece. I basically calculated the price of SH in the same way you did, coming up with 208 million per plane. Actually fly-away is not very interesting. What is most interesting to customers is what they actually are paying. Nobody pays "fly-away" costs in any case. I am surprised you are so focused on fly-away. If one should pick one number that is the most interesting I would go all the other way and look at TCO instead. Why do you care so much about fly-away?


Also, are you sure you understand the difference between TOT and industrial offsets? Probably you do but reading the text you wrote, it's not very obvious that you do.

As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that. If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.

As for Gripen E detecting F-35 with a radar; I thought I made it clear that Gripen E would most likely never be able to do so. The moment Gripen turns on it radar, the F-35 will detect the radar, and long before the E can detect the F-35. That's one of many important differences between the two.

I said repeatedly that comparing the Gripen E with F-35 is silly. They are in completely different classes.

You might as well compare a skoda to a ferrari. Both have four wheels and an engine, and that's about it.

As for SH in Switzerland; I am not sure exactly what you are talking about, but there was a rumor which said that SH did not fit into their hangars and that's why they dropped out. However a couple of years ago I read a story which claimed this was not relevant for that competition, since the Swiss would stop using those hangars when they got the new planes (if not before). If you have more information about this I am interested in hearing more about it.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 19:03
by basher54321
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:A PAK-FA or any modern fiighter would be able to detect,,track and target a Gripen using radar. Would a Gripen be able to do the same using it's EW suite exclusively?. What if the opponent has an AWACS which all modern air forces have. Gripen would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location.

And what if the Gripen pilots are linked up to AWACs radars? The other "modern fighter" would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location :)



They most likely would be - for example Brazil has the Embraer E-99 providing full networking capability. But the situation doesn't change much in that scenario - because the AWACs with the Gripens still won't likely pick up the F-35s at any significant range. However the Gripens (aka radar significant aircraft ) should be picked up far sooner by an opposing AWACs giving the F-35s a massive tactical advantage.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 19:08
by basher54321
loke wrote: We know that the RCS of Gripen E is not that of a VLO a/c; but we also know that it is significantly lower than the RCS of Gripen C, which again is significantly lower than the RCS of the F-16.


Ha - well I'm sure SAAB do claim this..........

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 20:01
by castlebravo
loke wrote:As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that. If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.

As for Gripen E detecting F-35 with a radar; I thought I made it clear that Gripen E would most likely never be able to do so. The moment Gripen turns on it radar, the F-35 will detect the radar, and long before the E can detect the F-35. That's one of many important differences between the two.


An LPI radar will emit the minimum RF power needed to maintain a target track. If the target has a larger RCS, it will emit less energy and therefor make it less likely said target detects the radar emission. Since an RWR has no way to know the LPI radar's pulse characteristics, it has no way to identify a radar signal from random noise unless the the radar signal is significantly more powerful than the noise. The LPI radar on the other hand can look for a return pulse identical to what it knows it broadcast and pull in a signal that is significantly lower than the noise level.

LPI is less useful against a VLO target since the additional power needed to detect a VLO target erases the noise filtering advantage of the LPI radar.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 20:20
by enrico
As I said already; Gripen E stands no real chance against the F-35 (unless the F-35 pilot is blind, deaf, drunk, etc).


Not necessarily. F-35 has to detect, track (with radar) and close to effective AMRAAM range against evading/jamming JAS. If it can't do that without unmasking (eg radar detectable by ESM or aircraft detected by IRST) the risk is that detection becomes mutual before the first AMRAAM shot opportunity.

In that (admittedly hypothetical) case, advantage goes to the missile with higher Pk at long range.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 20:28
by icemaverick
loke wrote:As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that. If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.


There's nothing magical about LPI. Low probability of intercept means just that....it's difficult to intercept the signal. The F-35's radar will be transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, and varying its frequencies over 1000 times per second. The Gripen will have to distinguish the incoming signals from the background noise and it will have to do so over a 1000 times per second, which is unlikely. You can bet that in a real air war there will be all kinds of electromagnetic waves traveling through the sky (radio communications, satellite signals, data links, multiple radars, jammers etc.). At best, the Gripen will have some vague idea that it is being tracked by a radar, but that's not going to give it the F-35's position.

Besides, only one F-35 would need to turn on its radar. The rest of the F-35s would have this info through data linking. Additionally, most fighters don't even use their radars for mass search. They are vectored towards targets by GCI or AWACS. The Gripen and other non-LO airframes will be detected and tracked at relatively long ranges whereas LO and VLO platforms will be tracked at much shorter ranges. That's a huge advantage.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 20:40
by icemaverick
enrico wrote:As I said already; Gripen E stands no real chance against the F-35 (unless the F-35 pilot is blind, deaf, drunk, etc).

Not necessarily. F-35 has to detect, track (with radar) and close to effective AMRAAM range against evading/jamming JAS. If it can't do that without unmasking (eg radar detectable by ESM or aircraft detected by IRST) the risk is that detection becomes mutual before the first AMRAAM shot opportunity.

In that (admittedly hypothetical) case, advantage goes to the missile with higher Pk at long range.


Not necessarily. The F-35 can guide an AMRAAM with EODAS or using an off board platform's sensors (i.e another F-35 or another aircraft type). As has already been detailed, it's quite difficult to detect an AESA radar. Furthermore, most IRSTs have a very narrow field of view (like looking through a straw), only face one direction and they are usually slaved to the radar (they are not good mass search sensors even in ideal weather conditions). An F-35 would easily be able to steer clear of a non-VLO platform's sensors and sneak up on it. A lion is within visual, auditory and olfactory range when it stalks up on an antelope; that doesn't mean it's been detected!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 21:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Ooh, I like the lion analogy.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 23:24
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:If you paid attention to what you wrote you would perhaps see that what cost you were referring to was not very clear from your text. At least not to me. I guess my reading skills are poor then.



I wrote a lot, I apologize for any confusion.

Nobody pays "fly-away" costs in any case. I am surprised you are so focused on fly-away. If one should pick one number that is the most interesting I would go all the other way and look at TCO instead. Why do you care so much about fly-away?


Because the price Enrico quoted from bill Sweetman was flyaway... which is what got me into a tizzy in the first place.



As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that.


I guess this is all just one on one in wonderful clear skies. In an actual combat situation there will be multiple assets picking up non VLO aircraft with multiple radars and other sensors as well. The Gripen is not going to be able to "run silent, run deep" at all

If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.


Assuming the Gripen is capable of picking it up, assuming the Gripen is sensitive enough to distinguish the noise from all the other noise, assuming its able to determine which radar source is hitting it from where and of what type, and I hope this system is highly automatic because the pilot is going to be busy.

As for Gripen E detecting F-35 with a radar; I thought I made it clear that Gripen E would most likely never be able to do so.

The moment Gripen turns on it radar, the F-35 will detect the radar, and long before the E can detect the F-35. That's one of many important differences between the two.


Without getting too into details, the F-35 will detect the Gripen whether the Gripens radar is on or not, because its not an LO platform.

I said repeatedly that comparing the Gripen E with F-35 is silly. They are in completely different classes.


Agree, I just think its kind of fishy that they are so similar in cost, and how one aircraft is universally panned as being an expensive boondoggle, and yet the other is celebrated as a cheap wunderfighter.

As for SH in Switzerland; I am not sure exactly what you are talking about, but there was a rumor which said that SH did not fit into their hangars and that's why they dropped out. However a couple of years ago I read a story which claimed this was not relevant for that competition, since the Swiss would stop using those hangars when they got the new planes (if not before). If you have more information about this I am interested in hearing more about it.


Thats news to me. My point regarding the swiss is that there are usually multiple reasons why competitions go the way they do, and an incredible myriad of factors. They are all soap operas. and you can't overly simplify one factor. Different countries put emphasis on different things at different times for different reasons. Japan is actually willing to pay more for its F-35s so it can build more parts in Japan proper. There is nothing wrong with this, just to point out that countries will go for the more expensive option sometimes if they feel its worth it.

Part of my consternation with the Gripen NG is that people are basically playing both sides and using whatever is convenient being the C or the NG for their argument, and when people who take all the glowing reports and believe the hype and think it would be of any value for a country like Canada in comparison to an F-35... or any other country that plans, because of its obligations or of its own need, on taking airplanes to foreign lands in an expeditionary nature and killing people in highly contested environments, as opposed to doing laps in the sky in an air policing role over a neutral country.

:devil:

The Swiss their reasons for buying the NG, and other countries have their reasons for steering clear of it despite the hype. I hope this clarifies things

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 00:18
by popcorn
basher54321 wrote:
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:A PAK-FA or any modern fiighter would be able to detect,,track and target a Gripen using radar. Would a Gripen be able to do the same using it's EW suite exclusively?. What if the opponent has an AWACS which all modern air forces have. Gripen would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location.

And what if the Gripen pilots are linked up to AWACs radars? The other "modern fighter" would detect the AWACS radar but be oblivious to hostile fighters being vectored in to it's location :)



They most likely would be - for example Brazil has the Embraer E-99 providing full networking capability. But the situation doesn't change much in that scenario - because the AWACs with the Gripens still won't likely pick up the F-35s at any significant range. However the Gripens (aka radar significant aircraft ) should be picked up far sooner by an opposing AWACs giving the F-35s a massive tactical advantage.


Yep, AWACS and Gripens become target practice for silent LO fighters guided by their own,AWACS. :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 13:16
by enrico
Furthermore, most IRSTs have a very narrow field of view (like looking through a straw), only face one direction and they are usually slaved to the radar (they are not good mass search sensors even in ideal weather conditions).

I think you may be confusing FoV with field of regard. In any event, you might want to read up on contemporary technology.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 13:20
by enrico
There's a point being missed on procurement cost.

If the operational requirement is pass-fail and the desired number of aircraft is fixed (or limited variability), and I know that I have buried the competition on operating cost, do I quote a price that is as low as possible, or a price that decisively beats the other guy?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2014, 23:40
by loke
icemaverick wrote:
loke wrote:As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that. If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.


There's nothing magical about LPI. Low probability of intercept means just that....it's difficult to intercept the signal. The F-35's radar will be transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, and varying its frequencies over 1000 times per second. The Gripen will have to distinguish the incoming signals from the background noise and it will have to do so over a 1000 times per second, which is unlikely. You can bet that in a real air war there will be all kinds of electromagnetic waves traveling through the sky (radio communications, satellite signals, data links, multiple radars, jammers etc.). At best, the Gripen will have some vague idea that it is being tracked by a radar, but that's not going to give it the F-35's position.

Besides, only one F-35 would need to turn on its radar. The rest of the F-35s would have this info through data linking. Additionally, most fighters don't even use their radars for mass search. They are vectored towards targets by GCI or AWACS. The Gripen and other non-LO airframes will be detected and tracked at relatively long ranges whereas LO and VLO platforms will be tracked at much shorter ranges. That's a huge advantage.

To "distinguish incoming signals from the background noise over 1000 times per second" sound quite feasible with modern computers.

If you assume that the incoming signal has roughly the same strength as the "background noise", the receiver will have a big issue since the power of the signal observed at the target will typically be orders of magnitudes higher than what is received at the other end. Some of the energy will be absorbed; some will be scattered, and only a tiny fraction of the energy that hit the target will be returned back to the F-35. The larger the distance between the target and the F-35, the bigger the signal loss. I think it is quite optimistic to think that the F-35 will be able to sort out from the background signal the return signal if its orders of magnitude lower.

Of course this will change if; a) the power is turned up; or b) if the distance between the target and the F-35 is sufficiently small. However in the latter I suspect we start approaching EODAS ranges, thus the radar may not be the primary sensor anymore.

The only exception I can think of to the above would be if the F-35 sensors are "orders of magnitude" more sensitive than the GaN sensors that the Gripen will get.

Perhaps they are?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 02:19
by castlebravo
loke wrote:
icemaverick wrote:
loke wrote:As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that. If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.


There's nothing magical about LPI. Low probability of intercept means just that....it's difficult to intercept the signal. The F-35's radar will be transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, and varying its frequencies over 1000 times per second. The Gripen will have to distinguish the incoming signals from the background noise and it will have to do so over a 1000 times per second, which is unlikely. You can bet that in a real air war there will be all kinds of electromagnetic waves traveling through the sky (radio communications, satellite signals, data links, multiple radars, jammers etc.). At best, the Gripen will have some vague idea that it is being tracked by a radar, but that's not going to give it the F-35's position.

Besides, only one F-35 would need to turn on its radar. The rest of the F-35s would have this info through data linking. Additionally, most fighters don't even use their radars for mass search. They are vectored towards targets by GCI or AWACS. The Gripen and other non-LO airframes will be detected and tracked at relatively long ranges whereas LO and VLO platforms will be tracked at much shorter ranges. That's a huge advantage.

To "distinguish incoming signals from the background noise over 1000 times per second" sound quite feasible with modern computers.

If you assume that the incoming signal has roughly the same strength as the "background noise", the receiver will have a big issue since the power of the signal observed at the target will typically be orders of magnitudes higher than what is received at the other end. Some of the energy will be absorbed; some will be scattered, and only a tiny fraction of the energy that hit the target will be returned back to the F-35. The larger the distance between the target and the F-35, the bigger the signal loss. I think it is quite optimistic to think that the F-35 will be able to sort out from the background signal the return signal if its orders of magnitude lower.

Of course this will change if; a) the power is turned up; or b) if the distance between the target and the F-35 is sufficiently small. However in the latter I suspect we start approaching EODAS ranges, thus the radar may not be the primary sensor anymore.

The only exception I can think of to the above would be if the F-35 sensors are "orders of magnitude" more sensitive than the GaN sensors that the Gripen will get.

Perhaps they are?


I've seen figures of at least 40db of noise filtering on modern radars. That is four orders of magnitude. Noise is random and is not constant. If the signal at the RWR is not significantly stronger than the peaks in the noise, the RWR will not pick up anything. Meanwhile, the LPI radar can send many pulses toward the target it is tracking, and as long a statistically significant number of the returns are detectable against the noise, the radar will see the target.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 15:25
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
icemaverick wrote:
loke wrote:As for detecting Gripen on radar; it seems you did not read what I wrote. Of course it's not hard to detect Gripen using a radar, what I tried to explain is that it is a bit harder to detect Gripen with a radar without giving away that there is a radar detecting it. Perhaps F-35 can do that with it's magical LPI/LPD modes, I am not yet completely convinced about that. If a plane (almost any plane!) with a radar wants to detect a Gripen E (or a SH for that matter) it's just to turn on the radar, and voila, there it is. However at the same time the Gripen E will know that there is a radar painting it; perhaps with the possible exception of the F-35 with it's magical LPI modes.


There's nothing magical about LPI. Low probability of intercept means just that....it's difficult to intercept the signal. The F-35's radar will be transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, and varying its frequencies over 1000 times per second. The Gripen will have to distinguish the incoming signals from the background noise and it will have to do so over a 1000 times per second, which is unlikely. You can bet that in a real air war there will be all kinds of electromagnetic waves traveling through the sky (radio communications, satellite signals, data links, multiple radars, jammers etc.). At best, the Gripen will have some vague idea that it is being tracked by a radar, but that's not going to give it the F-35's position.

Besides, only one F-35 would need to turn on its radar. The rest of the F-35s would have this info through data linking. Additionally, most fighters don't even use their radars for mass search. They are vectored towards targets by GCI or AWACS. The Gripen and other non-LO airframes will be detected and tracked at relatively long ranges whereas LO and VLO platforms will be tracked at much shorter ranges. That's a huge advantage.


To "distinguish incoming signals from the background noise over 1000 times per second" sound quite feasible with modern computers.

If you assume that the incoming signal has roughly the same strength as the "background noise", the receiver will have a big issue since the power of the signal observed at the target will typically be orders of magnitudes higher than what is received at the other end. Some of the energy will be absorbed; some will be scattered, and only a tiny fraction of the energy that hit the target will be returned back to the F-35. The larger the distance between the target and the F-35, the bigger the signal loss. I think it is quite optimistic to think that the F-35 will be able to sort out from the background signal the return signal if its orders of magnitude lower.

Of course this will change if; a) the power is turned up; or b) if the distance between the target and the F-35 is sufficiently small. However in the latter I suspect we start approaching EODAS ranges, thus the radar may not be the primary sensor anymore.

The only exception I can think of to the above would be if the F-35 sensors are "orders of magnitude" more sensitive than the GaN sensors that the Gripen will get.

Perhaps they are?


I still think you are reaching. lets say we have 6 major factors that can give away an aircraft from its RCS, to its IR, to its netcentric emmisions. Even if Gripen NG is equal or even better than the F-35 on its avionics emissions, it still suffers in RCS and IR.

So are we just thinking out loud about all the ways that the Gripen NG could actually detect the F-35 first, providing we ignore the obvious advantages of the F-35?

It seems this all hinges on the F-35 painting an NG with its radar and that automatically gives away the whole show, providing the NG is completely passive, and that the JSF would then close to EODAS range... just seems there are a lot of caveats to make this work.

It just seems like we are making this tactical scenario that boils down to the simple question of "how good or sensitive are the NGs avionics?"

To boil it down even more simply "Can a Gripen NG detect an F-35's radar emission? and if so, to an extent where it can make a difference in engagement?"

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 16:07
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:I still think you are reaching. lets say we have 6 major factors that can give away an aircraft from its RCS, to its IR, to its netcentric emmisions. Even if Gripen NG is equal or even better than the F-35 on its avionics emissions, it still suffers in RCS and IR.

So are we just thinking out loud about all the ways that the Gripen NG could actually detect the F-35 first, providing we ignore the obvious advantages of the F-35?

It seems this all hinges on the F-35 painting an NG with its radar and that automatically gives away the whole show, providing the NG is completely passive, and that the JSF would then close to EODAS range... just seems there are a lot of caveats to make this work.

It just seems like we are making this tactical scenario that boils down to the simple question of "how good or sensitive are the NGs avionics?"

To boil it down even more simply "Can a Gripen NG detect an F-35's radar emission? and if so, to an extent where it can make a difference in engagement?"

It seems clear that unless the F-35 pilot is doing something terribly wrong then he will detect the Gripen E first, I don't dispute that at all.

I was merely trying to see if there is a specific scenario in which the Gripen would have a slight possibility of detecting the F-35 before the Gripen E detected the incoming missile, that's all.

Could it make a difference in an engagement? Most likely not.

Conclusion: The E should avoid the areas where the F-35 may operate. This reminds me of Argentina that kept their surface fleet away from the "war zone" during the Falklands war due to a British sub in the region.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 18:42
by spazsinbad
BS has a sense of humour that is for sure....
The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America
24 Mar 2014 Bill Sweetman in the Daily Beast

"The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again....

"...However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others...."

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 19:32
by gtx
He's got to share what he is smoking. :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 20:08
by castlebravo
loke wrote:I was merely trying to see if there is a specific scenario in which the Gripen would have a slight possibility of detecting the F-35 before the Gripen E detected the incoming missile, that's all.


LPI is not guaranteed to beat the RWR, and at longer ranges it is unlikely LPI will come out on top. That said, the only thing the RWR could possibly know is the bearing; it will have no idea what type of radar it is (beyond the frequency band it is operating on), nor will it be able to estimate the range. Gripen might know there is a radar out there, but it will have no way to know that the radar is attached to an F-35, or that the F-35 is tracking and engaging it.

Also, it is not necessary for the F-35 firing the missile to emit anything. The F-35 can fire on target data gathered from passive sensors, or from sensors on other F-35s in the network. F-35s flying against non-LO targets have all the time and space they need to set the engagement up with whatever tactics they wish to employ. Assuming the target's capabilities are known, the F-35s have a certain degree of control over what the enemy sees and when they see it. The tactical implications of that are absolutely enormous and go far beyond the ability to shoot first unseen.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 20:15
by castlebravo
spazsinbad wrote:BS has a sense of humour that is for sure....



Well if the Gripen-E is 6th-gen, obviously we need to build a new F-16G 7th-gen fighter to counter it. What do we do when we get to F-16Z though?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 20:39
by steakanddoritos
spazsinbad wrote:BS has a sense of humour that is for sure....
The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America
24 Mar 2014 Bill Sweetman in the Daily Beast

"The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again....

"...However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others...."

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html


Image

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 21:56
by coldman
Image

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 02:54
by mixelflick
Article uses confuse ray.

It's super effective...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 02:58
by XanderCrews
I bet you this thing sells everywhere!! unlike the un-5th generation JSF which will be lucky to net a few orders from neutral countries.

Imagine what bill would say if Lm said this:

It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained


Another fun game:

Replace Jas 39E with F-35:

However, what should qualify the F-35 for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the F-35 is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than F-22/eurofighter despite doing almost everything better.


