Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 10:26

optimist wrote:
Spazinbad, Linkomart is a gripen fan and hasn't been shown to be a liar.


Not sure I like being called a fan. Hasn't been shown to be a liar?
Not sure I like the tone of that, but ok, I guess you didn't mean any harm with that.

best regards
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 10:59

linkomart wrote:
optimist wrote:
Spazinbad, Linkomart is a gripen fan and hasn't been shown to be a liar.


Not sure I like being called a fan. Hasn't been shown to be a liar?
Not sure I like the tone of that, but ok, I guess you didn't mean any harm with that.

best regards

No I didn't mean offense with either, or I wouldn't have said. "I would believe him when he says "I’ve just read it and it doesn’t claim that the 39 has that RCS."
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 14:11

marsavian wrote:Ricnunes, you can directly see the engines of the F-18E from the front and just because they put a blocker in front does not change that fact as gaps are needed for air to get through and by which radar returns can escape. The only definitive way of removing engine fan RCS contribution completely is to hide the engine face as F-22, F-35 and Gripen do. The engine fans are the greatest contributor to frontal RCS by a mile.~


The Blocker may not be as effective compared to completely hiding the engines (DSI) but it still reduces RCS considerably.
Imagine for instance that the engines on the SH with radar blocker give a RCS of 0.01 while DSI gives a RCS of 0.00001 and since 4.5 gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet have an RCS ranging from 0.1 to 1 than the Radar Blocker 0.01 penalty won't make much of a diference: an aircraft with an RCS of 0.4 isn't much different from one that has a RCS of 0.41

At the same time you're constantly (on purpose, I believe!) forgetting all the other IMPORTANT RCS reduction measures of the Super Hornet - Planform alignment, sawtooth edges, features of which any aircraft that can be called LO or VLO must have - measures of which the Gripen E doesn't have!
Resuming, mesures such as Planform alignment and sawtooth edges more than compensate the Radar Blocker.

Or more precisely, Radar Blockers will have a big impact on VLO aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 but not with 4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet.


marsavian wrote:100% of some value is that value it is not half that value, this is basic school math. When you short a stock to 0 your profit gain is 100% not 200% as it would be in your strange dimension.


You're right that I made a stupid mistake. For some stupid reason (I was distracted when I posted my previous post) I applied a 50% over a 50% value instead of 50% over 100%. But I guess that you never made a mistake, eh? :roll:

Anyway, despite my stupid mistake the logic remains exactly the same. If the Super Hornet has an RCS of 0.4 square meters then with a 50% reduction we're talking about a final RCS of 0.2 square meters. Or if the Super Hornet has an RCS of 0.3 square meters then with a 50% reduction we're talking about a final RCS of 0.15 square meters. And so on...

So if the Super Hornet already has a low RCS, which it does then a 50% is still nothing to write home about and the lower the RCS is the lower will a 50% reduction be, this despite my stupid math mistake, below:

Are you even aware that if for example the the Super Hornet has an RCS of 0.4 square meters and Boeing manages to reduce it to 0.3 square meters, this is a 50% reduction of the RCS??
And reducing from 0.4 to 0.2 would be a 100% reduction of RCS??



marsavian wrote:Your outer dimension mathematics even makes your case worse as it then suggests that 2 bombs, 2 fuel tanks and 2 missiles is only a third of Super Hornet RCS !!


What the heck are you talking about. I'm comparing clean aircraft! And clean there's no way that the Gripen E has a lower RCS then the Super Hornet given the extensive RCS reduction measures that it has compared to the Gripen E.
At best I compared in past posts, the Super Hornet RCS with only a centerline fuel tank with IRST on its tip (but otherwise clean) to a clean Gripen E and even here I'm almost 100% that the Super Hornet will still win in the RCS department.

If we put the same loadout on the same aircraft than both aircraft will have the same RCS penalty but since the basic Super Hornet airframe has lower RCS than the SH still be lower.


marsavian wrote:Saab's claim of low RCS for Gripen C has been validated by many pilots of different countries who have gone against it most recently the Chinese who weren't even flying against clean Gripens !


LoL, since when did that prove mock combat proves that the Gripen has a lower RCS then the Super Hornet :doh:
Now it's you whose coming with strange out of this world narative! At best that situation could prove that the Gripen has a lower RCS than a Su-27 which is not hard since the Su-27 RCS is bigger compared to most of any other fighter aircraft.


marsavian wrote:BAE also said that Typhoon was second only to F-22 RCS on release like Boeing did but their range detection example against F-35 suggested a lot lower RCS than Boeing did with their Advanced Super Hornet literature !


LoL, so according to BAE the Typhoon has a lower RCS than the F-35 :doh:

Anyway, feel free to believe in whatever you want but that doesn't make what you're claiming any more real.