Tell me if this isn't what people have been telling Bill all these years with the JSF:

The world has changed a bit. Operation Allied Force in 1999 presaged the air campaigns of the 2000s, where targets were soft but hard to find, and harder yet to pick out of the civilian environment. We can say little for certain about the nature of future conflict, except that it is likely to be led by, and revolve around, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). For the individual pilot, sailor or soldier, that means having better sense of the conflict zone is key.

Demographics and economics are squeezing the size of the world’s militaries—nations with more than 100 combat aircraft are few and getting fewer.


oh bill, what will you think of next?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 06:01
by mk82
Coldman, loving your post alot LOL :D.

Bill's euro fetish has gone to new levels....you would think that good ole Bill has married the Gripen E!

Geez Bill, a mediocre (in all aspects including stealth) aircraft is not going to last very long against a competent IADS (think layered defence... TOR M1s, S 300s, S400s, Flankers,... even PAK FAs networked together) PERIOD! If sixth generation equates to flaming Swedish metal raining down from the sky in highly contested enemy airspace, I rather stick to my more survivable 5th gen aircraft; thank you very much!

I think good ole Euro loving Bill has forgotten that the Post cold war environment ain't all Kumbyyah!! The anti access/area denial problem is becoming increasingly important going into the future! Sorry Bill, the Gripen E ain't a one size fits all "sixth generation" solution.

The Gripen E will be a great aircraft for what it does but Bill has made a mockery of it with his idiotic article. If I was SAAB, I would politely request good ole Bill to STFU!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 06:13
by XanderCrews
I guess he has just decided to drop any semblance of balance and just go full cheerleader. he oversells this one bad. Seriously If I had seen that on a blog I would have thought it was someone doing Bill Sweetman satire. its just too over the top.

With all the nasty rumors of LM bribing military test pilots all these years, can we safely accuse Bill of getting checks from Saab?

luckily Saab is releasing new concept art, I was seriously getting sick of his articles featuring the same 3 stock photos of the concept demonstrator after all these years.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 06:43
by mk82
Would that be "sixth gen" concept art :P? Bill is probably getting more than nice fat checks.....think long jolly lunches with SAAB executives and free trips to Stockholm to see the Swedish bikini female volleyball team (I would write anything for that bwahahahaha :P)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 06:48
by XanderCrews
Article contradicts headline:

The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America 24 Mar 2014 Bill Sweetman in the Daily Beast

"The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again....

"...However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others...."


so·phis·ti·cat·ed
səˈfistiˌkātid/Submit
adjective
1. (of a machine, system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity.

Why is it so hard for you all to believe that the Gripen NG is:

"the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft." that at the same time its "deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate"?

that "Saab—yes, that Saab—can argue that it has built the first such aircraft" while "Harvesting technology rather than inventing it...engine is from the U.S., the radar from Britain and the infra-red search and track system is from Italy. Much of the airframe may be built in Brazil."

Wow Saab impressive!!

and

"the Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America" but "It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter."

durrrrrr

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 08:58
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:I thought we were talking about F-35 and Gripen E; now you are suddenly involving a common enemy radar? If you make such changes in the scenarios please inform us! Besides in the previous post you talked about the APG-81 which is the radar in the F-35, funny that you choose that one as a "common enemy radar"...


Ok, let me clear things up. The two jets are likely never going to face each other in combat. I agree that direct comparison is not that important because of that. But for a country thinking about buying either one has to consider the potential threats they will likely face. Let's say that F-35A and JAS Gripen are going to war against identical modern and capable enemy. If the enemy is low tech and low capability, either one will likely suffice (just like pretty much any modern fighter jet).

Let's say that both aircraft are going against enemy (fighter or SAM unit) with modern radar and surveillance radars and other sensors and networked capability. JAS Gripen NG will most likely be detected and tracked at long ranges (even if it's not using own radar and using jamming), even though it might be somewhat better than current Gripens. This would mean that the enemy would have pretty good knowledge where the Gripens are and what they are doing. Enemy could then have ample warning and be able to counter (or at least try to) what the Gripens are doing.

Against enemy fighters, the fight would be mostly about exchanging long range shot and a lot of it depending on the radar, EW systems, missile performance etc. Short range fights would of course happen and the small size, relatively low signatures and agility of Gripen would of course help. All this would mean that against competent enemy, exchange ratios would be relatively even and Gripen losses in air combat would likely also be substantial.

If enemy had good air defenses, air to ground missions for Gripen would also be highly dangerous as the air defense units could detect and track the Gripens at long ranges and use their weapons at long ranges. Pretty much all modern SAM systems could use their weapons at their maximum ranges against Gripen as they could detect and track it at longer ranges. Self protection jamming from Gripen would help in reducing the pK of SAMs and their effective range. Still, Gripen would have to use long range standoff weapons and/or low level flight profile to attack well defended targets. This would reduce the range, payload and targets they can attack a lot.

In comparison, F-35 will be detected and tracked at several times shorter ranges making the job much easier. Against enemy fighters, they can get much closer before releasing weapons increasing their pK and simultaneously lowering the effectiveness of enemy fighters and their weapons a lot. Enemy fighters would not know where the F-35s are or what they are doing. This would likely lead to very favorable exchange ratios in air combat.

Similarly in doing ground attack missions, F-35 would have a serious advantage compared to 4th generation aircraft as it could get much closer to threat systems and use much more versatile arsenal of weapons. It could also use much better flight profiles as it would not need to hide under radar horizon and fly low. So it could attack targets to much longer ranges and with much better survivability. All in all, it could attack more and better defended targets with better chance of success and much lower casualties.

One thing to consider is that both of these aircraft will be used from about 2020-30 to 2060-2070. If there is possibility that the jets will face (then) modern enemy fighter jets and air defense systems, IMO then the much better choice is F-35. If not, then JAS Gripen is likely the somewhat cheaper and less demanding (technically) option. So it might be a good choice for some smaller air forces with no serious threats in the foreseeable future. It's likely a very good 4th generation aircraft, nothing more and nothing less. If that is enough for the requirements, then that's fine. Most air forces will likely choose F-35 if they can.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 10:05
by gtx
mk82 wrote:f I was SAAB, I would politely request good ole Bill to STFU!


Indeed. :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 10:47
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:I thought we were talking about F-35 and Gripen E; now you are suddenly involving a common enemy radar? If you make such changes in the scenarios please inform us! Besides in the previous post you talked about the APG-81 which is the radar in the F-35, funny that you choose that one as a "common enemy radar"...


Ok, let me clear things up. The two jets are likely never going to face each other in combat. I agree that direct comparison is not that important because of that. But for a country thinking about buying either one has to consider the potential threats they will likely face. Let's say that F-35A and JAS Gripen are going to war against identical modern and capable enemy. If the enemy is low tech and low capability, either one will likely suffice (just like pretty much any modern fighter jet).

Let's say that both aircraft are going against enemy (fighter or SAM unit) with modern radar and surveillance radars and other sensors and networked capability. JAS Gripen NG will most likely be detected and tracked at long ranges (even if it's not using own radar and using jamming), even though it might be somewhat better than current Gripens. This would mean that the enemy would have pretty good knowledge where the Gripens are and what they are doing. Enemy could then have ample warning and be able to counter (or at least try to) what the Gripens are doing.

Against enemy fighters, the fight would be mostly about exchanging long range shot and a lot of it depending on the radar, EW systems, missile performance etc. Short range fights would of course happen and the small size, relatively low signatures and agility of Gripen would of course help. All this would mean that against competent enemy, exchange ratios would be relatively even and Gripen losses in air combat would likely also be substantial.

If enemy had good air defenses, air to ground missions for Gripen would also be highly dangerous as the air defense units could detect and track the Gripens at long ranges and use their weapons at long ranges. Pretty much all modern SAM systems could use their weapons at their maximum ranges against Gripen as they could detect and track it at longer ranges. Self protection jamming from Gripen would help in reducing the pK of SAMs and their effective range. Still, Gripen would have to use long range standoff weapons and/or low level flight profile to attack well defended targets. This would reduce the range, payload and targets they can attack a lot.

In comparison, F-35 will be detected and tracked at several times shorter ranges making the job much easier. Against enemy fighters, they can get much closer before releasing weapons increasing their pK and simultaneously lowering the effectiveness of enemy fighters and their weapons a lot. Enemy fighters would not know where the F-35s are or what they are doing. This would likely lead to very favorable exchange ratios in air combat.

Similarly in doing ground attack missions, F-35 would have a serious advantage compared to 4th generation aircraft as it could get much closer to threat systems and use much more versatile arsenal of weapons. It could also use much better flight profiles as it would not need to hide under radar horizon and fly low. So it could attack targets to much longer ranges and with much better survivability. All in all, it could attack more and better defended targets with better chance of success and much lower casualties.

One thing to consider is that both of these aircraft will be used from about 2020-30 to 2060-2070. If there is possibility that the jets will face (then) modern enemy fighter jets and air defense systems, IMO then the much better choice is F-35. If not, then JAS Gripen is likely the somewhat cheaper and less demanding (technically) option. So it might be a good choice for some smaller air forces with no serious threats in the foreseeable future. It's likely a very good 4th generation aircraft, nothing more and nothing less. If that is enough for the requirements, then that's fine. Most air forces will likely choose F-35 if they can.

In general I agree however I think you still underestimate the latest "4.5 gen" fighters. 4. gen fighters would be F-16 bl52+, Hornet, Mirage2000, and Gripen C.

4.5 gen fighters include Rafale (latest version), SH, Gripen E, and Typhoon. Of these only the E is a "light-weight" fighter, the others are more medium/heavy.

Why do I distinguish between 4.0 and 4.5 gen fighters? Because it seem pretty clear to me that there is a clear difference is survivability between e.g. a Hornet on the on hand, and a SH on the other (although the current SH/Typhoon are just "borderline 4.5" in some respects). Also there is a quite big difference in survivability between the Mirage2000 and the Rafale (latest version).

This does not mean that the 4.5 gen fighters are anywhere near survivability to the F-35; it just means what I said above; they are in general more survivable than the "4.0 gen". One could argue that it also make sense to talk about a new generation, since these a/c at least in most cases replace the 4.0 gen fighters in their respective ar forces.

What are the typical 4.5 gen attributes?

1. RCS reductions compared to 4.0 gen, built into the airframe (but without going all the way to VLO)
2. Somewhat reduced IR signature
3. Significantly reduced EM emissions, preferrably including beamed datalinks
3. Integration of more sensors into airframe (IR, MAW, RWR, laser sensors)
4. Integrated EWS package
5. Sensor fusion
6. AESA radar
7. Automatic countermeasures systems

Gripen E will have all of the above, I believe also the latest Rafale got all of the above; SH and Typhoon got most of it but not all (however will probably get there soon; Eurofighter is working on AESA radar, and I believe the SH will get sensor fusion in bl. III?).

Is F-16 "block 70" a 4.5 gen jet? I don't know.

However block 50/52+ seems not.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 13:40
by castlebravo
loke wrote:In general I agree however I think you still underestimate the latest "4.5 gen" fighters. 4. gen fighters would be F-16 bl52+, Hornet, Mirage2000, and Gripen C.

4.5 gen fighters include Rafale (latest version), SH, Gripen E, and Typhoon. Of these only the E is a "light-weight" fighter, the others are more medium/heavy.

Why do I distinguish between 4.0 and 4.5 gen fighters? Because it seem pretty clear to me that there is a clear difference is survivability between e.g. a Hornet on the on hand, and a SH on the other (although the current SH/Typhoon are just "borderline 4.5" in some respects). Also there is a quite big difference in survivability between the Mirage2000 and the Rafale (latest version).

This does not mean that the 4.5 gen fighters are anywhere near survivability to the F-35; it just means what I said above; they are in general more survivable than the "4.0 gen". One could argue that it also make sense to talk about a new generation, since these a/c at least in most cases replace the 4.0 gen fighters in their respective ar forces.


Yes, 4.5 is superior to 4th-gen, but why buy 4.5 when the massively superior 5th-gen jet is available? Its like building a new improved bolt action battle rifle while the rest of the world is getting the AK-47.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 14:39
by loke
castlebravo wrote:
loke wrote:In general I agree however I think you still underestimate the latest "4.5 gen" fighters. 4. gen fighters would be F-16 bl52+, Hornet, Mirage2000, and Gripen C.

4.5 gen fighters include Rafale (latest version), SH, Gripen E, and Typhoon. Of these only the E is a "light-weight" fighter, the others are more medium/heavy.

Why do I distinguish between 4.0 and 4.5 gen fighters? Because it seem pretty clear to me that there is a clear difference is survivability between e.g. a Hornet on the on hand, and a SH on the other (although the current SH/Typhoon are just "borderline 4.5" in some respects). Also there is a quite big difference in survivability between the Mirage2000 and the Rafale (latest version).

This does not mean that the 4.5 gen fighters are anywhere near survivability to the F-35; it just means what I said above; they are in general more survivable than the "4.0 gen". One could argue that it also make sense to talk about a new generation, since these a/c at least in most cases replace the 4.0 gen fighters in their respective ar forces.


Yes, 4.5 is superior to 4th-gen, but why buy 4.5 when the massively superior 5th-gen jet is available? Its like building a new improved bolt action battle rifle while the rest of the world is getting the AK-47.

Because the F-35 will not be available to all; or because of political decisions related to e.g. TOT; or because some countries live in a low-threat environment and perhaps have neither the budget nor the need to buy the F-35.

I agree that with the exception of "political" issues like TOT, it does not make much sense to buy the Typhoon, SH or Rafale instead of the F-35 since they are all pretty expensive. However the Gripen E may well turn out to be different, I know most of you are still very sceptical however consider that there are 2 export customers that have already chosen it, before it is even completed, I would say that is a pretty good sign. Rafale, SH, Typhoon, none of them were anywhere near such an achievement at the same level of development.


I predict Gripen E sales to several countries in Asia, Africa, and South America over the next 10 years. And who knows, perhaps European countries like Finland also decides to go for it.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 14:49
by hornetfinn
Loke, I definitely agree that fighter generations are very broad and that latest 4th generation fighters are way more capable than earliest 4th generation fighters. I think JAS Gripen is good in that, but it's coming out very late for the capabilities it will offer. If it was available a few years back, it'd be great but it's coming out when F-35 will be in full production, offering way more capabilities and development potential than Gripen NG with costs that make it affordable to most air forces. But of course if the country can't buy F-35 for some reason, JAS Gripen NG is a good choice. Other Eurocanards are very expensive and JAS Gripen NG seems to offer pretty similar capabilities for less money.

Most or all of what you describe, can be installed to pretty much any 4th generation fighter as an upgrade. I don't think any 4.5+ generation fighter offers beamed (directional) datalinks. All of them use Link 16 style datalinks and there is no directional capability in them. No, the Swedish fighter datalink is not directional, it's omni-directional (just like Link 16), despite what Bill Sweetman claims. IMO, it's highly unlikely that Gripen NG will feature directional datalink and will likely have omnidirectional datalink system as Saab is currently developing their current datalink system further and Link 16 capability. It'd be a major undertaking developing an another datalink system on top of that.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 14:58
by andreas77
hornetfinn wrote: ...when F-35 will be in full production... with costs that make it affordable to most air forces...


That remains to be seen...

hornetfinn wrote:...
I don't think any 4.5+ generation fighter offers beamed (directional) datalinks. All of them use Link 16 style datalinks and there is no directional capability in them. No, the Swedish fighter datalink is not directional, it's omni-directional (just like Link 16), despite what Bill Sweetman claims. IMO, it's highly unlikely that Gripen NG will feature directional datalink
...



Follow this link, page 20....

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documen ... orough.pdf

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 15:02
by loke
The "beamed datalink" statement was from Saab not BS. For instance it's mentioned here:

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documen ... orough.pdf

on slide 20.

You may be right about the Gripen C/D I do not know whether there are claims from other than BS that it got directional data links.

Edit: Oops, the Swede beat me to it :)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 16:27
by XanderCrews
andreas77 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: ...when F-35 will be in full production... with costs that make it affordable to most air forces...


That remains to be seen...




as it does for the NG as well, especially with Bill saying it will be even less to operate than the original. 8)

Gotta apply equal standards of proof... If we can't hypothesize on the F-35 with over 100 units built and flown then the NG that has yet to even do its first test flight may have more question marks around it.

Also if we want to look at an aircraft that was derived from a legacy platform with cost in mind and improved with F414s and call it sixth gen, then the F/A-18E/F was "first" and by 20 years as well.

All hail Beoing's 6th gen fighter.

Link to picture of world's first 6th gen fighter:

http://cdn.wallstcheatsheet.com/wp-cont ... Hornet.jpg

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 16:46
by loke
The F-35 is coming along nicely no doubt however we still need to see how low the costs will be in the end.

True that the Gripen E needs some more development work and we should be careful to assume too much at this stage -- OTOH the risk is still quite small since it is an evolution of an existing, well established a/c, and not a brand new design. And Saab has done a lot of de-risking activities with the "Gripen NG Demo" program that has been running since 2008.

My guess is that the F-35 will do quite well and become the biggest western program since the F-16, however I am also guessing that Gripen E will also do "quite well" (i.e., compared to Saab's ambitions of acquiring 10% of the "accessible market").

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 17:57
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
What are the typical 4.5 gen attributes?

1. RCS reductions compared to 4.0 gen, built into the airframe (but without going all the way to VLO)
2. Somewhat reduced IR signature
3. Significantly reduced EM emissions, preferrably including beamed datalinks
3. Integration of more sensors into airframe (IR, MAW, RWR, laser sensors)
4. Integrated EWS package
5. Sensor fusion
6. AESA radar
7. Automatic countermeasures systems

Gripen E will have all of the above, I believe also the latest Rafale got all of the above; SH and Typhoon got most of it but not all (however will probably get there soon; Eurofighter is working on AESA radar, and I believe the SH will get sensor fusion in bl. III?).



???

1. RCS reductions compared to 4.0 gen, built into the airframe (but without going all the way to VLO)

according to bill. No

2. Somewhat reduced IR signature

I don't know how it would. but I could be lost on this.

3. Significantly reduced EM emissions, preferrably including beamed datalinks

yes

3. Integration of more sensors into airframe (IR, MAW, RWR, laser sensors)

most likely

4. Integrated EWS package

yes


5. Sensor fusion

yes

6. AESA radar

yes

7. Automatic countermeasures systems

yes


I think the reason you havn't seen an evolution of the F-16 with all of these features (though some F-16s do have some) is that LM doesn't want to trump its own ace, it would raise political questions especially amongst the myriad F-16 users that are going to become F-35 users "Why don't we just buy that new F-16 instead?"

I try not to buy into conspiracy theories, but it would contradict the 5th gen or die mentality, if LM did a 4.5 gen F-16 with all those features. it would create contradictory alternatives. Had Boeing won the JSF, you would have seen it. and with some very hard selling as well.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 18:22
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
???

1. RCS reductions compared to 4.0 gen, built into the airframe (but without going all the way to VLO)

according to bill. No

2. Somewhat reduced IR signature

I don't know how it would. but I could be lost on this.

Not sure if I understand what you are trying to say? For 1. are you saying that you don't think a/c like Gripen E, Rafale and SH have lower RCS than their predecessors? Or that you don't think they are not VLO? (which would mean that you are being sarcastic or ironic?)

Regarding IR signature, again I am not sure what you mean?

Note I am not suggesting there are major IR reduction like we see on the F-35 however in general there are some efforts in that direction as well. AFAIK the F414 has more IR reductions efforts than the F404, and of course the French are claiming they have made a lot of progress in this field with the Rafale.

One thing to notice is that there seems to be some interesting synergies between the reduced RCS and the EW systems; the French are extremely proud of this and call it "active stealth" (which some people confuse with "active cancellation", which of course it's not). Although Saab has so far been quite low-key regarding this, there are several indications that the reduced RCS together with sophisticated EWS is assumed to be an important contributor to the increased survivability for the Gripen E.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 18:42
by castlebravo
Are they really going to achieve a significant reduction in RCS though? I think the continued advancement of radar technology has already outpaced any improvements in RCS they might make. The JAS-39 of the 1990's was in my eyes "stealthier" than the Jas-39E will be in the 2030+ time frame.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 19:18
by XanderCrews
Not sure if I understand what you are trying to say? For 1. are you saying that you don't think a/c like Gripen E, Rafale and have lower RCS than their predecessors? Or that you don't think they are not VLO? (which would mean that you are being sarcastic or ironic?)SH
'

Bill said there wasn;t going to be LO features built into the airframe.


Regarding IR signature, again I am not sure what you mean?

Note I am not suggesting there are major IR reduction like we see on the F-35 however in general there are some efforts in that direction as well. AFAIK the F414 has more IR reductions efforts than the F404,


I think there probably are reductions but not to an extent that is worth noting. I know its splitting hairs as well but if the F414 is the only feature that reducing IR, that has little to do with the Gripen and its design and more with it having a better engine.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, or be difficult. Thats just the way I see it. IR reduction should be more than "well we are using an F414 and thats better than an F404 or volvo engine, so its good" IMO.

An "improvement" means I beat my wife only twice a week know, compared to the old days when I had to beat her 4 times a week. Of course the number of times I beat my wife should be zero. ITs an improvement, but not an acceptable improvement

One thing to notice is that there seems to be some interesting synergies between the reduced RCS and the EW systems; the French are extremely proud of this and call it "active stealth" (which some people confuse with "active cancellation", which of course it's not). Although Saab has so far been quite low-key regarding this, there are several indications that the reduced RCS together with sophisticated EWS is assumed to be an important contributor to the increased survivability for the Gripen E.


What reduced RCS? We so far have no indication that the NG will have features and improved shapes built into it that will reduce RCS to a noteworthy extent. and if so to what degree are we seriously talking compared to say an F-18E/F which made big obvious external changes to reduce RCS.

Several F-35 detractors have been quick to note that there is still a need for Growler aircraft and NJG equipped F-35s in the future in order for the JSF to do its job despite the fact that the F-35 has its own EW systems that are probably superior to the Gripen NG.

So I guess my question is, how is the Gripen NG with its cost balanced EW/avionics "survivable" when pitted against more advanced types, when a JSF with its own extensive EW/avionics plus LO is not survivable without NJG or dedicated jammers like Growler?

Mission: deep strike.

aircraft required-- US/NATO

F-35, EF-18G, AWACs, F-22s/Typhoon for top cover (if you believe all the critics)

Aircraft required-- Sweden:

JAS 39E.


Why will stock Gripen NGs be fine, and LO/EW equipped fighters won't be without help in the same environment? This is where bill and others are overselling the product. I can't imagine a Gripen NG as anything more than fighter for defensive purposes against other airplanes. I think its ability to carry a decent load a decent distance is worth questioning, I think its interesting that its a 4.5 gen fighter that as of right now doesn't have a 2 seat capability other than an undeveloped paper idea. (Jas 39F)while all other 4.5 gen (typhoon, rafale, Super Hornet) have both versions This is to improve combat performance and weapons delivery in certain marks, in the case of the Growler, EW warfare.

The F-35 doesn't have a 2 seat variant as avionics take over for this. NG would be the first 4.5 gen aircraft to attempt a single only, until the F gets developed if it ever does.

Growlers were critical in Libya in 2011 for example. European air forces don't seem to have dedicated EW fighters nor have they had the inclination to develop them. I'm curious to see how the NG gets around that, and if it does its the first european fighter to do so, in which case that is one hell of an impressive EW suite.

I just see double standards everywhere, and a lot of that is bill of course. :doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 19:38
by basher54321
loke wrote:

What are the typical 4.5 gen attributes?

1. RCS reductions compared to 4.0 gen, built into the airframe (but without going all the way to VLO)
2. Somewhat reduced IR signature
3. Significantly reduced EM emissions, preferrably including beamed datalinks
3a. Integration of more sensors into airframe (IR, MAW, RWR, laser sensors)
4. Integrated EWS package
5. Sensor fusion
6. AESA radar
7. Automatic countermeasures systems

Is F-16 "block 70" a 4.5 gen jet? I don't know.




F-16E/F could meet nearly all of that.

RCS reductions a bit difficult - specific use of composites and Radar absorbant coatings in EF/Gripen/Rafale/F-2/F-16/FA-18EF are unknowns - the SH looks to be the only one with any planform alignment that I can see.

Rafale might have active stealth - but also has a rounded air intakes, a fixed fuel probe on the nose, a dome IRST and out of plane canards - so the active stealth concept must be pretty good if it overcomes these shaping issues.


IR reduction - another big unknown - but significant reductions?. The EF2000 has a very high T/W in Mil on paper - so less use of AB would certainly help it in that regards.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 20:46
by icemaverick
What exactly is "active stealth?" Jamming?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 21:32
by andreas77
XanderCrews wrote:I'm not trying to be argumentative, or be difficult. Thats just the way I see it. IR reduction should be more than "well we are using an F414 and thats better than an F404 or volvo engine, so its good" IMO.


I know that Gripen A/B/C/D is using heat exchangers to transport heat into the fuel (which then is burned) just like the F-35, I think we can assume that the Gripen E will take that approach as well. If there are any improvements over C in the E version, I dont know.



XanderCrews wrote:What reduced RCS? We so far have no indication that the NG will have features and improved shapes built into it that will reduce RCS to a noteworthy extent. and if so to what degree are we seriously talking compared to say an F-18E/F which made big obvious external changes to reduce RCS.


Well, from what level did they start when they improved the F-18? The Gripen E will have lower (than C) RCS due to material (more composites, less metal) and maybe also improved RAM and SAAB says that they now have reached as far as one can with an aircraft carrying stores externally, the pylons and weapons are by far the biggest contributor to the total RCS.



XanderCrews wrote:... the F-35 has its own EW systems that are probably superior to the Gripen NG.


I know that probably everyone in this forum believes that the F-35 EW system is better than the rest, but is there any support for this at all? I have never seen any substantial information whatsoever about any fighters' EW suite or any kind of comparison between different aircrafts, so what makes you think that? GaN antennas?



XanderCrews wrote:So I guess my question is, how is the Gripen NG with its cost balanced EW/avionics "survivable" when pitted against more advanced types, when a JSF with its own extensive EW/avionics plus LO is not survivable without NJG or dedicated jammers like Growler?


Who said that the Gripen is more "survivable" than the F-35? Bill? When? Any link?



XanderCrews wrote:Mission: deep strike.

aircraft required-- US/NATO

F-35, EF-18G, AWACs, F-22s/Typhoon for top cover (if you believe all the critics)

Aircraft required-- Sweden:

JAS 39E.


SWAF is not planning for any deep strikes at all when it comes to defending swedish territory, but the ability is wanted, thats when UCAVS comes into the picture. F-35 or Gripen, NATO-countries would depend on AWACS/Growlers either way, right?



XanderCrews wrote:Why will stock Gripen NGs be fine, and LO/EW equipped fighters won't be without help in the same environment? This is where bill and others are overselling the product.


Well, who claims that? Btw, Bill is not so impressed by the Gripen as by the way Sweden/SAAB is doing this. Low cost/risk, cost/risk sharing, and the fact that SAAB is under constant pressure, the day somebody in the SWAF realizes that there is a cheper system to buy somewhere else, it's bye, bye SAAB. And without Sweden buying the first batch of every version, there wont be any foreign customers either...



XanderCrews wrote:
I think its interesting that its a 4.5 gen fighter that as of right now doesn't have a 2 seat capability other than an undeveloped paper idea. (Jas 39F)while all other 4.5 gen (typhoon, rafale, Super Hornet) have both versions This is to improve combat performance and weapons delivery in certain marks, in the case of the Growler, EW warfare.


This is purely for cost reasons.



XanderCrews wrote:
The F-35 doesn't have a 2 seat variant as avionics take over for this.


What missions that 4gens needs two seaters for can the F-35 do with one seat, and how does the avionics help?



XanderCrews wrote:
Growlers were critical in Libya in 2011 for example. European air forces don't seem to have dedicated EW fighters nor have they had the inclination to develop them. I'm curious to see how the NG gets around that, and if it does its the first european fighter to do so, in which case that is one hell of an impressive EW suite.


OK, but now you are talking about two different things. We all know that many NATO countries lack dedicated EW fighters, but what has that to do with the Gripen? Why does SAAB have to "get around" that more than any other manufacturer? Denmark, Holland etc. will rely on american Growlers no matter what aircraft they buy, right?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 21:37
by andreas77
loke wrote:...
Note I am not suggesting there are major IR reduction like we see on the F-35 however in general there are some efforts in that direction as well. AFAIK the F414 has more IR reductions efforts than the F404, and of course the French are claiming they have made a lot of progress in this field with the Rafale.


What IR reduction is made on the F-35?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 22:00
by SpudmanWP
andreas77 wrote:What IR reduction is made on the F-35?


- Active cooling of leading wing edge
- Active cooling of electronics
- Buried engine
- Coatings on nozzle
- Fuel based heat exchangers in the fan duct

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 22:10
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:Bill said there wasn;t going to be LO features built into the airframe.

I thought you did not believe for a second anything of what Bill said? :D

Anyway, here's Bill:

The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 671785.xml


I interpret that as reduced RCS (compared to Gripen C) but no VLO.

Of course nobody outside of Saab knows what "significantly lower RCS than the C" means, however if the word "significant" is used in the way it's commonly used, well then it should be significant. And the RCS of the C is already known to be significantly lower than the F-16. Anyway, I see that people here say they can look at an airframe and draw conclusions on the RCS from that. I certainly don't have that expertise, so I cannot really comment on that.

Finally; I strongly doubt Gripen would stand a chance against double-digit integrated SAMs, as Bill seems to be claiming.

At the same time it seems the French turned down offers to get Growler support in Libya, and operated on their own. Are they just more risk takers, or is it something else?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 23:06
by treebeard
Does anyone know whether Saab is developing an stealthy external weapon pod like Boeing has been doing for their 'Stealth Hornet'? Or perhaps even stealthy weapons on itself?

Given the fact that the Gripen will have to carry its ordnance externally, one would assume that reducing the effect of this impediment would rank highly upon the list of possible RSC reductions. If they aren't, then isn't their whole idea of reduced stealth pretty much limited to a non-operational sense? Or are those required drop tanks and external weapon loads not that much of an RSC enlargement after all?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 23:54
by thenonflyingdutchman
andreas77 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:... the F-35 has its own EW systems that are probably superior to the Gripen NG.


I know that probably everyone in this forum believes that the F-35 EW system is better than the rest, but is there any support for this at all? I have never seen any substantial information whatsoever about any fighters' EW suite or any kind of comparison between different aircrafts, so what makes you think that? GaN antennas?



A few months ago there was an article on janes.com about obsolescence issues concerning the current EW-suite on the F-35 if i remember correctly. Throw some more money at it, it will get fixed before getting operational but for now claiming that it's (probably) superior compared to others seems a bit, eh trying to find the right words here, fanboy-ish?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 00:00
by XanderCrews
Well, from what level did they start when they improved the F-18?


I don't understand the question. my apologies. :doh:

The Gripen E will have lower (than C) RCS due to material (more composites, less metal) and maybe also improved RAM and SAAB says that they now have reached as far as one can with an aircraft carrying stores externally, the pylons and weapons are by far the biggest contributor to the total RCS.


none of the Saab concept art shows it without targetting pods as well.

XanderCrews wrote:... the F-35 has its own EW systems that are probably superior to the Gripen NG.


I know that probably everyone in this forum believes that the F-35 EW system is better than the rest, but is there any support for this at all? I


The Commandant of the USMC says the F-35 has 85 percent of the EW capability of the EW dedicated EA-6B. thats swinging a big stick. Bill Sweetman (i know) has said that the F-35 has a classified jamming ability that will cook missile seekers.

have never seen any substantial information whatsoever about any fighters' EW suite or any kind of comparison between different aircrafts, so what makes you think that? GaN antennas?


From LM
Advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities enable the F-35 to locate and track enemy forces, jam radio frequencies and disrupt attacks with unparalleled precision. All three variants of the F-35 carry active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with sophisticated electronic attack capabilities, including false targets, network attack, advanced jamming and algorithm-packed data streams. This system allows the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars that threaten the F-35.


probably a lot more data on the forum here, a search will net results. its sensitive subject area though secrets wise. I know Gripen will have AESA as well, but I'm betting with size and power output the JSF will get more bang for its buck on that one.

Who said that the Gripen is more "survivable" than the F-35? Bill? When? Any link?


I'm pretty sure he implied it when he gleefully printed that the Gripen would be capable of taking on stealth aircraft and double digit SAMs which are giving a lot of air forces cold sweats. I assume he meant they would take them on and win, but I have been wrong before...

expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.


Bill Sweetman and others have implied on multiple occasions that the F-35 would need external help in the jamming dept.

SWAF is not planning for any deep strikes at all when it comes to defending swedish territory, but the ability is wanted, thats when UCAVS comes into the picture. F-35 or Gripen, NATO-countries would depend on AWACS/Growlers either way, right?


I use Sweden only as an example. I think it will be much better off operating over its own territory defensively. I would not send it over a border into an IADs though.

Well, who claims that? Btw, Bill is not so impressed by the Gripen as by the way Sweden/SAAB is doing this. Low cost/risk, cost/risk sharing, and the fact that SAAB is under constant pressure, the day somebody in the SWAF realizes that there is a cheper system to buy somewhere else, it's bye, bye SAAB. And without Sweden buying the first batch of every version, there wont be any foreign customers either...


Yes I'm sure the government would shut it all down and get out of the fighter business.

The US Navy did a fine job with the Super Hornet, and it still needed to develop new engines and radar. All of this stuff is much easier when others have done the harder work and you are working on an improvement of an existing platform. (the Super hornet is still more most likely more drastic in changes than the Gripen NG will be)

Its not trying to be unfair to SAAB, its a look at the different tasks that other aircraft manufacturers have been given. The US (though not always in aircraft) has examples of good programs, programs that go on time and on budget. But there is a huge difference in the task of improving a good LWF, and constructing a 21st century tri service aircraft with 3 variants.

Gripen NG had the E/F and Sea and SAAB quickly focused its funding on the E, LM didn't have that option with the F-35 for example.

I dare say its not exactly fair to compare the two, but that is not what Bill will focus on.

This is purely for cost reasons.


I am aware of that.

What missions that 4gens needs two seaters for can the F-35 do with one seat, and how does the avionics help?


http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... lide11.jpg

its highly automatic, highly integrated, and designed to be as user friendly as possible to the point where pilots can fire weapons from other aircraft and other platforms.

OK, but now you are talking about two different things. We all know that many NATO countries lack dedicated EW fighters, but what has that to do with the Gripen? Why does SAAB have to "get around" that more than any other manufacturer? Denmark, Holland etc. will rely on american Growlers no matter what aircraft they buy, right?


I'm saying its a double standard, if you are going to bet on the plane that would kill and survive by itself the odds favor the JSF pretty heavily. It will not be presented in such a way though.

I'm saying that although the Gripen NG has an impressive avionics EW system, it still would not be enough to take on double digit SAMs and stealth warplanes, as bill says. I have no doubt the NG will "punch above its weight" but that punch will still not be up to the minimal threshold needed to survive in the kind of environments the JSF is expected to survive in.


I thought you did not believe for a second anything of what Bill said? :D


I said he is biased. I would also point out that he seems to take everything Gripen related at face value, and heavily suspects all else. Critical eyes are wonderful when applied to all subjects, not just some.

I interpret that as reduced RCS (compared to Gripen C) but no VLO.

Of course nobody outside of Saab knows what "significantly lower RCS than the C" means, however if the word "significant" is used in the way it's commonly used, well then it should be significant.


What is significant to a gripen C may be nothing compared to the significance needed to be significant to an actual radar. I don't know how optimized a Gripen C was for LO to begin with. so its all relative. Sprinting is significantly faster than crawling, but nothing compared to a car.

And the RCS of the C is already known to be significantly lower than the F-16.


The F-16 wasn't built with stealth in mind. at all. Its like saying I'm stronger than my great grandma. There is the "significantly" word again.

Finally; I strongly doubt Gripen would stand a chance against double-digit integrated SAMs, as Bill seems to be claiming.


Agreed.

At the same time it seems the French turned down offers to get Growler support in Libya, and operated on their own. Are they just more risk takers, or is it something else?


It could be for any number of reasons.

One could also make the claim that with US efforts to eliminate air defenses already well under way and taking their toll, the french thought it was unnecessary anyway. (not me trying to be a chest beating yankee-- just pointing out that the defenses were being neutralized anyway no matter what the french preferred, the skies were going to get continually safer no matter what)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 00:08
by SpudmanWP
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:A few months ago there was an article on janes.com about obsolescence issues concerning the current EW-suite on the F-35 if i remember correctly. Throw some more money at it, it will get fixed before getting operational but for now claiming that it's (probably) superior compared to others seems a bit, eh trying to find the right words here, fanboy-ish?


Every system on every fighter ever developed goes through "obsolescence" issues. This basically boils down to a small pool of parts where the original supplier is no longer producing the part, laws changed, etc.

It's not a judgement on whether the equipment can continue to function and do it's job effectively but relates to part availability.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 00:08
by sferrin
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:A few months ago there was an article on janes.com about obsolescence issues concerning the current EW-suite on the F-35 if i remember correctly. Throw some more money at it, it will get fixed before getting operational but for now claiming that it's (probably) superior compared to others seems a bit, eh trying to find the right words here, fanboy-ish?


Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're claiming (essentially) that an EW system currently under development is already obsolete but systems that have been in service for a decade+ aren't? And you're accusing others of being fanboys? :lol:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 00:11
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:Bill Sweetman (i know) has said that the F-35 has a classified jamming ability that will cook missile seekers.


$hiiit, if BS is conceding the thing can cook missile seekers it can probably blast ICBMs right out of space. :lmao:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 00:48
by thenonflyingdutchman
SpudmanWP wrote:
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:A few months ago there was an article on janes.com about obsolescence issues concerning the current EW-suite on the F-35 if i remember correctly. Throw some more money at it, it will get fixed before getting operational but for now claiming that it's (probably) superior compared to others seems a bit, eh trying to find the right words here, fanboy-ish?


Every system on every fighter ever developed goes through "obsolescence" issues. This basically boils down to a small pool of parts where the original supplier is no longer producing the part, laws changed, etc.

It's not a judgement on whether the equipment can continue to function and do it's job effectively but relates to part availability.


Okay. Got it.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 04:06
by popcorn
More on the F-35 EW Suite Barracuda courtesy of Key Publishing. IMO, it is the gold standard that others will aspire to equal or exceed. Given the secretive nature of the tech, comparisons will be problematic but for now, the JSF would have a solid legacy to build upon i.e. Raptor's AN/ALQ-94 and an assured roadmap and funding to incorporate more advanced features/capabilities in the future.




ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEM

A fighter aircraft intended to enable control of both the air and of the electromagnetic spectrum, the F-35 Lightning II was designed from the outset with its own electronic warfare (EW) system. With BAE Systems at Nashua, New Hampshire as the team lead, but including the participation of leading EW specialists worldwide, including Northrop Grumman, the F-35’s EW system is part of the basic design, alongside its avionics, communications, navigation and intelligence; and sensor systems. radars) and multispectral countermeasures for selfdefence against both radar and infrared guided threats.

In addition to these capabilities, it is also capable of electronic surveillance, including geo-location of radars. This allows the F-35 to evade, jam, or attack them, either autonomously or as part of a networked effort. The enhanced capabilities of the ASQ-239 (and integration with the F-35’s other burning out emitters with pure power or injecting hostile radars or command and control systems with computer inputs that would provide false targets, misleading information, or shut down an air defence system. Combining these capabilities and data links will give F-35s the potential to do more than defend themselves and jam or attack enemy emitters they locate. While all the aircraft types that the F-35 will replace use EW systems, some highly capable against current threats, the F-35’s EW system enables its effective integration with all the other onboard systems. Each of the F-35’s systems is able to inform and operate with components of each other. This F-35 netwrk can also link to larger multi-unit networks, other aircraft or terrestrial platforms via its built-in MADL (Multifunction Airborne Data Link), which allows the EW system to be networked either in attack or defence.

The internally mounted AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda EW system built by BAE Systems completed its flight testing in 2005 and was soon in low-rate initial production, with a unit cost estimated at $1.7 million. Weighing some 200lb (90kg), it was developed from the BAE Systems AN/ALR-94 EW suite f i tted to the F-22 Raptor, using emerging technologies to produce greater capabilities with a goal of achieving twice the reliability at a quarter the cost. The F-35 EW system provides radar warning (enhanced to provide analysis, identifi cation and tracing of emitting systems) allow it to perform SIGINT (signals intelligence) electronic collection. The aircraft’s stealth capabilities make it possible for an F-35 to undertake passive detection and SIGINT while operating closer to an emitter with less vulnerability. For the use of active deception jamming, the F-35’s stealth design also allows false target generation and range-gate stealing with less use of power. The EW system also sends and receives data and status and warning information from other onboard systems through the MADL data link. The ASQ-239 has ten dedicated apertures, six on the wing leading edge, two on the trailing edge, and two on the horizontal stabilizer trailing edge. The system also has the potential to use the F-35’s other apertures, most notably that associated with its APG-81 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar. In addition to functioning with the radar, this array, transmitting only at high-power, could function as a stand-off jammer. When used in receive only mode, the APG-81 provides enhanced SIGINT capability. The radar could also be used, following future upgrades, as an electronic attack weapon, Groups of F-35s could collect SIGINT from multiple directions, and then use the information gathered and analyzed to fi re missiles, start jamming, or launch an electronic attack. Data links mean that F-35s can provide this information to other platforms in near real-time and have their actions coordinated ‘off-board’, where there will be more access to fused intelligence, greater situational awareness, and less chance of lethal information overload, than in the cockpit of an F-35.