And as you can see, linkomart stated that the 0.1 square meter RCS value for the Gripen that you provided is a simulated and therefore not real value!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 14:45

ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:Ricnunes, you can directly see the engines of the F-18E from the front and just because they put a blocker in front does not change that fact as gaps are needed for air to get through and by which radar returns can escape. The only definitive way of removing engine fan RCS contribution completely is to hide the engine face as F-22, F-35 and Gripen do. The engine fans are the greatest contributor to frontal RCS by a mile.~


The Blocker may not be as effective compared to completely hiding the engines (DSI) but it still reduces RCS considerably.
Imagine for instance that the engines on the SH with radar blocker give a RCS of 0.01 while DSI gives a RCS of 0.00001 and since 4.5 gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet have an RCS ranging from 0.1 to 1 than the Radar Blocker 0.01 penalty won't make much of a diference: an aircraft with an RCS of 0.4 isn't much different from one that has a RCS of 0.41

At the same time you're constantly (on purpose, I believe!) forgetting all the other IMPORTANT RCS reduction measures of the Super Hornet - Planform alignment, sawtooth edges, features of which any aircraft that can be called LO or VLO must have - measures of which the Gripen E doesn't have!
Resuming, mesures such as Planform alignment and sawtooth edges more than compensate the Radar Blocker.

Or more precisely, Radar Blockers will have a big impact on VLO aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 but not with 4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet.



Didn't Boeing had radar blockers on its 5th gen proposal? You would assume it met the RCS requirement.
Last edited by optimist on 10 Feb 2020, 14:46, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 14:46

Ricnunes, you are still ignoring the fact that Boeing have actually quantified what the RCS of a clean Super Hornet is compared to a Super Hornet with external stores (fuel tanks and bombs and missiles) and it is only half which means that according to Boeing's own statements the clean Super Hornet RCS is no smaller than the RCS of two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons. An RCS no doubt in the 0.8 to 1.2 sq m range frontally which bares very little relationship to the fantasy numbers you are dreaming up and is in the Have Glass F-16 range. BAE never said the Typhoon had lower RCS than F-35 so that's another distortion you made up but depending on what RCS you think they picked for F-35 it is still lower than what Boeing are claiming for Super Hornet.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 16:32

marsavian wrote:Ricnunes, you are still ignoring the fact that Boeing have actually quantified what the RCS of a clean Super Hornet is compared to a Super Hornet with external stores (fuel tanks and bombs and missiles) and it is only half which means that according to Boeing's own statements the clean Super Hornet RCS is no smaller than the RCS of two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons.


And you are ignoring the fact that you CANNOT take company statements as absolute facts about the RCS because:
1- These are actually classified values.
2- These values vary a lot between facing angles. Which angle does a RCS values refers to? Is the RCS an average value which takes into consideration all or most angles?
3- There are also PR exaggerations.
4- etc...

Obviously it it's absurd to consider that the RCS of a clean Super Hornet can be the same or similar to a Super Hornet with external stores, this the exact same way as it would be a statement saying that the Gripen's RCS is 1 square meters!
I never read such statement from Boeing, care to share a source?
In case someone from Boeing actually said this then this is obviously wrong. Or could it be that the source that you're referring to (it is exists) Boeing was referring to its previous plan of implementing Enclosed Weapons Pods?


This being said, in order to find which aircraft has the lowest RCS (such as a comparison between the Super Hornet and Gripen E) one need to dig much, much further than company statements. One needs to look at the features that make an aircraft stealth, you know (and repeating myself) planform alignment, sawtooth edges, etc... and cross reference all the available info and here the Super Hornet wins hands down.


marsavian wrote: An RCS no doubt in the 0.8 to 1.2 sq m range frontally which bares very little relationship to the fantasy numbers you are dreaming up and is in the Have Glass F-16 range.


Ou of my head, a Block I (one) Super Hornet was reported to have an average RCS (not frontal, average) of 0.9 square meters. As such a frontal RCS would be lower than that. The frontal RCS of a Block II Super Hornet with its AESA (upward facing) radar would be even lower.
By the way, even GlobalSecurity claims that the Super Hornet RCS is in 0.1 class:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm

So, I really fail to see how my numbers are fantasy :roll:

Now and as opposed, your numbers mentioning that the Gripen has a RCS of 0.1 square meters were already debunked and your "theory" that the Gripen has a lower RCS than the Super Hornet is indeed the pure fantasy here!


marsavian wrote:BAE never said the Typhoon had lower RCS than F-35 so that's another distortion you made up


I learned with you... :roll:


marsavian wrote:but depending on what RCS you think they picked for F-35 it is still lower than what Boeing are claiming for Super Hornet.