The 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron part of the 53rd Electronic Warfare Group, formed in 2010 at Eglin AFB, Florida, is tasked with introducing the F-35’s EW capabilities at an operational level. A joint squadron with personnel from all US services, the 513th is co-located with the 33rd Fighter Wing, the F-35 school house for pilot and crew chiefs. Tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to be used by the F-35 in electronic combat are being developed by the 513th. The unit will also provide and update the threat libraries and systems programming that will keep the F-35’s systems responsive to changing threats. To do this, the 513th will operate a new $300 million reprogramming laboratory at Eglin, scheduled to open in mid-2011. - David Isby

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 04:35
by spazsinbad
The 'popcorn' info above was posted here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=24924&p=263841&hilit=Isby#p263841

with link to PDF with article & others: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 3336,d.aGc (PDF 12.5Mb)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 08:22
by andreas77
XanderCrews wrote:
Well, from what level did they start when they improved the F-18?

I don't understand the question. my apologies. :doh:


Maybe I got you wrong, but I thought you meant that because there are no changes in the airframe shapewise in the E-version, there can't be any big improvements when it comes to RCS in the E compared to the C. In the case of the F-18, maybe there were some really obvious "bad" (for RCS) things that could be redesigned to improve the RCS and that there are nothing likewise to be improved on the Gripen. Anyway, I might have misunderstood what you meant...



treebeard wrote:Does anyone know whether Saab is developing an stealthy external weapon pod like Boeing has been doing for their 'Stealth Hornet'? Or perhaps even stealthy weapons on itself?

Given the fact that the Gripen will have to carry its ordnance externally, one would assume that reducing the effect of this impediment would rank highly upon the list of possible RSC reductions. If they aren't, then isn't their whole idea of reduced stealth pretty much limited to a non-operational sense? Or are those required drop tanks and external weapon loads not that much of an RSC enlargement after all?


I have seen images of wind-tunnel test of a Gripen-version with weapons pods.



SpudmanWP wrote:
andreas77 wrote:What IR reduction is made on the F-35?


- Active cooling of leading wing edge
- Active cooling of electronics
- Buried engine
- Coatings on nozzle
- Fuel based heat exchangers in the fan duct


Great, thanks! Is it because of frictional heat the leading edge is cooled?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 09:53
by popcorn
More IR treatment...
http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearch ... ghter.aspx
The classified "sawtooth" features that ring the nozzle help consolidate the exhaust into a so-called "spike" signature, while other secret techniques have been employed to combat and minimize the engine heat signature. - L

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 10:19
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:I interpret that as reduced RCS (compared to Gripen C) but no VLO.

Of course nobody outside of Saab knows what "significantly lower RCS than the C" means, however if the word "significant" is used in the way it's commonly used, well then it should be significant. And the RCS of the C is already known to be significantly lower than the F-16. Anyway, I see that people here say they can look at an airframe and draw conclusions on the RCS from that. I certainly don't have that expertise, so I cannot really comment on that.


Well, I've actually followed an international air defense exercise from radar data where Gripen A, F-16 MLUs, Mirage 2000-5s and F/A-18C/Ds have participated. From actual radar data it's pretty clear that all of those aircraft have fairly similar RCS. Gripen likely has the lowest RCS of those aircraft, but the difference is rather hard to see on actual radar and fighters carrying external stores. With relatively modern radars the detection/tracking ranges are so large that relatively minor differences in RCS make little actual difference. I agree that every single bit counts and JAS Gripen NG will very likely have smaller RCS than A-D, mainly due to AESA radar which can be angled to reduce the reflections from its own radar (not discounting any other improvements). Of course as noted modern and upcoming radars have improved so much that small RCS improvements can't even compensate fully.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 13:47
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:Well, I've actually followed an international air defense exercise from radar data where Gripen A, F-16 MLUs, Mirage 2000-5s and F/A-18C/Ds have participated. From actual radar data it's pretty clear that all of those aircraft have fairly similar RCS. Gripen likely has the lowest RCS of those aircraft, but the difference is rather hard to see on actual radar and fighters carrying external stores. With relatively modern radars the detection/tracking ranges are so large that relatively minor differences in RCS make little actual difference. I agree that every single bit counts and JAS Gripen NG will very likely have smaller RCS than A-D, mainly due to AESA radar which can be angled to reduce the reflections from its own radar (not discounting any other improvements). Of course as noted modern and upcoming radars have improved so much that small RCS improvements can't even compensate fully.

My understanding (and I may well be wrong since I am not expert in this) was that, as I already stated previously, the main benefit of reducing RCS somewhat was not to reduce the radar detection range significantly, because that would require much larger reductions in RCS, but rather to make specific EW techniques much more effective than they would have been if applied from a higher-RCS a/c. Thus it's more about a synergy effect between the somewhat lower RCS and the advanced EW techniques that have been developed in recent years, than about reducing the detection range by means of lower RCS only.


Of course the F-35 having much lower RCS and (presumably) even more advanced EW systems would benefit even more, but the above comparison was to older 4. gen ac like the F-16, Mirage2000, and Hornet, not to the F-35.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 17:54
by XanderCrews
andreas77 wrote:
Maybe I got you wrong, but I thought you meant that because there are no changes in the airframe shapewise in the E-version, there can't be any big improvements when it comes to RCS in the E compared to the C.


It does look like they are going to add features to reduce the RCS, I however think it will stop at "major redesign". So they will for example bury the IRST, because that is fairly simple, but I don't expect a hugely reshaped fuselage. I expect they will put a RAM treatment on the vertical fin front, but I don't expected twin canted fins for example. This is stuff that would add cost, complexity, and test time.


In the case of the F-18, maybe there were some really obvious "bad" (for RCS) things that could be redesigned to improve the RCS and that there are nothing likewise to be improved on the Gripen. Anyway, I might have misunderstood what you meant...



the case of the Super hornet over the legacy hornet its kind of tricky. No one (so far) has gone to the extremes of converting a legacy plane to 4.5 gen aircraft like the legacy to the super hornet. In the end the Super Hornet had very little in common with the legacy hornet. In order to get the kind of performance increase needed (not just in LO but other requirements), it took a major redesign.


I'll try to use an analogy. If your house is filled with termites a "significant reduction" is 50 percent. But is that enough? I don't know how much of the Gripen C was optimized for stealth in the first place, and even a 50 percent reduction of a legacy platform isn't going to be enough compared to what would be needed for survivablity. SAAB is further constrained by cost. big (though possibly necessary) changes will be used sparingly. Super hornets are very different from legacy hornets externally. I don't think we are going to see big visual differences with the Gripen NG. but it remains to be seen at the same time. I feel SAAB will "play it safe at all times". I could be wrong maybe the prototype NG rolls off the line and looks like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JK5rslnF3Eo/U ... Gripen.jpg

or this:

http://agent44.com/blog2/wp-content/ima ... gripen.jpg

it MIGHT look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/qGJwR.png

But in all honesty I bet it ends up looking like this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getA ... emID=15446

I think there is a stereotype about size. Gripens are small, especially head on. But that does not translate to radar reduction (people seem to think smaller plane= smaller "blip") The B-2 is a massive aircraft that can't be detected, the Gripen is small, but easily detected, especially when fitted with weapons.

I think changes will be improvements, but not at all the ground breaking, a$$ kicking, changes that are being promoted by sweetman that turn a good LWF into a 21st century killing machine capable of slugging it out with double digit SAMs and stealth fighters. I'm sorry its not going to be of that class.

while I am apologizing, I'm not trying to be overly critical. I am actually trying to be realistic. For years now the Keyboard Kommetariat has been chanting that the F-35s LO won't work, and that it will be an appetizer for the PakFa, and how it doesn't stand a chance, and every inch of its geometry has been criticized and gone over with an "internet microscope"

OTOH we are being told how we can take a Gripen make relatively small improvements, and suddenly its as capable as an F-35? And internet critics suddenly switch from a microscope to a blind fold and the only words out of their mouth are "yeah that makes sense, sure! of course!" and I understand a big part of that is the perception that what is "good" for the Gripen NG is whats "bad" for the F-35. so F-35 haters overcompensate with the NG.

I fully understand that there is a "short cut" tick in the human brain. We want to believe we can get a "near" F-35 with the Gripen NG at a fraction of the cost, we want to believe that, especially after the F-35 saga. And people are eager to sell that. If Boeing has been turning themselves in knots the last ten years trying to sell a 4.5 generation fighter, and its been having a hard go of it, the F-15SE never even got off the ground. Why would a Gripen NG be an improvement over the Super Hornet to the point that it could take on double digit SAMs and stealth when its been pretty much recognized that a Super hornet would be wanting in that area? How does the Gripen at half the weight, with half the thrust, and pretty much half everything so decisively beat a Super Hornet?

To just take a step back, the Gripen NG is a fascinating thing. we are talking about what is probably going to be the last 4.5 gen aircraft, and it won't be in service until 2018 this is the same time frame that the JSF, Pakfa, and probably a chinese LO aircraft are going to be in service. and nearly 20 years after the Super Hornet was put into service. The name of thread is F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG and I get that, but its weird to compare a Gripen NG to an F-35 first. IMO we should see how it stacks up against a super Hornet first. Super Hornets have been an F-35 rival for sometime now and the pros and cons of both are pretty well known, how did the Gripen NG catapult itself past it? Gripen NG and Super Hornet have far more in common, right down to similiar history. F404 to F414, legacy redesign to gen 4.5 etc.

I just find it weird that the food chain has goes F-18e/f, Gripen NG, F-35

shouldn't it be Gripen NG, F-18E/F and finally at the top the F-35?

thoughts?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 18:26
by loke
I tend to agree with most of the above; as for the the "comparison to F-35"; I don't really think they compare at all.

A bit like comparing a modern, affordable, compact 2018 car to a modern, 2018 Ferrari; even if they are both modern, their designs and capabilities would be so different that any comparison of technical capabilities would be meaningless IMHO; they are simply too different. IMHO in terms of capabilities the difference betwen the Gripen E and F-35 will be far bigger than, say, the difference between the F-16 and F-15.


Anyway, for looks, perhaps this is what it will look like? (picture above article -- picture is credited Saab).

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 671791.xml

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 19:56
by castlebravo
andreas77 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Well, from what level did they start when they improved the F-18?

I don't understand the question. my apologies. :doh:


Maybe I got you wrong, but I thought you meant that because there are no changes in the airframe shapewise in the E-version, there can't be any big improvements when it comes to RCS in the E compared to the C. In the case of the F-18, maybe there were some really obvious "bad" (for RCS) things that could be redesigned to improve the RCS and that there are nothing likewise to be improved on the Gripen. Anyway, I might have misunderstood what you meant...


Super Hornet might as well have been an entirely new aircraft. Some fairly significant changes were made, not least of which is hiding the engine compressor face, and doing a bit of planform alignment between the sides of the intakes and the vertical stabilizers. Even with big changes like that, they supposedly only reduced the frontal RCS by ~50%.

Even if the Gripen NG achieves an amazing 90% reduction, that wouldn't even cut detection range in half. Bottom line is that a Gripen NG will be LESS stealthy vs the types of threats it will face during its life-cycle than the Gripen-C is against the threats of the 1990's. If radars are improving faster than your RCS, you are losing ground.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 20:37
by loke
castlebravo wrote:Super Hornet might as well have been an entirely new aircraft. Some fairly significant changes were made, not least of which is hiding the engine compressor face, and doing a bit of planform alignment between the sides of the intakes and the vertical stabilizers. Even with big changes like that, they supposedly only reduced the frontal RCS by ~50%.

Only 50% reduction in RCS compared to the Hornet? Sounds very strange.

1.1.4 Radar Cross Section (RCS) Reduction. RCS reduction is a significant feature of the F/A-
18E/F. While the maintenance community is tasked with maintaining the RCS features of the aircraft,
it is in the best interests of the aircrew community to take an active role to ensure the survivability
characteristics of the aircraft are retained.
RCS reduction is accomplished through numerous airframe design features. See figure 1-3. The
baseline feature is planform alignment of as many surface edges as feasible. The outer moldline of the
aircraft is treated to make it a smooth, conductive surface in order to reduce radar scattering.
Treatment entails metalizing the navigation lights, canopy, and windshield. Permanent joints and
gaps around infrequently opened panels are filled with a form-in-place (FIP) sealant, which is blended
flush and conductively painted. Gaps around frequently opened panels are filled with a conductive FIP
(CFIP) sealant, which allows for easier repair. Conductive tape is applied to a few gaps where there is
no substructure to support FIP material, such as along LEX edges. Conductive tape can also be used
to quickly repair damaged FIP joints.
Since CFIP in the gaps around frequently opened panels will experience the most wear and tear, a
corrosion-proof radar absorbing material (RAM) is applied in front of many of these gaps. RAM is also
applied (1) on the inlet lip and duct, (2) as diamond-shaped patches around drain holes, and (3) in
various locations that tend to highly scatter radar energy such as around pitot tubes, vertical tail
openings, vents and screens, flap hinges and fairings, and portions of the pylons and external tanks. A
multi-layer RAM is used in a few locations, such as around AOA probes and on the top, front surface
of the pylons.

Inductive blade seals on leading and trailing edges; main landing gear door edges are wrapped with
RAM. Scattering from trailing edges (i.e., trailing edge flaps and rudders) is controlled by a radar
absorbing boot which is bonded to the surface. Scattering from the back edge of the windshield is
controlled by a gray, laminated material called the aft arch termination strip.
The engine inlet ducts incorporate a device to minimize engine front face scattering. The edge of the
canopy incorporates a conductive bulb seal to block radar reflections from that joint. Conductive bulb
seals are also used where there is significant structural flexure, such as at the wing-to-LEX interface.
Eleven electro magnetic interference shields (EMIS) III radar shields are permanently installed on
the radar antenna hardware. To allow the aircraft to achieve its full RCS reduction potential, a
missionized kit consisting of twelve more EMIS III radar bulkhead shields, are installed for combat
missions only. Additionally, SUU-79 pylons can be fitted with a set of low observable (LO) hardware.


I believe Dassault claims a factor 20 RCS reduction with Rafale compared to Mirage 2000, i.e. 95% reduction compared to M2000. I would be very surprised if SH did not achieve similar reductions compared to the Hornet.

What has been said by Boeing though is that the "advanced super hornet" should have a 50% reduction compared to the current SH. Perhaps that's what you are referring to?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 20:45
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 22:09
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:Well, I've actually followed an international air defense exercise from radar data where Gripen A, F-16 MLUs, Mirage 2000-5s and F/A-18C/Ds have participated. From actual radar data it's pretty clear that all of those aircraft have fairly similar RCS. Gripen likely has the lowest RCS of those aircraft, but the difference is rather hard to see on actual radar and fighters carrying external stores. With relatively modern radars the detection/tracking ranges are so large that relatively minor differences in RCS make little actual difference. I agree that every single bit counts and JAS Gripen NG will very likely have smaller RCS than A-D, mainly due to AESA radar which can be angled to reduce the reflections from its own radar (not discounting any other improvements). Of course as noted modern and upcoming radars have improved so much that small RCS improvements can't even compensate fully.


Interestingly in the SH flight manual it says:

RCS reduction is a significant feature of the F/A-18E/F.


Anyway back in 2006 Saab said: " radar cross section is “less than one-tenth” that of an F-16;"

http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/sing ... r-contract

A more recent article from Janes (feb. 2010):

Effort will also be expended on reducing
the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS)
through modifications to the air-intakes and
wing leading edge and the use of composite
materials and new surface coatings.

RCS reduction measures are not new to
the Gripen programme. “From the very
start we have worked with this issue,” explains
Lehander. “After the latest changes
we have made, [reducing RCS] is nothing
more to do with the aircraft, it is the weapons.”

As a result of this realisation, further
work on this aspect of the Gripen NG’s design
has included the possibility of installing
weapons within conformal fuel tanks in
a similar way to that proposed by Boeing as
part of the proposed ‘Silent Eagle’ variant of
the F-15.

The issue of RCS reduction for the aircraft’s
stores will also be helped by the
new weaponry employed by the Gripen NG
such as the clearance of the MBDA Meteor
beyond visual range (BVR) and Diehl
IRIS-T within visual range (WVR) air-to-air
missiles. “AMRAAMs [advanced mediumrange
air-to-air missiles are] not very good
RCS wise, whereas the new missiles have
RCS thinking behind them,” Lt Col Nilsson
points out. New weapons pylons are also
planned as part of this effort, “the survivability
and RCS area is continuous work”,
adds Lt Col Nilsson

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 22:21
by XanderCrews


Thanks Spaz

I've said before in another thread here, but bares repeating; If a Gripen NG is equal to even a Super Hornet, that is a truly incredible feat. Thats impressive. Thats a show string budget being used to build an aircraft that is as capable and survivable as one that is twice the size, with twice the engines and built with a bigger budget. No shame in that at all. But even a Super Hornet is not an F-35. and in truth its probably going to fall short of a Super Hornet in some eras, especially when the bomb hauling segment comes up. (However I am willing to bet it exceeds the super hornet in some areas.)


I agree with the SH being pretty much a new build aircraft, (the parts commonality indicates that) it shows the extent you have to go to in order to net the capability needed.

One of the biggest expenses these days is avionics. where I think SAAB wil start to hit some walls, and make some compromises, and why i think it will fall short of the F-35 in that department (could have an edge on the super hornet though?) . I remember reading in the late 1990s where they basically had to put a cut off on the F-22, because the avionics wish list was adding incredible expense to an already very expensive aircraft. They finally just said "thats enough"

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 22:28
by castlebravo
My bad on the 50% RCS reduction; I was thinking of the Super Hornet compared to the proposed Advanced Super Hornet. Wikipedia says super hornet has an RCS roughly an order of magnitude less than other legacy aircraft. I would wager that it is only a order smaller on the front aspect since the sides of the jet are not properly sloped to prevent direct reflections. Gripen has the same problem along with a large vertical stabilizer.

In any case, not even a 90% reduction is going to do much in the future with widespread AESA proliferation, and once you start hanging weapons under the wings you can kiss your one order of magnitude advantage goodbye.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 23:08
by popcorn
Lest we forget, all those projected RCS figures for different Gen 4+ jets are likely without any eternal baggage.i.e.,useful things like EFTs,,targeting pods, bombs, missiles.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2014, 23:22
by loke
popcorn wrote:Lest we forget, all those projected RCS figures for different Gen 4+ jets are likely without any eternal baggage.i.e.,useful things like EFTs,,targeting pods, bombs, missiles.

and pylons, don't forget the pylons!

EFTs, targeting pods, pylons, and missiles are increasingly becoming low-RCS as per the quote above.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 01:56
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:Lest we forget, all those projected RCS figures for different Gen 4+ jets are likely without any eternal baggage.i.e.,useful things like EFTs,,targeting pods, bombs, missiles.

An "airshow" F/A-18E/F is practically "LO" stealth from the front with no external stores. They have low RCS pylons (in service) and tanks (not in fleet service). I don't think the double/triple ejector racks are low RCS.

I would be surprised if a Gripen NG is LO "Stealth" with combat weapons. The F-22 (and F-35 in a few years) is combat ready with internal stores only.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 04:00
by Corsair1963
castlebravo wrote:My bad on the 50% RCS reduction; I was thinking of the Super Hornet compared to the proposed Advanced Super Hornet. Wikipedia says super hornet has an RCS roughly an order of magnitude less than other legacy aircraft. I would wager that it is only a order smaller on the front aspect since the sides of the jet are not properly sloped to prevent direct reflections. Gripen has the same problem along with a large vertical stabilizer.

In any case, not even a 90% reduction is going to do much in the future with widespread AESA proliferation, and once you start hanging weapons under the wings you can kiss your one order of magnitude advantage goodbye.




Honestly, the Super Hornet compromised performance in many respects for the appearance of Stealth Reduction. As while it may have slightly better RCS than most 4th Generation Fighters. That is given away the second it starts mounting External Weapons and Fuel Tanks under it's wings.

:doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 07:36
by loke
castlebravo wrote:In any case, not even a 90% reduction is going to do much in the future with widespread AESA proliferation, and once you start hanging weapons under the wings you can kiss your one order of magnitude advantage goodbye.

Don't forget that sensors with geolocation capabilities have also been developed further. Detection range in LPI mode is AFAIK much shorter than max detection range.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 12:11
by cantaz
loke wrote:Detection range in LPI mode is AFAIK much shorter than max detection range.


Not really. Even at maximum range and power, an AESA still retains all its frequency agility and beam steering. It loses multi-beam at max range, but LPI is not dependent on that one feature.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 13:09
by hornetfinn
The Swiss evaluation of Dassault Rafale, EF Typhoon, and JAS Gripen (both C/D and proposed NG version) against then current F/A-18 C/D Hornet OFP (Operational Flight Program) 19C did not present JAS Gripen at a very good light at all. It was found that even with Saab Gripen NG variant, it was not found to be significantly better than F/A-18 C/D. Actually even EF Typhoon was not found to be that great without upgrades, as it lacked much of the planned capabilities. Of course the Gripen NG could have some additional upgrades to make it better, but it has a long way to go before that is realized.

The Swiss evaluation report: http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 14:25
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:The "beamed datalink" statement was from Saab not BS. For instance it's mentioned here:

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documen ... orough.pdf

on slide 20.

You may be right about the Gripen C/D I do not know whether there are claims from other than BS that it got directional data links.

Edit: Oops, the Swede beat me to it :)


Ok thank you both. I know that Gripen C/D doesn't have directional data link as the TIDLS (or Link-S) uses pretty similar technology as for example Link 16 does. That means it broadcasts in UHF radio frequency using TDMA architecture. The actual implementation of course differs a lot, but the basic technologies are very similar. It would be impossible to put a directional UHF antennas into a fighter aircraft as they are rather large (depending on their directivity). Directional data links would work in much higher frequencies to allow for small enough antennas with high enough directivity to be installed.

I think that they are referring to some new proposal about directional data link. I doubt they go for it though, since it would be rather costly and would not add that much to Gripen capabilities. I think that they are really not worth it unless the aircraft is VLO itself. I don't think directional data links are even considered for EF Typhoon, Dassault Rafale or Super Hornet.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 14:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
cantaz wrote:
loke wrote:Detection range in LPI mode is AFAIK much shorter than max detection range.


Not really. Even at maximum range and power, an AESA still retains all its frequency agility and beam steering. It loses multi-beam at max range, but LPI is not dependent on that one feature.



Granted I am no expert, so I am going to make an assumption (just like back in the school days)

Assumptions:
1: LPI frequency hop rate is 1000Hz
2: Radar waves travel at c
3: A T/R module transmits, waits, and receives before transmitting again.
4: the Transmit portion of a cycle takes 1/10 of the cycle time

given the above assumptions the radar return for any object much beyond 90nm will not return until after the next pulse cycle has started. of course this changes if my assumptions are wrong and since I am not a radar guy they may very well be. If they are NOT however, then regardless of maximum range for a radar, full LPI cannot be used beyond 90nm. That said, if the max detection range for a 1m target is 180mn then the use of LPI means anything 0.1m and larger will be detected at max LPI range.

hornetfinn, feel free to correct my assumptions.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 16:11
by SpudmanWP
Who says that the radar cannot remember what the pulse setup was going back a few pulses and extend LPI beyond 90nm?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 16:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote:Who says that the radar cannot remember what the pulse setup was going back a few pulses and extend LPI beyond 90nm?


Not saying it can't, not saying it can. I honestly don't know which is why I made the assumption I did. it is a "worst case" for range of LPI.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 19:30
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:BS has a sense of humour that is for sure....
The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America
24 Mar 2014 Bill Sweetman in the Daily Beast

"The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again....

"...However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others...."

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html


Bill tries to claim yet again that the whole Fighter Generations thing is Russian invention : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg217047

Bill is LowObservable.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 21:00
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:BS has a sense of humour that is for sure....
The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America
24 Mar 2014 Bill Sweetman in the Daily Beast

"The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again....

"...However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others...."

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html



Bill tries to claim yet again that the whole Fighter Generations thing is Russian invention : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg217047

Bill is LowObservable.


Bill loves to argue semantics, even a term he feels is simply for marketing.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 22:30
by basher54321
hornetfinn wrote:The Swiss evaluation of Dassault Rafale, EF Typhoon, and JAS Gripen (both C/D and proposed NG version) against then current F/A-18 C/D Hornet OFP (Operational Flight Program) 19C did not present JAS Gripen at a very good light at all. It was found that even with Saab Gripen NG variant, it was not found to be significantly better than F/A-18 C/D.

The Swiss evaluation report:


Yes very interesting - thanks for posting - even with the proposed upgrades it still fell short of the minimum in their estimation.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2014, 23:06
by XanderCrews
basher54321 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:The Swiss evaluation of Dassault Rafale, EF Typhoon, and JAS Gripen (both C/D and proposed NG version) against then current F/A-18 C/D Hornet OFP (Operational Flight Program) 19C did not present JAS Gripen at a very good light at all. It was found that even with Saab Gripen NG variant, it was not found to be significantly better than F/A-18 C/D.

The Swiss evaluation report:


Yes very interesting - thanks for posting - even with the proposed upgrades it still fell short of the minimum in their estimation.


Don't mention that report to the Fanboys or you will get a helluva freak out.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 01:20
by popcorn
Yeah, Bill is a funny guy. Grippen NG is so focused on affordability it is slower, less agile and less stealthy than it's competitors yet it will somehow be able to do almost everything better. No need getting bogged down in comparison with 5Gen platforms, leapfrog the whole debate and seize the high ground by calling it 6Gen. LOLLOLLOL
Hey Bill, no free lunch, you get what you pay for.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 04:57
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Yeah, Bill is a funny guy. Grippen NG is so focused on affordability it is slower, less agile and less stealthy than it's competitors yet it will somehow be able to do almost everything better. No need getting bogged down in comparison with 5Gen platforms, leapfrog the whole debate and seize the high ground by calling it 6Gen. LOLLOLLOL
Hey Bill, no free lunch, you get what you pay for.


About the perfect summary right there. 8)

other interesting notes:

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-


now 14 years later:

However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate


Also

Much of the technology of 1995, let alone 1985, has a Flintstones look from today’s perspective.


Goes on to sell the virtues of an improved aircraft originally fielded in 1995... :doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 08:10
by mk82
Good old Bill is just full of it. Just replace Gripen NG with the Super Hornet in his article....no difference there! The Superbug is pretty awesome (will give a Gripen NG a good fight in many aspects) but it is definitely not a sixth gen aircraft. Funny that good old Bill is playing the "generation" game now. I genuinely do not believe that Bill is that stupid....that leads to another conclusion....he is less than honest in his "analysis". I don't know why he hangs around Aviation Week. He would probably have a more comfortable life in the marketing department of SAAB :D. Sweden is pretty frosty in winter but it could be worse! Cmon Bill....get with the program....you know you want to be the Chief marketing officer for SAAB!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 15:35
by sferrin
mk82 wrote:Good old Bill is just full of it. Just replace Gripen NG with the Super Hornet in his article....no difference there! The Superbug is pretty awesome (will give a Gripen NG a good fight in many aspects) but it is definitely not a sixth gen aircraft. Funny that good old Bill is playing the "generation" game now. I genuinely do not believe that Bill is that stupid....that leads to another conclusion....he is less than honest in his "analysis". I don't know why he hangs around Aviation Week. He would probably have a more comfortable life in the marketing department of SAAB :D. Sweden is pretty frosty in winter but it could be worse! Cmon Bill....get with the program....you know you want to be the Chief marketing officer for SAAB!


Why would SAAB paying when they can get him for free?

And let's not forget this one:

If You Did It, It's Not Bragging

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 03086bcbb0

:lol:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 15:50
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
mk82 wrote:Good old Bill is just full of it. Just replace Gripen NG with the Super Hornet in his article....no difference there! The Superbug is pretty awesome (will give a Gripen NG a good fight in many aspects) but it is definitely not a sixth gen aircraft. Funny that good old Bill is playing the "generation" game now. I genuinely do not believe that Bill is that stupid....that leads to another conclusion....he is less than honest in his "analysis". I don't know why he hangs around Aviation Week. He would probably have a more comfortable life in the marketing department of SAAB :D. Sweden is pretty frosty in winter but it could be worse! Cmon Bill....get with the program....you know you want to be the Chief marketing officer for SAAB!


Why would SAAB paying when they can get him for free?

And let's not forget this one:

If You Did It, It's Not Bragging

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 03086bcbb0

:lol:


That must have been an incredible presentation. The power point is strong with this one...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 16:26
by spazsinbad
Use the Force Luke (was he referring to LUKE AFB?). And of course what we miss is whatever heavy breathing was involved with the Grippppingggg NGGGGG! PPT presentation - if any. That is what is so lacking about all the F-35 PPTs/PDFs - and never acknowledged - if no other text provided. We can but dream. I want the F-35B/C NATOPS NOW! :devil: :doh: :D :twisted: :shock:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 17:32
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Use the Force Luke (was he referring to LUKE AFB?). And of course what we miss is whatever heavy breathing was involved with the Grippppingggg NGGGGG! PPT presentation - if any. That is what is so lacking about all the F-35 PPTs/PDFs - and never acknowledged - if no other text provided. We can but dream. I want the F-35B/C NATOPS NOW! :devil: :doh: :D :twisted: :shock:


I don't understand the differences in the burden of proof here. LM was constantly questioned no matter the force in their power points. SAAB makes one and suddenly "If You Did It, It's Not Bragging" did what exactly? what did I miss?

The F-35 takes a hard time for not yet being cleared to fly in lightning, and yet not a single prototype Gripen NG has even been produced to date for taxi practice and its "the new Gripen is breaking Ernie Fitzgerald's Law, which states that the first things you hear about a new program are also the best things you will ever hear"???

How can we say its living up to the hype when it hasn't yet flown? :bang:

This is why bill sweetman is irrelevant. It was nice of him to subcontract to david axe for that daily beast story though. Show the kid some love.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 17:49
by spazsinbad
BS Jumped the Shark a long time ago - I could say more but what the heck - it has been said enough here already.

I understand there are limits to what can be told at any given time - which may be revealed at a later time - regarding the F-35. To me it is now only vaguely interesting that BS does research on Pprune and shills for Sus at airshows - credibility - ZILCH.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2014, 21:30
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
I think that they are referring to some new proposal about directional data link. I doubt they go for it though, since it would be rather costly and would not add that much to Gripen capabilities. I think that they are really not worth it unless the aircraft is VLO itself. I don't think directional data links are even considered for EF Typhoon, Dassault Rafale or Super Hornet.

Could you elaborate a bit more? Why do you think this is just a proposal and not something they will implement? The PPT linked to was from 2012, but look at this:

Any data on enemy aircraft is shared with beamed data links, thus enabling long range Meteor missile launches from Gripens with the most geometrically suitable positions within the swarm.


http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-Korea/About-Saab-Korea/Defence-Systems-for-Korea/Your-Partner-In-Aeronautics-/

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 03:01
by popcorn
So a stealthy data link to conceal which Grippen is communicating with Meteor? What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens are not LO and detectable by radar?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 07:58
by loke
popcorn wrote:So a stealthy data link to conceal which Grippen is communicating with Meteor? What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens are not LO and detectable by radar?

Gripen, popcorn; Gripen. Not Grippen. Grippen is wrong.

As for your question: I don't know the answer. Perhaps Saab does?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 08:27
by popcorn
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:So a stealthy data link to conceal which Grippen is communicating with Meteor? What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens are not LO and detectable by radar?

Gripen, popcorn; Gripen. Not Grippen. Grippen is wrong.

As for your question: I don't know the answer. Perhaps Saab does?



Well, they did give their reason in the link you referenced ie Any data on enemy aircraft is shared with beamed data links, thus enabling long range Meteor missile launches from Gripens with the most geometrically suitable positions within the swarm....
Hence my observation/question.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 09:56
by loke
popcorn wrote:
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:So a stealthy data link to conceal which Grippen is communicating with Meteor? What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens are not LO and detectable by radar?

Gripen, popcorn; Gripen. Not Grippen. Grippen is wrong.

As for your question: I don't know the answer. Perhaps Saab does?



Well, they did give their reason in the link you referenced ie Any data on enemy aircraft is shared with beamed data links, thus enabling long range Meteor missile launches from Gripens with the most geometrically suitable positions within the swarm....
Hence my observation/question.

Yes, I saw that, and I also saw your question: "What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens (sic!) are not LO and detectable by radar?"

My guess is that Saab believes that their new EW suite together with some RCS reduction will be sufficient to make the Gripen E "not detectable by radar", in many cases.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 11:37
by andreas77
popcorn wrote:So a stealthy data link to conceal which Grippen is communicating with Meteor? What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens are not LO and detectable by radar?


The benefit of using directional communications is not limited to LO-aircrafts only, directional communication links makes perfect sense for any aircraft since there always will be situations where your enemy is using only passive EW sensors and no radar. Transmitting to your friends on your three o'clock wont give the enemy at your twelve any chance to detect you using passive EW, omnidirectional communicaiton will most likely be picked up by the enemy and if your enemy is using sensor fusing datalinks two or more enemies can triangulate your position pretty quickly.

Also, your view on LO seems to be that non-LO aircrafts (like Gripen) always will de detectable using radar, in reality it is not always that simple...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 14:23
by popcorn
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:So a stealthy data link to conceal which Grippen is communicating with Meteor? What benefit of using a LPI/LD data link to conceal the aircraft from hostile EW suites when all the Grippens are not LO and detectable by radar?

Gripen, popcorn; Gripen. Not Grippen. Grippen is wrong.

As for your question: I don't know the answer. Perhaps Saab does?

Got it..,Sab Gripen :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 14:36
by spazsinbad
Chemo Sabot Tonti! :devil: ["kemosabe Tonto"] Are the mods able to amend the GRIPPEN thread title?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 15:36
by basher54321
:doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 16:06
by popcorn
basher54321 wrote:
andreas77 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Also, your view on LO seems to be that non-LO aircrafts (like Gripen) always will de detectable using radar, in reality it is not always that simple...



Do you have any particular scenarios in mind?


That's actually a quote from andreas77...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 16:27
by basher54321
andreas77 wrote:Also, your view on LO seems to be that non-LO aircrafts (like Gripen) always will de detectable using radar, in reality it is not always that simple...



Do you have any particular scenarios in mind?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 16:59
by andreas77
basher54321 wrote:
andreas77 wrote:Also, your view on LO seems to be that non-LO aircrafts (like Gripen) always will de detectable using radar, in reality it is not always that simple...



Do you have any particular scenarios in mind?


There could be other jamming sources in the environment that makes it harder to use the radar to track the Gripen.
The Gripen EW might be able to degrade the performance of the enemies radar making it harder to detect/track.
The enemy trying to kill the Gripen might be worried about passive sensors (on the Gripen or on other platforms) so they might chose to turn the radar off completely.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 17:45
by icemaverick
Jamming an AESA radar isn't easy. Also, remember that in most wartime scenarios, there will be multiple radars and other sensors working simultaneously. It will be tough for any non-LO platform to successfully jam them all. Jamming can also allow other aircraft's electronic warfare suites to locate the target. Additionally, thanks to data linking, only one radar has to pickup the non-LO target. A couple of F-35s could light up the target while others in the area fire on it.

Passive sensors work, but they generally have shorter range than radars. Even the most advanced IRST and EO systems have considerably shorter ranges than fighter radars and they have much shorter ranges when compared to ground/ship/AWACS based radars. For the most part, the passive sensors come into play after the target has been been detected by radar; after the AWACS or your own radar picked up a target, you can use your IRST to look for the enemy. If you are a non-LO platform, chances are that he's seen you first on his radar.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 20:56
by popcorn
Not to forget enrico's scenario which requires 5 billion tons of accommodating rock for the non-LO aircraft to hide behind.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 21:06
by loke
icemaverick wrote:Jamming an AESA radar isn't easy. Also, remember that in most wartime scenarios, there will be multiple radars and other sensors working simultaneously. It will be tough for any non-LO platform to successfully jam them all. Jamming can also allow other aircraft's electronic warfare suites to locate the target. Additionally, thanks to data linking, only one radar has to pickup the non-LO target. A couple of F-35s could light up the target while others in the area fire on it.

As I have said repeatedly; any 4.5 gen fighter, including the Gripen E, will not stand a chance against the F-35. It's a waste of time even mentioning it.

Passive sensors work, but they generally have shorter range than radars.

Wrong: If the passive sensors are at the same technological level as the radars, and if the target's RCS is not very high then the sensor will detect the radar before the radar detects the target. Again, think about being in a forest, and somebody is searching for you with a torch. If your vision is "normal" and if you wear dark cloths then it's very likely that you will spot the torch long before the person holding the torch can spot you. Of course if you have a very poor vision (ie almost blind) then you may not see the light; otherwise, you will.

My current thinking is that the US currently has a huge lead in AESA technology. Thus it is highly unlikely that a (non-US) sensor will detect the F-35 before the F-35 detects the target.

However for non-US AESA radars it will be quite different. It seems that european technology is superiour to or on par with radar technology from China and Russia.

Therefore it seems highly likely that the Gripen E will detect the radar transmissions from a Su-35 or a PAK FA, before the Su-35 or PAK FA can detect the Gripen E.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 22:32
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Not to forget enrico's scenario which requires 5 billion tons of accommodating rock for the non-LO aircraft to hide behind.


You didn't read the latest sweetman article about the NG's ability to fly 5 billion tons of mountain around to hide behind?

:D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 22:33
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:Not to forget enrico's scenario which requires 5 billion tons of accommodating rock for the non-LO aircraft to hide behind.


You didn't read the latest sweetman article about the NG's ability to fly 5 billion tons of mountain around to hide behind?

:D


That must be a 6th Generation feature. :lmao:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2014, 23:45
by icemaverick
loke wrote:Wrong: If the passive sensors are at the same technological level as the radars, and if the target's RCS is not very high then the sensor will detect the radar before the radar detects the target.


Even more advanced IRST systems such as PIRATE have a much shorter range than most of the newer radars (e.g APG-77, 81, Irbis-E, Captor) etc. And that's when weather conditions are not a factor. While the Gripen and others like it have reduced cross sections relative to 4th gens such as the F-15, Su-27 etc., they are not VLO. At best, they only have a small frontal RCS.

The Gripen would be particularly vulnerable to radar detection given it's single tail which provides an excellent reflective surface. Sure, it can be treated with RAM in certain places, but the Su-35 and other such aircraft have also gotten treatments to reduce their RCS. Also, I highly doubt that the Gripen is very stealthy when carrying fuel tanks and bombs. It might not light up like a Christmas tree (à la the F-15 etc.) but it will be easily detected by most 4+ gen radars.

Again, think about being in a forest, and somebody is searching for you with a torch. If your vision is "normal" and if you wear dark cloths then it's very likely that you will spot the torch long before the person holding the torch can spot you. Of course if you have a very poor vision (ie almost blind) then you may not see the light; otherwise, you will.


To refine this analogy, the person searching for you isn't using a torch but a very long-distance searchlight. Your vision is limited but the person with the searchlight can see you from further away than you can see him (since you are relying only on your eyes). Plus, you don't know if the guy with the searchlight is with others who have also spotted you.

My current thinking is that the US currently has a huge lead in AESA technology. Thus it is highly unlikely that a (non-US) sensor will detect the F-35 before the F-35 detects the target.


I wouldn't be so sure. The Irbis-E, while not up to the same standard as US radars, is fairly sophisticated. The PAK-FA will have a more advanced radar. They should be good enough to detect a non-VLO target from decent ranges. Besides, the Gripen will have to jam multiple radars. It's unlikely that it can successfully jam all of them.

However for non-US AESA radars it will be quite different. It seems that european technology is superiour to or on par with radar technology from China and Russia.


You are probably right. But the problem is that no matter how you slice it, radar has a longer detection range than most passive sensors. Jamming is only so useful and has its limitations. It can work well against older mechanically steered arrays, but it's not going to work as well against PESA or AESA units. I don't believe an aircraft such as the Gripen will be able to evade enemy radar until it gets into range to use its passive sensors.

Therefore it seems highly likely that the Gripen E will detect the radar transmissions from a Su-35 or a PAK FA, before the Su-35 or PAK FA can detect the Gripen E.


That's doubtful. While the Irbis-E and the PAK-FA's radars probably aren't as advanced as their US counterparts (owing to less R&D $$$ and experience in that field), they should be good enough to pickup a non-VLO target at longer ranges than the non-VLO target can can see them using IRST or EO sensors.

The Gripen is a budget aircraft that does a respectable job. It will serve Switzerland and Brazil well. But this isn't an aircraft you want to use against PAK-FAs or J-20s. There's a reason why all of the Gripen's customers are countries who don't face serious formidable military threats.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2014, 21:01
by loke
icemaverick wrote:
loke wrote:Wrong: If the passive sensors are at the same technological level as the radars, and if the target's RCS is not very high then the sensor will detect the radar before the radar detects the target.


Even more advanced IRST systems such as PIRATE have a much shorter range than most of the newer radars (e.g APG-77, 81, Irbis-E, Captor) etc. And that's when weather conditions are not a factor. While the Gripen and others like it have reduced cross sections relative to 4th gens such as the F-15, Su-27 etc., they are not VLO. At best, they only have a small frontal RCS.

The Gripen would be particularly vulnerable to radar detection given it's single tail which provides an excellent reflective surface. Sure, it can be treated with RAM in certain places, but the Su-35 and other such aircraft have also gotten treatments to reduce their RCS. Also, I highly doubt that the Gripen is very stealthy when carrying fuel tanks and bombs. It might not light up like a Christmas tree (à la the F-15 etc.) but it will be easily detected by most 4+ gen radars.

Again, think about being in a forest, and somebody is searching for you with a torch. If your vision is "normal" and if you wear dark cloths then it's very likely that you will spot the torch long before the person holding the torch can spot you. Of course if you have a very poor vision (ie almost blind) then you may not see the light; otherwise, you will.


To refine this analogy, the person searching for you isn't using a torch but a very long-distance searchlight. Your vision is limited but the person with the searchlight can see you from further away than you can see him (since you are relying only on your eyes). Plus, you don't know if the guy with the searchlight is with others who have also spotted you.

My current thinking is that the US currently has a huge lead in AESA technology. Thus it is highly unlikely that a (non-US) sensor will detect the F-35 before the F-35 detects the target.


I wouldn't be so sure. The Irbis-E, while not up to the same standard as US radars, is fairly sophisticated. The PAK-FA will have a more advanced radar. They should be good enough to detect a non-VLO target from decent ranges. Besides, the Gripen will have to jam multiple radars. It's unlikely that it can successfully jam all of them.

However for non-US AESA radars it will be quite different. It seems that european technology is superiour to or on par with radar technology from China and Russia.


You are probably right. But the problem is that no matter how you slice it, radar has a longer detection range than most passive sensors. Jamming is only so useful and has its limitations. It can work well against older mechanically steered arrays, but it's not going to work as well against PESA or AESA units. I don't believe an aircraft such as the Gripen will be able to evade enemy radar until it gets into range to use its passive sensors.

Therefore it seems highly likely that the Gripen E will detect the radar transmissions from a Su-35 or a PAK FA, before the Su-35 or PAK FA can detect the Gripen E.


That's doubtful. While the Irbis-E and the PAK-FA's radars probably aren't as advanced as their US counterparts (owing to less R&D $$$ and experience in that field), they should be good enough to pickup a non-VLO target at longer ranges than the non-VLO target can can see them using IRST or EO sensors.

The Gripen is a budget aircraft that does a respectable job. It will serve Switzerland and Brazil well. But this isn't an aircraft you want to use against PAK-FAs or J-20s. There's a reason why all of the Gripen's customers are countries who don't face serious formidable military threats.

When I refer to passive sensors in the first paragraph I had mainly in mind sensors for detection EM, in particular detection of radar transmissions. Sensitive sensors will be able to detect radars at a very long distance, if the technology level is roughly the same. Thus your analogy of having a limited vision and being with searched with a search light is not very appropriate. Think again; if you have a normal vision and is not vision impaired: is it difficult or hard to see a search light, at a very long distance? To make it even easier to understand; assume that he person with the search light, and you, both have normal, human vision. Who will detect first? You, detecting the search light, or the other person, using the search light trying to detect you?

The radar signal that hits the target is much stronger than the fraction of the radar signal that is reflected back and goes all the way back to the radar. Thus the sensor at the target has a much easier job of detecting the radar signal than does the radar itself.

I would not fly against a PAK FA in a Gripen E, OTOH I suspect the E would fare surprisingly well against e.g. the Su-35.

Edit: If you want to read more about radar vs. RWRs I suggest the following thread; first post is written by a person who (unlike you or me) actually knows what he is talking about:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123505-The-Dark-Arts-of-EW-(and-Defence-Against-Them)&highlight=radar+detection+lpi

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2014, 05:44
by XanderCrews


Lost me at key pubs I'm afraid. This guy may really know what he is talking about, but I'm not going to find out, Keypubs is great its just the other 95 percent of people who post there...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2014, 07:15
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:


Lost me at key pubs I'm afraid. This guy may really know what he is talking about, but I'm not going to find out, Keypubs is great its just the other 95 percent of people who post there...

I agree with you regarding keypubs however I believe Mercurius belongs to the 5%, that's why I pointed to his post on this topic.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2014, 09:31
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:The radar signal that hits the target is much stronger than the fraction of the radar signal that is reflected back and goes all the way back to the radar. Thus the sensor at the target has a much easier job of detecting the radar signal than does the radar itself.


That is only half of the truth. The other part is that the radar knows the signals it sends out and the receiver does not. It knows the frequencies it has used, the waveform(s) it uses, the scan pattern it uses etc. With old simple radars the RWR or ESM sensors had huge advantage as the radars sent out very simple, powerful and very consistent signals using low number of frequencies (usually single digit). The end result was that the enemy receiver had huge detection range advantage, depending on the RCS of the target.

With modern AESA radars it's not so. Even modern MSA and PESA radars are very different to those old simple radars. Radars can quickly hop over wide frequency range, several hundred MHz in the case of fighter sized or larger PESA/MSA radars and 2-3 GHz in the case of current AESA radars. GaN AESAs are able to use even wider bandwidth (10 GHz or even more). They can use very complex waveforms and signal modulation techniques, spreading the power over large bandwidth and using very low peak power while still having large average power. As the radar knows the signal and waveform parameters it has sent out, it has a huge advantage over the EW receiver which does not know them. Even if it manages to extract that information from some signals, they will be nearly useless for any additional signals it manages to get. Of course modern radars also have very tight beams and have very small sidelobes (the weakness that the EW/ESM receivers have exploited). AESA radars can have sidelobe levels -30 dB or more lower than MSA radars and at least -10 dB better than PESA radars. This means that EW/ESM receiver can detect the sidelobes at least 10 times longer ranges against PESA radars and 30 times (or better) longer ranges against MSA radars. This makes it EW/ESM systems only capable of detecting the main lobe at useful distances and this makes it very difficult to triangulate the radar as it can be only seen by one sensor at the time without the knowledge how much power it uses (so the sensor can only tell bearing and not range). All this effectively nullifies or even reverses the range advantage the EW/ESM receivers have traditionally enjoyed.

So the EW system has to listen to very wide bandwidth and try to search for signals for which it does not know the parameters for. It's like trying to listen to what a single person says in a huge party with hundreds of people talking at the same time. It's made even trickier if you don't know where that one person is or what he looks like. The jamming systems have the same problems as the barrage jamming will be nearly useless (low power due to wide bandwidths involved) and other jamming techniques rely on finding and analyzing the radar before jamming it.

loke wrote:Edit: If you want to read more about radar vs. RWRs I suggest the following thread; first post is written by a person who (unlike you or me) actually knows what he is talking about:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123505-The-Dark-Arts-of-EW-(and-Defence-Against-Them)&highlight=radar+detection+lpi


He seems to know some basics, although a lot of it is rather dated and he doesn't seem to know or take into account developments done in the last 20 years.

A better source for learning about RWR/ESM/ELINT systems vs. radar is for example this: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456960.pdf

It's not that LPI radars are invisible or impossible to detect. However they are difficult to detect and even more difficult to identify, locate and track. Modern RWR/ESM/ELINT sensors are of course much more capable than they were in history, but so are modern radars. Even with similar tech level, it's not likely that the enemy sensors can detect LPI radar at huge distances, let alone identify, locate and track it. A lot would also depend on the RCS of the aircraft painted by the radar. Against 1 m^2 target, I'd expect the radar have the advantage. Against -30 dB (0.001 m^2) or better target (like F-35 or F-22), I'd expect the ESM system have the advantage (due to difficulty in detecting/tracking such a target). Of course the detection range against advanced LPI AESA radars would still be considerably shorter than against even most modern MSA or PESA radars.

Gripen NG with LPI AESA radar would be dangerous against any 4+ generation fighter that doesn't have similar LPI AESA as the radiation would be difficult to detect and track and the Gripen would have good SA itself. Lower RCS of Gripen would also help in being detected by enemy sensors. Once detected, it would be relatively easy to track it though as the RCS is not that much lower. F-35 with LPI AESA would be extremely dangerous to anything flying as it would be very difficult to detect and especially track with either ESM or radar. Gripen NG is like a soldier in a camo suit and F-35 is like the alien in movie Predator.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2014, 10:23
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
I think that they are referring to some new proposal about directional data link. I doubt they go for it though, since it would be rather costly and would not add that much to Gripen capabilities. I think that they are really not worth it unless the aircraft is VLO itself. I don't think directional data links are even considered for EF Typhoon, Dassault Rafale or Super Hornet.

Could you elaborate a bit more? Why do you think this is just a proposal and not something they will implement? The PPT linked to was from 2012, but look at this:

Any data on enemy aircraft is shared with beamed data links, thus enabling long range Meteor missile launches from Gripens with the most geometrically suitable positions within the swarm.


http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-Korea/About-Saab-Korea/Defence-Systems-for-Korea/Your-Partner-In-Aeronautics-/


It might be something they are planning or will even implement, but their current datalink systems don't have capability of being directional (or possibility of being converted for that). I seriously doubt they will develop their own directional datalink system as it would be very costly compared to small number of Gripen NG. They could do it, but I doubt they will due to low budget.

I see two possibilities for directional datalinks. Either they will use laser based solutions like tested in Tornado fighter by Cassidian company or they will use the AESA radar for that. Either one would work and would be nice addition as they would also offer much improved data transfer rates compared to non-directional systems which have rather low data transfer speeds.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2014, 19:00
by gtx
And in related news…the Swiss have just voted against getting the Gripen E (Gripen NG):

Saab: Result in Swiss Referendum Announced
May 18, 2014 01:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
LINKÖPING, Sweden--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Regulatory News:

“Our focus is helping countries protect their ways of life, which we do by serving the global market with world-leading products, including Gripen. We have seen in Switzerland support for Gripen, including through its evaluation and selection over competitors and in the votations in the Swiss Parliament last year”

Further to the decisions by the Swiss Parliament in 2013 to procure 22 Gripen E, a national referendum was held today in Switzerland on the funding law for Gripen. The result was ‘no’ which means that the Gripen E procurement process in Switzerland stops. For Saab, the Gripen E programme continues according to plan, with development and production of 60 Gripen E for Sweden ongoing and deliveries scheduled for 2018.

In February 2013, Saab signed a framework agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) concerning the development and production of 60 Gripen E to Sweden and potentially 22 to Switzerland. Today’s referendum result on the funding law for Gripen means that the Swiss procurement process of 22 Gripen E stops. The Swedish development and production orders placed in 2013 continue, with delivery of Gripen E to Sweden commencing in 2018. The negotiations regarding 36 Gripen NG to Brazil are ongoing and according to plan with the ambition from both parties that an agreement should be signed in 2014.

“Our focus is helping countries protect their ways of life, which we do by serving the global market with world-leading products, including Gripen. We have seen in Switzerland support for Gripen, including through its evaluation and selection over competitors and in the votations in the Swiss Parliament last year,” says Håkan Buskhe, President and CEO of Saab.

“We respect the process in Switzerland and do not comment on today’s outcome in the referendum. Following selection in 2011, hundreds of business relationships in Switzerland have been created through the Swiss Industrial Participation programme, which was created in relation to the Gripen E procurement. These are relationships we look forward to continuing as long as possible,” adds Håkan Buskhe.

Under the industrial participation programme, over 500 contracts with 125 Swiss businesses have been arranged. Some of these are with Saab but most are with partners and suppliers to Saab. This shows very clearly that there are strong and long-lasting relationships between Sweden and Switzerland. Saab will continue working with Swiss companies and contracts placed will be honoured, subject to their terms and conditions.

Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.

Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defence to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers’ changing needs.

http://www.saabgroup.com http://www.saabgroup.com/Twitter http://www.saabgroup.com/YouTube

The information is that which Saab AB is required to declare by the Securities Business Act and/or the Financial instruments Trading Act. The information was submitted for publication on May 18 2014 at 18.30 (CET).

This information was brought to you by Cision http://news.cision.com

Contacts
For further information:
Saab Press Centre, +46 (0)734 180 018
presscentre@saabgroup.com

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2014, 20:54
by cantaz
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... rf-reports

“Today’s result requires a thorough analysis,” Defense Minister Ueli Maurer told reporters in Bern, adding that offering one today would be premature. In response to a question about whether the Swiss would lease the jets, he said: “We have no plan B.”


Well, that's why democracy and enlightened self interest aren't synonyms. Good luck SAF, hopefully you don't end up being a bunch of drones backed by SAM batteries.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2014, 23:03
by popcorn
Yikes! Can't wait to see Sweetman's reaction. The 'affordable" fighter just took,a big hit or are 6Gens immune from economic realities? :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2014, 00:40
by mk82
Popcorn, Sweetman will be crying into his coffee now that the Swiss voters rejected his magical sixth generation Gripen E. Poor Bill, shedding "sixth generation" tears bwahahaha :P

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2014, 02:19
by Corsair1963
Yeah, that guy is on somebody's payroll.......... :?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2014, 07:06
by XanderCrews
HAHAHAHAHA :D

It will be fun watching people try and tie this in with the F-35. I stubbed my toe the other day, and blamed lockheed martin.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2014, 19:50
by gtx
Sweetman's first response:

Worse news for the Swiss AF than for the Gripen.


Seems to me a bit like saying "We didn't need them anyway…so there!" :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2014, 21:18
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:Sweetman's first response:

Worse news for the Swiss AF than for the Gripen.


Seems to me a bit like saying "We didn't need them anyway…so there!" :D


Gripen NG was always too cool for the Swiss. Truly bad news they won't ever know the thrill of a sixth gen fighter... NG is better off without them.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 06:44
by mk82
Oh how cute, Sweetman making such statements to comfort himself. There....there....keep disparaging the Swiss Bill.....you will feel better eventually :D.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 06:50
by popcorn
Some weak sauce there, Bill.. :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 06:59
by spazsinbad
Would someone provide a link to whatever is being talked about please or does one have to join something or tuther?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 07:04
by mk82
The original article about the Swiss voters rejecting the Gripen NG was in the Financial Times Spazinbad.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 07:10
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2014, 09:06
by mk82
That link send me to the login page Spaz but I think you got the right article.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 01:44
by popcorn
Funny, AvWeek seems to have missed the story :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 19:22
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Funny, AvWeek seems to have missed the story :D


How odd, the Swiss acquiring the sixth gen gripen was such a big deal; how could the cancellation not be newsworthy...

:mrgreen:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 22:33
by suavewatermelon
Howdy

What country are the AvWeek guys from anyways? Can't really tell, since they seem to be endorsing Gripen, but the name sounds too English.

:?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 23:28
by zero-one
suavewatermelon wrote:Howdy

What country are the AvWeek guys from anyways? Can't really tell, since they seem to be endorsing Gripen, but the name sounds too English.

:?


Howdy, AvWeek is published by McGraw-Hill, I used to work for them and only quit a few months ago, Its an American company with some of its main sites at 1221 Ave. Americas and 55 Water St. NY City,

but they also have offices all around the World.
For some reason some (i.e Bill Sweetman, real name William Sweetman) don't like the F-35 very much and seem to think that a lot of its European contemporaries offer much better performance for a much reasonable price,

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:09
by loke
popcorn wrote:Yikes! Can't wait to see Sweetman's reaction. The 'affordable" fighter just took,a big hit or are 6Gens immune from economic realities? :D


The Swedish government is set to amend the Gripen E production contract so that the aircraft will be new-build rather than re-manufactured airframes, a Saab spokesperson confirmed to IHS Jane's on 12 June.
It is not thought that this contract amendment will affect the Gripen E delivery schedule of 2018 through to 2026, and the national media reports said that the SEK16.4 billion (USD2.5 billion) price tag for the 60 aircraft remains unchanged.


Full story: http://www.janes.com/article/39139/swed ... nufactured

So it seems the first 60 Gripen E will cost 2.5 billion USD in spite of the Swiss voters saying No. That's a fly-away of 42 million USD, for new-builds! I wonder if this includes the F414?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:25
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yikes! Can't wait to see Sweetman's reaction. The 'affordable" fighter just took,a big hit or are 6Gens immune from economic realities? :D


The Swedish government is set to amend the Gripen E production contract so that the aircraft will be new-build rather than re-manufactured airframes, a Saab spokesperson confirmed to IHS Jane's on 12 June.
It is not thought that this contract amendment will affect the Gripen E delivery schedule of 2018 through to 2026, and the national media reports said that the SEK16.4 billion (USD2.5 billion) price tag for the 60 aircraft remains unchanged.


Full story: http://www.janes.com/article/39139/swed ... nufactured

So it seems the first 60 Gripen E will cost 2.5 billion USD in spite of the Swiss voters saying No. That's a fly-away of 42 million USD, for new-builds!


of course they will. I just asked the Easter bunny and he said its true.

2.5 billion for 60 for Sweden. 41.6 million per

2.2 billion for 22 for the Swiss? 100 million per

Good thing the Swiss aren't gullible.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:35
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yikes! Can't wait to see Sweetman's reaction. The 'affordable" fighter just took,a big hit or are 6Gens immune from economic realities? :D


The Swedish government is set to amend the Gripen E production contract so that the aircraft will be new-build rather than re-manufactured airframes, a Saab spokesperson confirmed to IHS Jane's on 12 June.
It is not thought that this contract amendment will affect the Gripen E delivery schedule of 2018 through to 2026, and the national media reports said that the SEK16.4 billion (USD2.5 billion) price tag for the 60 aircraft remains unchanged.


Full story: http://www.janes.com/article/39139/swed ... nufactured

So it seems the first 60 Gripen E will cost 2.5 billion USD in spite of the Swiss voters saying No. That's a fly-away of 42 million USD, for new-builds!


of course they will, honey. I just asked the easter bunny and he said its true.

2.5 billion for 60 for Sweden. 41.6 million per

2.2 billion for 22 for the Swiss? 100 million per

Good thing the Swiss aren't gullible.

Did you not notice the word "fly-away"? I am not 100% sure, but I am quite sure that the 42 million USD is fly-away.

The 2.2 billion is definitely not fly-away.

Thus you are comparing apples and pears.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:35
by mk82
The Swiss had 7th generation maths :P

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:37
by loke
mk82 wrote:The Swiss had 7th generation maths :P

Another one who is comparing apples and pears?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:40
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:Did you not notice the word "fly-away"? I am not 100% sure, but I am quite sure that the 42 million USD is fly-away.
.


I did! and then you wrote this:

loke wrote:
So it seems the first 60 Gripen E will cost 2.5 billion USD in spite of the Swiss voters saying No. That's a fly-away of 42 million USD, for new-builds! I wonder if this includes the F414?


So its flyaway, but you don't know if it includes the engine? How do you justify "fly away" without the engine? :shock: When did that definition change?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:41
by mk82
loke wrote:
mk82 wrote:The Swiss had 7th generation maths :P[/q uote]
Another one who is comparing apples and pears?


Oops, 7th generation apples and pears then :P

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 14:46
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:Did you not notice the word "fly-away"? I am not 100% sure, but I am quite sure that the 42 million USD is fly-away.
.


I did! and then you wrote this:

loke wrote:
So it seems the first 60 Gripen E will cost 2.5 billion USD in spite of the Swiss voters saying No. That's a fly-away of 42 million USD, for new-builds! I wonder if this includes the F414?


So its flyaway, but you don't know if it includes the engine? How do you justify "fly away" without the engine? :shock:

I thought the fly-away normally included the engine but I think I've heard that some companies refer to "fly-away" without the engine, in particular the F-35 "fly-away" did not include the engine? or am I mixing the F-35 fly-away with something else?

nevertheless, your are nitpicking on the definition of "fly-away"; I was pointing to something else, which you seem to try to remove the focus from; the 2.5 billion USD for 60 Swedish Gripen E cannot be compared to 2.2 billion for 22 Swiss Gripen E because the Swiss price is a package containing much more than just Gripen E. That was the main point in my response to you.

It is also completely illogical to blame my (mis)use of the term "fly-away" to explain why you suddenly compare the 2.5billion to the Swiss 2.2Billion... Or are you that easily confused... :)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 15:13
by XanderCrews
I thought the fly-away normally included the engine but I think I've heard that some companies refer to "fly-away" without the engine, in particular the F-35 "fly-away" did not include the engine? or am I mixing the F-35 fly-away with something else?


One could say you are comparing apples to pares. Because yes, to actually fly away in an airplane you need the engine, which is why fly away is its own thing.

nevertheless, your are nitpicking on the definition of "fly-away";


Probably because it adds price when we are talking about price, and if you are going to use the definition fly-away I expect we are talking fly away. I'm old fashioned.

I was pointing to something else, which you seem to try to remove the focus from; the 2.5 billion USD for 60 Swedish Gripen E cannot be compared to 2.2 billion for 22 Swiss Gripen E because the Swiss price is a package containing much more than just Gripen E.


I am highly skeptical of the whole price thing, especially as we have yet to have a legit flying prototype , I don't know if the price is adjusted for inflation, We seem to have no price change re manufacture vs new build (they had they same price pre swiss vote), Janes is notorious for being a SAAB friend etc.

But other than that I'm sure the price is the exact same with or without the swiss. it just makes sense.

Cost claims are claims.

That was the main point in my response to you.


point taken.

It is also completely illogical to blame my (mis)use of the term "fly-away" to explain why you suddenly compare the 2.5billion to the Swiss 2.2Billion... Or are you that easily confused... :)
[/quote]

Speaking of confused, is the Gripen a glider?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 15:33
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:I am highly skeptical of the whole price thing, especially as we have yet to have a legit flying prototype , I don't know if the price is adjusted for inflation, We seem to have no price change re manufacture vs new build (they had they same price pre swiss vote), Janes is notorious for being a SAAB friend etc.


However, as noted by Saab officials in March, the Gripen C and Gripen E share little in terms of common structures and systems, with the only items able to be cross-decked being the windscreen and canopy, the outer elevons, the ejection-seat, the internal gun and conveyor system, and some other ancillary equipment.


It's hardly "re manufacture" it was just reusing a few components. No wonder it should have non-significant impact on the cost.

For the price, Janes simply qouted Swedish media who said the price will not change, see e.g. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_m ... 832283.ece

For the engine; most likely it is included, however I found the 42 million USD unit price to be too low, so I wonder why and how. Since it seems fashionable these days to not include the engine in the unit price I thought this was perhaps the answer, but perhaps I am wrong.

Could inflation be the answer; perhaps this is in 2014 SEK and not inflation adjusted; even so 42 million still sounds too low.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 15:53
by XanderCrews
It's hardly "re manufacture" it was just reusing a few components. No wonder it should have non-significant impact on the cost.


I brought it up because preciously this was being widely proclaimed as a "cost saving" and efficiency method. now suddenly they aren't doing it, and now it was non significant to begin with, and won't affect the cost of course.

For the engine; most likely it is included,


most likely?

however I found the 42 million USD unit price to be too low, so I wonder why and how.


Hey!!! We have a winner!! Welcome to the "wow that sure is low, almost too good to be true" club. Bring Your Own Beer, we meet thursdays, Bill is bringing the cookies this time.

Since it seems fashionable these days to not include the engine in the unit price I thought this was perhaps the answer, but perhaps I am wrong.


lets wait to find out what the hell they are talking about maybe?

Could inflation be the answer; perhaps this is in 2014 SEK and not inflation adjusted; even so 42 million still sounds too low.


Almost suspiciously so... However if there is anything we all know about airplanes its that estimates never change, and the first price you hear is accurate, especially in the development phase.

Anyway I don't think this is a "claim" I think they have already negotiated the price with Saab.


IF there is anything I know about military/government contracts its just that simple, and that is totally the whole story, there are no hidden rules, or cost structures, or other variables, and that is not just one section of it accounted a certain way . Now we can all rest and relax, and let the 42 million dollar advanced Gripen NG just fly away off the line. No need for skepticism.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 16:29
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:I brought it up because preciously this was being widely proclaimed as a "cost saving" and efficiency method. now suddenly they aren't doing it, and now it was non significant to begin with, and won't affect the cost of course.

Was that widely proclaimed? I thought it was widely considered to be very silly to sacrifice perfectly good Gripen C not mainly to save a few pennies, but to be able to say to the leftwingers in Sweden "see, we are not building new a/c we are just upgrading the old ones". It has been known for a long time that almost nothing would be re-used of the current Gripen, and thus the cost savings would be minimal. Common sense won in the end.
IF there is anything I know about military/government contracts its just that simple, and that is totally the whole story, there are no hidden rules, or cost structures, or other variables, and that is not just one section of it accounted a certain way . Now we can all rest and relax, and let the 42 million dollar advanced Gripen NG just fly away off the line. No need for skepticism.

The sarcasm is so well hidden here that it's almost impossible to notice.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:11
by loke
Defence and security company Saab has, under a prior agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) of the Gripen E, received a series order of 16.4 billion for operations in 2013-2026. The order includes the modification of 60 Gripen Gripen E to Sweden with delivery starting in 2018.

google translated from:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... r-Sverige/

Seems to be with engines :)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:19
by KamenRiderBlade
Does that 42 million per plane include:
- Spare parts?
- Lifetime service contract?
- What extra features in avionics are included?
- IR sensors, are they included?
- NV systems, are they included?
- What about Laser designation?

There are lots of questions that a press release doesn't seem to answer.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:24
by XanderCrews
Was that widely proclaimed?


It was actually, in fact there seemed to be a whole plan based around it, also Saab claimed

Once at full rate, the company aims to be able to deliver a new-build aircraft within 18 months of a contract award, or to convert existing airframes within a year.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... gs-396977/

Hmm.

I thought it was widely considered to be very silly to sacrifice perfectly good Gripen C not mainly to save a few pennies, but to be able to say to the leftwingers in Sweden "see, we are not building new a/c we are just upgrading the old ones".


I guess thats your opinion, because it was sold by the western media sources in favor of the gripen as an intelligent money saving decision, and the advantage of a growth airplane over a brand new one, but oh well whatever.

It has been known for a long time that almost nothing would be re-used of the current Gripen, and thus the cost savings would be minimal. Common sense won in the end.


So it was a cost saving measure even if it wasn't by an amount you consider significant?

Defence and security company Saab has, under a prior agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) of the Gripen E, received a series order of 16.4 billion for operations in 2013-2026. The order includes the modification of 60 Gripen Gripen E to Sweden with delivery starting in 2018.


modification?

Operations? from 2013-2026 but the NG won't be delieverd until 5 years after 2013?

Wasn't your post supposed to be about how the swiss loss didn't affect price and now we have no idea what the price is and what it includes?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:26
by loke
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does that 42 million per plane include:
- Spare parts?
- Lifetime service contract?
- What extra features in avionics are included?
- IR sensors, are they included?
- NV systems, are they included?
- What about Laser designation?

There are lots of questions that a press release doesn't seem to answer.


What is included in an 50 million SH?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... -ef-ea-18g

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:29
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does that 42 million per plane include:
- Spare parts?
- Lifetime service contract?
- What extra features in avionics are included?
- IR sensors, are they included?
- NV systems, are they included?
- What about Laser designation?

There are lots of questions that a press release doesn't seem to answer.


What is included in an 50 million SH?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... -ef-ea-18g


You mean what is the flyaway cost loke? :D (shockingly its more than what boeing claims. flyaway for a hornet is about 67 million currently)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 17:34
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
So it was a cost saving measure even if it wasn't by an amount you consider significant?



You saw specified in a previous post what was moved from the old to the new Gripen. Also consider it will probably take some hours to dis-assemble. It's not like would be a to be a big money saver. I am surprised that you struggle to see this.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 18:02
by XanderCrews
Also consider it will probably take some hours to dis-assemble


LOL so its faster to build these pieces anew than take them off an airplane that was optimized for easy, field expedient repair and reinstall them on the new airplane?

Umm Ok.

It's not like would be a to be a big money saver. I am surprised that you struggle to see this.


Ok Loke I am going to break this down really, really simple.

1. Many people in the west were told this was a cost saving maneuver to maximize savings. (this does not mean that I ever believed it, I am simply telling you what I heard, as you know I think the Gripen NG is more expensive than is being let on, so why would I believe it would save much?)

2. Now they are not doing that and we are being told that, yes it would have saved, but not much worth noting, and you mention the time it takes to remove those pieces :doh: ok

3. thats fine. I am simply noting that the Gripen "NArrative" has changed, and that is just interesting to me. Who know what cost saving measure that was saving, then that wasn't really saving anyway, will be removed next? I'm excited.

4. I can only go with what is reported and I don't live in Sweden. So what may have happened (and I''ll slow down if this is too fast for you)

The. Swedish. Reports. May. Be. Different. Than. The. International. Reports.

Especially when those international reports are grossly biased as in the case of Sweetman and his followers. So what might have happened, is the Western Journos locked onto one, barely significant fact and then over hyped it, in an effort to overhype the Gripen NG.



If its any consolation I didn't think they would save much money doing that. yes they would save money even with the "labor" it would take to take the pieces off (that made my day by the way!) And I'm sure the reduced 22 aircraft order didn't change a thing. And the Pakfa catching fire won't affect the sukhoi schedule. And Boeing is confident in future sales.



So your original post that kicked off this whole exchange, was the question of "I wonder if the swiss order going away will affect the price?"

The answer to me is still a big ??? especially as what you have posted sure doesn't explain what exactly is being paid for.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 20:24
by loke
Dear Mr. :doh:

I never said that I could explain the whole cost picture of the Gripen.

I never claimed that 42 million USD is all Sweden needs to pay to get and operate a Gripen E; au contrair if you go back and read my posts you will see I indicated the opposite.

What I said was that according to Swedish media the contract Sweden has with Saab to pay for it's 60 a/c will not change (at least not in a significant manner), in spite of Switzerland dropping out. That's all. Is that so hard to grasp?

As for the "International reports" on the "remanufacture" of Gripen C into Gripen E and how extremely cost-saving that will be; show us the sources please, demonstrating clearly how much the customer will save compared to what it costs to buy a new one. So far it's just been hand-waving from you. And of course the occational :doh:

Please stop inventing things. And as a further advice; please stop believe in all "marketing claims" you read in the media ;)

Thank you, Mr. :doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 20:30
by arcturus
loke wrote: So far it's just been hand-waving from you.


I'm not seeing the "hand-waving" you speak of. Is that really the response you want to tie yourself to?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 20:53
by loke
arcturus wrote:
loke wrote: So far it's just been hand-waving from you.


I'm not seeing the "hand-waving" you speak of. Is that really the response you want to tie yourself to?

Hand-waving was probably not the right expression. English is not my first language.

Anyway if you look at Xanders posting style and also what he actually writes, and what parts of my posts he attacks, it's clear he is not interested in a constructive discussion, he goes for "entertainment" and thrashing.

Or what do you say, "honey" ?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 20:58
by loke
No need to respond, I just used the "ignore" functionality on this forum, for the first time...

Bye bye Honey.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:27
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
arcturus wrote:
loke wrote: So far it's just been hand-waving from you.


I'm not seeing the "hand-waving" you speak of. Is that really the response you want to tie yourself to?

Hand-waving was probably not the right expression. English is not my first language.

Anyway if you look at Xanders posting style and also what he actually writes, and what parts of my posts he attacks, it's clear he is not interested in a constructive discussion, he goes for "entertainment" and thrashing.

Or what do you say, "honey" ?


loke wrote:No need to respond, I just used the "ignore" functionality on this forum, for the first time...

Bye bye Honey.


That'll teach you Arcturus.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:29
by arcturus
loke wrote:
arcturus wrote:
loke wrote: So far it's just been hand-waving from you.


I'm not seeing the "hand-waving" you speak of. Is that really the response you want to tie yourself to?

Hand-waving was probably not the right expression. English is not my first language.

Anyway if you look at Xanders posting style and also what he actually writes, and what parts of my posts he attacks, it's clear he is not interested in a constructive discussion, he goes for "entertainment" and thrashing.

Or what do you say, "honey" ?


As one familiar with Xander's posting history, I've found quote the opposite from what you assert. While his posts are entertaining, he has in the past, and most certainly in the future will continue contributing to constructive discussion. One thing forums, and the internet in General is very bad for is communicating the intended tone of commentary submitted.

Assuming that ignore comment isn't aimed at me, I'll respond a bit on that too. Using the ignore function, in my opinion, serves to do nothing more that forever stunt any and all constructive discussion. Taking aim with ignore, again in my humble opinion, is akin to burying your head in the sand so as not to hear dissenting points of view. Just my thoughts.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:31
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote:That'll teach you Arcturus.


Perhaps lol.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:52
by XanderCrews
arcturus wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:That'll teach you Arcturus.


Perhaps lol.


... Wait was that for me? He quoted you... thus illustrating your point about how miscommunication is always a factor.

For the record, I don't think I "invented" anything and all of my points about remanufacture were backed by Saab Statements, reported by western media.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 21:56
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote:
arcturus wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:That'll teach you Arcturus.


Perhaps lol.


... Wait was that for me? He quoted you... thus illustrating your point about how miscommunication is always a factor.

For the record, I don't think I "invented" anything and all of my points about remanufacture were backed by Saab Statements, reported by western media.



Honestly, I'm not sure who it was aimed at. It could be you or I, or even both of us. I didn't see anything you invented in the discussion at all.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 22:26
by XanderCrews
:shrug:


loke wrote:
Defence and security company Saab has, under a prior agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) of the Gripen E, received a series order of 16.4 billion for operations in 2013-2026. The order includes the modification of 60 Gripen Gripen E to Sweden with delivery starting in 2018.

google translated from:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... r-Sverige/

Seems to be with engines :)


I'm still trying to figure out how the above statement clarifies Engines/flyaway cost??

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 22:37
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote::shrug:


loke wrote:
Defence and security company Saab has, under a prior agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) of the Gripen E, received a series order of 16.4 billion for operations in 2013-2026. The order includes the modification of 60 Gripen Gripen E to Sweden with delivery starting in 2018.

google translated from:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... r-Sverige/

Seems to be with engines :)


I'm still trying to figure out how the above statement clarifies Engines/flyaway cost??



That one had me scratching my head also. Maybe it's a language barrier type thing.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 22:48
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:No need to respond, I just used the "ignore" functionality on this forum, for the first time...

Bye bye Honey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A&feature=kp

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2014, 22:50
by arcturus
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:No need to respond, I just used the "ignore" functionality on this forum, for the first time...

Bye bye Honey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A&feature=kp


:applause:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 04:50
by Vipernice
loke wrote:
So it seems the first 60 Gripen E will cost 2.5 billion USD in spite of the Swiss voters saying No. That's a fly-away of 42 million USD, for new-builds! I wonder if this includes the F414?


Of course engine is included. Why even apply US procurement methods on foreign fighters when no other country issue contracts without including engines.

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does that 42 million per plane include:
- Spare parts?
- Lifetime service contract?
- What extra features in avionics are included?
- IR sensors, are they included?
- NV systems, are they included?
- What about Laser designation?

There are lots of questions that a press release doesn't seem to answer.


None of that should be included other than hull-integrated sensors such as the IRST and Missile Warners.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2014, 19:06
by spazsinbad
I wonder if the F-35 already matches most of what is being touted here:
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
07 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman, Angus Batey & Amy Svitak | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2014, 03:33
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:I wonder if the F-35 already matches most of what is being touted here:
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
07 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman, Angus Batey & Amy Svitak | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale

Some nice upgrades there, all in the non-kinematics arena. Canada may have had access to this info for their evaluation. Denmark will certainly be given the sales pitch though Rafale is excluded. The market will decide.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2014, 04:00
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:I wonder if the F-35 already matches most of what is being touted here:
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
07 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman, Angus Batey & Amy Svitak | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale



Well given the Author its well ahead, 6th generation in fact. :roll:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2014, 05:18
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I wonder if the F-35 already matches most of what is being touted here:
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
07 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman, Angus Batey & Amy Svitak | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale



Well given the Author its well ahead, 6th generation in fact. :roll:


Why not 7th, 8th or 9th Generation

-_-

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2014, 09:22
by mk82
Its actually gazzilionth generation KamenBladeRider and BS's brains has just exploded (only BS's brains) :devil:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2014, 19:48
by southernphantom
Am I the only one who cannot see the difference between the "repositioner" and the traverse systems we've had on analog radars since the 60s?

In any case, I could see the Gripen being a serious contender for the RDAF. I don't personally recall the Danes mounting many expeditionary ops, and the NG would be quite suitable for general QRA and possibly chasing off the occasional Bear or Flanker.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2014, 19:49
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:I wonder if the F-35 already matches most of what is being touted here:
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
07 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman, Angus Batey & Amy Svitak | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale
Congratulations to Europe for keeping pace with Superhornet/Mudhen export technology. These innovative (if costly) programs may give the Eurocanards five more years of market-relevance outside the countries that are politically obligated to buy them.


Here's what's gonna spoil Sweetman's fruit in the end... come the 2020s, if someone can't afford the F-35, they won't be able to afford any of the above either.

Sometimes I wonder if the DoD isn't paying Bill in an effort to contain interest amongst some of our sketchier allies.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 03:53
by neurotech
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I wonder if the F-35 already matches most of what is being touted here:
New Avionics For Gripen, Typhoon And Rafale
07 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman, Angus Batey & Amy Svitak | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Europe revamps fighter systems and sensors..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale
Congratulations to Europe for keeping pace with Superhornet/Mudhen export technology. These innovative (if costly) programs may give the Eurocanards five more years of market-relevance outside the countries that are politically obligated to buy them.


Here's what's gonna spoil Sweetman's fruit in the end... come the 2020s, if someone can't afford the F-35, they won't be able to afford any of the above either.

Sometimes I wonder if the DoD isn't paying Bill in an effort to contain interest amongst some of our sketchier allies.

F/A-50 is still apparently cheaper than the Gripen-E, and if it stays in production long enough as both a trainer and a fighter in the 2020s, it could be interesting.

What is interesting is the South Africans apparently lacked the budget to keep their full Gripen fleet flying. :wtf:

Maybe in another few years, some US defense contractor will buy cheap Gripen jets as surplus, and still miss flying F-14 Tomcats :D

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 04:23
by blindpilot
neurotech wrote:....
F/A-50 is still apparently cheaper than the Gripen-E, and if it stays in production long enough as both a trainer and a fighter in the 2020s, it could be interesting.

...:D


The more and more I learn and consider future environments I lean towards the F-35 and then a buncha F/A 50's which is where the S Koreans are heading.

I mean if you can't go into a serious IAD world without getting pinged on the beach before you get there, (and soon no one will be able to other than the 35/22s), you might as well have F/A 50's. There are cheap to buy, cheap to run, easy transition from pilot training, and more than capable of intercepting the 767 that got lost. I mean they could even catch a .9+ Mach 747 or Cessna X without embarrassing themselves. Good back seat to take pictures of the Bears etc. etc.

And who knows you might get a lucky Python/Derby shot off on the Flankers if you stay sharp, and hide behind the F35's skirt.

:) :D

BP

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 04:50
by neurotech
blindpilot wrote:
neurotech wrote:....
F/A-50 is still apparently cheaper than the Gripen-E, and if it stays in production long enough as both a trainer and a fighter in the 2020s, it could be interesting.

...:D


The more and more I learn and consider future environments I lean towards the F-35 and then a buncha F/A 50's which is where the S Koreans are heading.

I mean if you can't go into a serious IAD world without getting pinged on the beach before you get there, (and soon no one will be able to other than the 35/22s), you might as well have F/A 50's. There are cheap to buy, cheap to run, easy transition from pilot training, and more than capable of intercepting the 767 that got lost. I mean they could even catch a .9+ Mach 747 or Cessna X without embarrassing themselves. Good back seat to take pictures of the Bears etc. etc.

And who knows you might get a lucky Python/Derby shot off on the Flankers if you stay sharp, and hide behind the F35's skirt.

:) :D

BP

The irony is that jets like the F/A-50 could maintain the advantage that even a smaller country can afford to buy them in reasonable quantity. In the old days, the MiG-21 was supplied in relatively large numbers to Soviet allies.

I really wonder how combat effective a Flanker will be when operated in small numbers with major limits on the training hours. If the F/A-50 pilot is smart, just keep avoiding the missiles until the Flanker runs out and then go for a python or 'winder kill.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 07:15
by lookieloo
blindpilot wrote:The more and more I learn and consider future environments I lean towards the F-35 and then a buncha F/A 50's which is where the S Koreans are heading.

I mean if you can't go into a serious IAD world without getting pinged on the beach before you get there, (and soon no one will be able to other than the 35/22s), you might as well have F/A 50's...
...as unmanned decoys I would hope. http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/739278 Systems like these will render aerial-warfare untenable for anyone lacking organic, built-in signature control. Against non-VLO platforms, we're talking engagement envelops able to deny entire countries their own airspace; and I'm not really seeing what good a jamming system is going to be against modern software smart enough to just start homing on the emitter. In the future, jamming will only be effective in combination with VLO platforms that have the option of turning it off occasionally.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 11:14
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:
blindpilot wrote:The more and more I learn and consider future environments I lean towards the F-35 and then a buncha F/A 50's which is where the S Koreans are heading.

I mean if you can't go into a serious IAD world without getting pinged on the beach before you get there, (and soon no one will be able to other than the 35/22s), you might as well have F/A 50's...
...as unmanned decoys I would hope. http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/739278 Systems like these will render aerial-warfare untenable for anyone lacking organic, built-in signature control. Against non-VLO platforms, we're talking engagement envelops able to deny entire countries their own airspace; and I'm not really seeing what good a jamming system is going to be against modern software smart enough to just start homing on the emitter. In the future, jamming will only be effective in combination with VLO platforms that have the option of turning it off occasionally.



Both Interesting points . I am still a little surprised because many people have said the JSF is already history because of unmanned aircraft being the wave of the future. These same people then point out that Korea, Japan, Sweden and Turkey are all working on manned fighters due to enter service in the 2020s because the JSF is "weak in the air to air" :doh: ...

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 02:34
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:...These same people then point out that Korea, Japan, Sweden and Turkey are all working on manned fighters due to enter service in the 2020s because the JSF is "weak in the air to air" :doh: ...
Sweetman has apparently left several foreign countries with the impression that developing a VLO "F-35 beater" is easy and cheap if only one follows the recommendations of himself and his fellow journalists. One or two of these programs might actually bring a fighter to market 15-20 years from now... just in time for said market to already be saturated.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 08:57
by KamenRiderBlade
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:...These same people then point out that Korea, Japan, Sweden and Turkey are all working on manned fighters due to enter service in the 2020s because the JSF is "weak in the air to air" :doh: ...
Sweetman has apparently left several foreign countries with the impression that developing a VLO "F-35 beater" is easy and cheap if only one follows the recommendations of himself and his fellow journalists. One or two of these programs might actually bring a fighter to market 15-20 years from now... just in time for said market to already be saturated.


BS and his lot has left his "B.S." in the minds of many Anti-JSF fanboys.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2014, 21:18
by pron
Maybe it's been posted here before, but I was surprised how much the Gripen E(NG) have increased in weight.
Empty weight up from 6.8 t to 8 t.

More info from Saab here: http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documen ... nglish.pdf

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2014, 21:32
by spazsinbad
LEFT Mouse Click on the graphic to make it LARGer!
Gripen NG SPECIFICATION 23 Jun 2014
LENGTH 15.2 m
WIDTH 8.6 m
MASS WHEN EMPTY 8,000 kg = 17,637 lb = 8 metric tons
INTERNAL FUEL CAPACITY 3,400 kg
MAX. TAKE-OFF WEIGHT 16,500 kg
MAX. THRUST 98 kN
MIN. TAKE-OFF DISTANCE 500 m
LANDING DISTANCE 600 m
MAX. SPEED AT SEA LEVEL > 1,400 km/h
MAX. SPEED AT HIGH ALTITUDE Mach 2
SUPERCRUISE CAPABILITY Yes
MAX. SERVICE ALTITUDE > 16,000 m
FERRY RANGE 4,000 km
G-LIMITS +9G/-3G
HARDPOINTS 10
COMBAT TURNAROUND AIR-TO-AIR 10 min
FULL ENGINE REPLACEMENT <1 hour

Source: http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documen ... nglish.pdf (3.6Mb)

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2014, 21:39
by castlebravo
So the world's first sixth-generation fighter has more weight and less thrust than an F-16A?

I especially like the cost per flight hour figures in Saab's document that says "Source: IHS Jane's". So is Jane's wild a$$ guess the best Saab can come up with, or do they not want to give a more accurate number?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2014, 08:40
by hornetfinn
Improved avionics and other systems seem to have quite noticeable effect on weight. Let's load Gripen NG with 1500 kg of weapons and full internal fuel of 3400 kg. The T/W is then only about 0.77 in full AB. F-35A would equal that with full internal fuel of about 8300 kg and 3600 kg of weapons. Even F-35C would equal that with 1500 kg of weapons and with almost full tank of fuel. Of course both F-35 models would probably have twice the range of Gripen. Dassault Rafale with full tank of fuel could carry three times as much weapons as Gripen NG and have equal T/W ratio. Hell, even 1960's F-4 could equal the T/W ratio of Gripen NG with similar load... :wink:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2014, 09:37
by hornetfinn
castlebravo wrote:I especially like the cost per flight hour figures in Saab's document that says "Source: IHS Jane's". So is Jane's wild a$$ guess the best Saab can come up with, or do they not want to give a more accurate number?


Exactly. I also love that they use the highest possible number they could find for the F-35 which includes absolutely everything (including inflation and wages) for the US Navy use. Of course they print the lowest possible number for the Gripen, which includes only the very basic stuff like fuel and lowest level of maintenance and support. That way you could make the most expensive Ferrari look cheap compared to Toyota Camry... :roll:

Yes, Gripen is relatively cheap, but this is getting stupid as it seems Saab thinks people are stupid. Sadly, most people are ignorant about this stuff and they buy those kinds of claims.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2014, 09:39
by araya
I think it should be absolutely clear that the Grippen NG cannot be compared with the F35 in all respects. But this doesn’t mean what the Grippen is a bad airframe especially for poor country’s how cannot afford to buy and maintain a 5. Gen fighter like the F35 how is also the only true 5 generation fighter available on the international market. So the real competition for the Grippen is not the F35 but the other 4, 5 gen fighter like the EF2000, Rafale, F15SE, F16V and F18E/F, Mig35, Su30 and the Su35. And hear the Grippen look rely god so it support an impressive number of weapons (even more them the F35 if I'm not mistaken) and this in combination with a really good avionic, a good and reliable engine and an high operational flexibility and all this at a low price tag. The Grippen NG is in my eyes the best 4, 5 Gen fighter for a hypothetical high-low mix better them the Rafale, F16V, F18 E/F, Mig35, Su30 and cheaper them the EF2000, Su35 and F15SE.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2014, 10:49
by hornetfinn
Gripen NG looks pretty good for the most part, but it's not really cheap. Switzerland was supposed to pay over 150 million US dollars (around 120 million euros) for every Gripen NG, even though they got discount price without development costs (Sweden agreed to pay it all). Switzerland also calculated that their real CPFH would've been about 25,000 US dollars. Although that might have been pessimistic estimate, it still shows that JAS Gripen NG CPFH is likely much closer to F-35 (or other competitors) than Saab wants to admit.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2014, 01:40
by XanderCrews
araya wrote:I think it should be absolutely clear that the Grippen NG cannot be compared with the F35 in all respects.


The problem is that people do and have. Saab hasn't even produced a prototype yet, and NG is lauded all over the internet as the "right way to build a fighter" People gladly compare it, and then when the JSF people point out its shortcomings its suddenly "well lets not compare it to an F-35... this is a lightweight fighter afterall"

People talk about its "low cost" without bothering to look or know what the price tag is. Sweetman especially has used it as a JSF club at every opportunity, and when the JSF group responds back its completely hand waived. He sputtered to explain the Swiss numbers with "Well Swedish stuff ins't cheap..." when confronted with them, and tried to rationalize the idea that the high initial expense was worth it, because surely the support would be cheaper... (This was of course before the Swiss canceled the order) Even when it comes to cost, There are a lot of rumors that its going to cost about as much as a JSF to buy and maybe as much to operate, (or close enough to the point that the difference isn't worth noticing. )

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2014, 04:04
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
araya wrote:I think it should be absolutely clear that the Grippen NG cannot be compared with the F35 in all respects.


The problem is that people do and have. Saab hasn't even produced a prototype yet, and NG is lauded all over the internet as the "right way to build a fighter" People gladly compare it, and then when the JSF people point out its shortcomings its suddenly "well lets not compare it to an F-35... this is a lightweight fighter afterall"

People talk about its "low cost" without bothering to look or know what the price tag is. Sweetman especially has used it as a JSF club at every opportunity, and when the JSF group responds back its completely hand waived. He sputtered to explain the Swiss numbers with "Well Swedish stuff ins't cheap..." when confronted with them, and tried to rationalize the idea that the high initial expense was worth it, because surely the support would be cheaper... (This was of course before the Swiss canceled the order) Even when it comes to cost, There are a lot of rumors that its going to cost about as much as a JSF to buy and maybe as much to operate, (or close enough to the point that the difference isn't worth noticing. )


The easy logical argument is that if the Grippen NG was so cheap to operate / develop, then why didn't Sweeden just fund it and buy it?

Why doesn't anybody want to pony up for the development cost?

Maybe it's because the Sweedish government realizes that the Grippen isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2014, 07:27
by hornetfinn
XanderCrews wrote:
araya wrote:I think it should be absolutely clear that the Grippen NG cannot be compared with the F35 in all respects.


The problem is that people do and have. Saab hasn't even produced a prototype yet, and NG is lauded all over the internet as the "right way to build a fighter" People gladly compare it, and then when the JSF people point out its shortcomings its suddenly "well lets not compare it to an F-35... this is a lightweight fighter afterall"

People talk about its "low cost" without bothering to look or know what the price tag is. Sweetman especially has used it as a JSF club at every opportunity, and when the JSF group responds back its completely hand waived. He sputtered to explain the Swiss numbers with "Well Swedish stuff ins't cheap..." when confronted with them, and tried to rationalize the idea that the high initial expense was worth it, because surely the support would be cheaper... (This was of course before the Swiss canceled the order) Even when it comes to cost, There are a lot of rumors that its going to cost about as much as a JSF to buy and maybe as much to operate, (or close enough to the point that the difference isn't worth noticing. )


Exactly. There are websites and blogs like this: http://gripen4canada.blogspot.fi/p/how-the.html or this: http://www.flygboken.se/Sid%2052.pdf

Somehow JAS Gripen NG was supposed to have at least equal performance, range, weapons carry capability and avionics than F-35 while being far cheaper to buy and operate and having LO stealth. F-35 was supposed to have inferior T/W ratio and wing loading. It's now pretty clear that JAS Gripen NG might provide similar performance, range, weapons carry capability and fairly low signature. It just doesn't do any of them at the same time. To have similar performance, Gripen must be clean. To have similar range, it requires all the fuel tanks it can carry (and thus being firmly subsonic). To have similar (or even close) weapons carry capability JAS Gripen NG will have quite low performance and very short range (because it's a small fighter with small internal fuel capability). To have low signature, it must be clean and it's still likely several orders of magnitude higher than F-35 in RF spectrum.

Because the JAS Gripen NG is a small but relatively heavy fighter it will have quite low T/W ratio. It's similar to F-35C when empty but when equipped for even A/A mission, even F-35C will have superior T/W ratio given fuel loads to achieve the mission. With heavier loads the smaller Gripen will start to suffer quickly. It seems like Saab and its customers have decided that avionics and range (more fuel) are more important than raw performance. While they increase weight and lower performance, they increase combat capability. Doesn't that sound awfully lot like what has been done with F-35?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2014, 11:43
by cantaz
http://gripen4canada.blogspot.fi/p/how-the.html


That guy's an idiot. "I don't know anything about the subject but my family's military and I'm asking the right questions and the right question is that we should buy Gripens."

He doesn't even realize he's just another clueless fanboy.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2014, 03:43
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
araya wrote:I think it should be absolutely clear that the Grippen NG cannot be compared with the F35 in all respects.


The problem is that people do and have. Saab hasn't even produced a prototype yet, and NG is lauded all over the internet as the "right way to build a fighter" People gladly compare it, and then when the JSF people point out its shortcomings its suddenly "well lets not compare it to an F-35... this is a lightweight fighter afterall"

People talk about its "low cost" without bothering to look or know what the price tag is. Sweetman especially has used it as a JSF club at every opportunity, and when the JSF group responds back its completely hand waived. He sputtered to explain the Swiss numbers with "Well Swedish stuff ins't cheap..." when confronted with them, and tried to rationalize the idea that the high initial expense was worth it, because surely the support would be cheaper... (This was of course before the Swiss canceled the order) Even when it comes to cost, There are a lot of rumors that its going to cost about as much as a JSF to buy and maybe as much to operate, (or close enough to the point that the difference isn't worth noticing. )


Exactly. There are websites and blogs like this: http://gripen4canada.blogspot.fi/p/how-the.html or this: http://www.flygboken.se/Sid%2052.pdf

Somehow JAS Gripen NG was supposed to have at least equal performance, range, weapons carry capability and avionics than F-35 while being far cheaper to buy and operate and having LO stealth. F-35 was supposed to have inferior T/W ratio and wing loading. It's now pretty clear that JAS Gripen NG might provide similar performance, range, weapons carry capability and fairly low signature. It just doesn't do any of them at the same time. To have similar performance, Gripen must be clean. To have similar range, it requires all the fuel tanks it can carry (and thus being firmly subsonic). To have similar (or even close) weapons carry capability JAS Gripen NG will have quite low performance and very short range (because it's a small fighter with small internal fuel capability). To have low signature, it must be clean and it's still likely several orders of magnitude higher than F-35 in RF spectrum.

Because the JAS Gripen NG is a small but relatively heavy fighter it will have quite low T/W ratio. It's similar to F-35C when empty but when equipped for even A/A mission, even F-35C will have superior T/W ratio given fuel loads to achieve the mission. With heavier loads the smaller Gripen will start to suffer quickly. It seems like Saab and its customers have decided that avionics and range (more fuel) are more important than raw performance. While they increase weight and lower performance, they increase combat capability. Doesn't that sound awfully lot like what has been done with F-35?



Canada will purchase the F-35 in and end..........YOU CAN BANK ON IT! :wink:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 22:29
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:
http://gripen4canada.blogspot.fi/p/how-the.html


That guy's an idiot. "I don't know anything about the subject but my family's military and I'm asking the right questions and the right question is that we should buy Gripens."

He doesn't even realize he's just another clueless fanboy.


Indeed he is, but man did I enjoy stopping by when Saab dropped itself from any Canadian consideration.

At this point he is attacking windmills. Fun blog to visit though to see every canadian fighter meme on display in one spot, and of course for the butthurt

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 01:07
by zero-one
Ah yes Grippen For Canada Blog spot (for idiots)

comapres the F-35A's T/W ratio and wing loading against the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and Rhino on 100% fuel
then compares their ranges with all all 4th gens carrying 3 EFTs

I'm like What!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 02:19
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:Ah yes Grippen For Canada Blog spot (for idiots)

comapres the F-35A's T/W ratio and wing loading against the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and Rhino on 100% fuel
then compares their ranges with all all 4th gens carrying 3 EFTs

I'm like What!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:


Dougs "fairness" at work, I lost track of how many articles I sent him and it was clear he wasn't interested in honesty. My favorite post is "the usual suspects" where he outlines the debate on the F-35 as a battle between Wheeler, sprey, Sweetman, Billie Flynn, Loren Thompson various Bloggers, and of course himself, because he is totally worthy of comparison with those individuals and the decision as to whether nations by the F-35 or not depends on internet opinion. Very humble. Where would Canada be if not for this truth warrior?

And the ironically named section "myths and misconceptions." Which could be his blog title

To bring it back on topic to me at least an aircraft that will give a good indication of where the Gripen NG stands, its the Super Hornet, same engine just one instead of 2. Half the weight of the Super Hornet. Even if the Gripen "punches above its weight" if a Light fighter could do what a Medium fighter could, we wouldn't have medium fighters. Everything would be Gripens, F-5s, F-20s, etc. A Gripen NG won't even be a Super Hornet, and a Super Hornet isn't an F-35. So on the food chain its a full two (some would argue 3 layers, because F-35 is 5th gen) levels below the F-35. Price tag wise the initial cost is looking as expensive as other things (sweetman conceded this) and that the main advantage is life time operational cost (which sweetman specified made the high initial cost worth it) But there are reasons to believe that the operation cost won't be drastically better either in the long run.

Generally speaking Gripens are operated by nations who are too poor or don't care to spend more, or countries that are completely neutral or a combination thereof. In other words, countries that are purely defensive in nature and not interested in going beyond their own borders. Thats not Canada, which deploys often and well beyond its borders no matter how much people make of the vast Canadian north being the only place the RCAF operates.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 02:37
by mk82
No consistency at all.....the Gripen NG is also a single engine fighter......which means it will crash, burn and kill some polar bears up north....according to the logic of the anti F35 mouth breathers. If Canada bought Gripen NGs, Uncle Vlad will be rubbing his hands in glee, it will be easier for him to add some fine Swedish ingredients to his tasty Russian "borscht"!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 06:05
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Ah yes Grippen For Canada Blog spot (for idiots)

comapres the F-35A's T/W ratio and wing loading against the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and Rhino on 100% fuel
then compares their ranges with all all 4th gens carrying 3 EFTs

I'm like What!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:


I also like how Gripen E/F somehow got T/W ratio of 1.06 with 100% internal fuel and A/A weapons, although that would've meant that it would be very much lighter than Gripen C. Unfortunately it's much heavier and will have worse T/W ratio than F-35A in those same conditions while most likely having much lower range/endurance.

Of course Gripen can supercruise at Mach 1.2 and F-35 can't supercruise since it can go Mach 1.2 without AB... Logic much?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 06:13
by hb_pencil
I guess you haven't seen his other blog... Best fighter 4 Canada

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca

I'd suggest you look in his previous comparison posts between aircraft and the assertions he made. Personally, It would be nice to see a rebuttal in a specific thread about the various misconceptions on this blog.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 06:48
by neurotech
mk82 wrote:No consistency at all.....the Gripen NG is also a single engine fighter......which means it will crash, burn and kill some polar bears up north....according to the logic of the anti F35 mouth breathers. If Canada bought Gripen NGs, Uncle Vlad will be rubbing his hands in glee, it will be easier for him to add some fine Swedish ingredients to his tasty Russian "borscht"!

I wish they'd stop making comments about single engine fighters. A major emergency in a remote area would still make it more likely the pilot has to eject, even in a twin-engine fighter.

Didn't a F-22 pilot have a hydraulic leak and fire, shut down one engine, couldn't extinguish the fire and subsequently ejected?
In a single engine Gripen, the pilot would do what after an engine bay fire?... being unable to extinguish a fire... magically land the jet? In that scenario, the only difference between a Gripen and a F-22 is the cost of the destroyed jet. Even if the pilot landed the jet it would still be a very expensive repair, and likely a written off.

I would be surprised if the Gripen NG is more survivable in an emergency, compared to either a F/A-18E/F or F-35.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 09:48
by Corsair1963
The Gripen or any 4/4.5 Generation is going to last maybe 5 second vs the F-35. Does anybody remember the what 6 or 7 F-15 Eagles that never even saw the lone F-22. That is until it flew over them. Oh, what about the Iranian F-4 that was following the drone over the Persian Gulf. Again that never saw the F-22 until he looked at what was flying next to him. Now we hear the F-35 may in fact be Stealthier than the F-22.


Honestly, these debates of 4.5 Generation vs F-22's and/or F-35's are a waste........... :doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 20:35
by arcturus
hb_pencil wrote:I guess you haven't seen his other blog... Best fighter 4 Canada

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca

I'd suggest you look in his previous comparison posts between aircraft and the assertions he made. Personally, It would be nice to see a rebuttal in a specific thread about the various misconceptions on this blog.


I believe Doug Allen is actually a subscriber to my little corner of the interwebz. If everyone here can put together a rebuttal I will happily post it.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 21:05
by hb_pencil
Honestly? I don't have the time and inclination... its a mix of basic misinformation that has been torn apart here, combined with stuff that is highly technical. It would require people like myself Sgtmac or Hornetfinn to write a very long and time consuming technical post discussing these issues, and I have better outlets for my time at this point. Then its an issue with that message: basically if you look at the comments section its a europhile slant, except for the guy who is pushing the F/A-18E. So posting something in there is just going to face the same old misinformation on this topic... which brings me to, why bother?


If you don't mind me asking, what corner of the internet do you maintain?

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 21:34
by arcturus
hb_pencil wrote:Honestly? I don't have the time and inclination... its a mix of basic misinformation that has been torn apart here, combined with stuff that is highly technical. It would require people like myself Sgtmac or Hornetfinn to write a very long and time consuming technical post discussing these issues, and I have better outlets for my time at this point. Then its an issue with that message: basically if you look at the comments section its a europhile slant, except for the guy who is pushing the F/A-18E. So posting something in there is just going to face the same old misinformation on this topic... which brings me to, why bother?


If you don't mind me asking, what corner of the internet do you maintain?


I can understand the lack of time and inclination. Below is my little corner. I haven't done much with it lately though.

http://arcturus415.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... er-hornet/

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 21:45
by XanderCrews
arcturus wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:I guess you haven't seen his other blog... Best fighter 4 Canada

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca

I'd suggest you look in his previous comparison posts between aircraft and the assertions he made. Personally, It would be nice to see a rebuttal in a specific thread about the various misconceptions on this blog.


I believe Doug Allen is actually a subscriber to my little corner of the interwebz. If everyone here can put together a rebuttal I will happily post it.


I've posted this before:

http://cdainstitute.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... super.html

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/ent ... -gripen-ng

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/ent ... d-the-f-35

http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

He blew them all off, and proceeded to call me a troll. He is a child, who acts accordingly. Those 3 articles alone shoot a lot of holes into the memes he tries to spin. I also provided the KPMG report that was done for the F-35 for Canada

his whole idea is stupid. The JSF costs too much. So lets buy larger numbers of aircraft for the exact same total price, and then spend big money on stand off weapons, jammers, avionics and other expensive toys needed to get the Gripen NG combat relevant and give it a chance at survival. because savings!

Re: F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2014, 21:52
by arcturus