Really?? And how about the Boeing claim that the Super Hornet is the stealthiest fighter aircraft except the F-22 and F-35 (at least Boeing didn't forget about the F-35 like BAE did with the Typhoon). Carefully selecting only the claims that narrowly fit your narrative while ignoring all others aren't you??
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 16:39

optimist wrote:Didn't Boeing had radar blockers on its 5th gen proposal? You would assume it met the RCS requirement.


Yes, it's quite possible that the RCS of the engines protected by radar blocks are indeed quite lower than what I previously posted (0.01 square meters). Anyway, I was using something like a "worse case scenario" for the radar blockers in order to make a point (to marsavian) that the diferences in terms of final RCS between Radar Blocker and DSI would be negligible for a 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

It's funny that he keeps insisting on "Radar Blockers" but instantly ignores "Planform alignment" and "Sawtooth edges" but whatever, I should be used to this by now... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 17:04

ricnunes wrote:
optimist wrote:Didn't Boeing had radar blockers on its 5th gen proposal? You would assume it met the RCS requirement.


Yes, it's quite possible that the RCS of the engines protected by radar blocks are indeed quite lower than what I previously posted (0.01 square meters). Anyway, I was using something like a "worse case scenario" for the radar blockers in order to make a point (to marsavian) that the diferences in terms of final RCS between Radar Blocker and DSI would be negligible for a 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

It's funny that he keeps insisting on "Radar Blockers" but instantly ignores "Planform alignment" and "Sawtooth edges" but whatever, I should be used to this by now... :roll:

I meant to add to your post.

I'm now accepting that marsavain isn't here to sensibly talk aeroplanes. He regularly posts the same misinformation that has previously been disproved to him. Yet he continues with the same nonsense. He seems to have another agenda.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 17:06

Ricnunes, no way an engine blocker reduces RCS to 0.01 sq m, you would be lucky if it's 0.1 sq m. ATF/JSF *winners* do not have them which is more of an indication of their ultimate effectiveness than your imagination. Su-57 with engine blocker is claimed by their manufacturers to be no lower than 0.1 sq m and usually 0.4 sq m despite having all the other extensive stealth features you keep bleating on about, again further proof !

For about the third time here's the link, try reading it, understanding it and actually debating its contents this time. Using CFT and EWP only reduce Super Hornet RCS by a half. So clean Super Hornet RCS is equivalent to the external stores that are replaced by CFT and EWP.

https://defense-update.com/20130830_sem ... ights.html

On these flights the team tested the aircraft with non-functional Conformal Fuel tanks (CFT) and an Enclosed Weapons Pod (EWP) models, and signature enhancements, enabling the validation of radar cross-section reduction and comparing the drag count to wind tunnel and simulation models. After validation, functional CFT/EWPs will be able to retrofit on existing Super Hornet Block II aircraft or included on new jets. These flight tests will provide the F/A-18 industry team with valuable data on flying qualities, drag and signature levels.

One of the major contributors to the fighter’s new stealth features is the EWP. Combining all stealth features, these signature enhancements result in a 50 percent reduction compared with the U.S. Navy’s stealth requirement for the current Super Hornet variant.


p.s. globalsecurity.org also have Typhoon and Rafale as 0.1 sq m class yet I don't see you using those figures from that source !
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 17:35

marsavian wrote:Ricnunes, no way an engine blocker reduces RCS to 0.01 sq m, you would be lucky if it's 0.1 sq m.


And how do you know that genius?? :roll:

(By the way and before you ask me how do I got my value, please read below)

marsavian wrote: ATF/JSF *winners* do not have them which is more of an indication of their ultimate effectiveness than your imagination. Su-57 with engine blocker is claimed to be no lower than 0.1 sq m despite having all the other extensive stealth features you keep bleating on about, again further proof !


LOL, the Su-57 frontal RCS is claimed to be around 0.1 square meters. So that means that the Radar Blocker which above you claim it wouldn't be any better than the same 0.1 square meters would then be responsible for the entire frontal RCS of the Su-57 while everything else from the fuselage, wings, tails, engine intakes are impervious to the Radar and have an absolute ZERO (0) RCS. And I'm the one "bad in math" :doh:


marsavian wrote:For about the third time here's the link, try reading it this time, using CFT and EWP only reduce Super Hornet RCS by a half. So clean Super Hornet RCS is equivalent to the external stores that are replaced by CFT and EWP.

https://defense-update.com/20130830_sem ... ights.html


Jesus Christ, you really like to twist things to fit your narrative don't you??

As quoted from the link:
On these flights the team tested the aircraft with non-functional Conformal Fuel tanks (CFT) and an Enclosed Weapons Pod (EWP) models, and signature enhancements, enabling the validation of radar cross-section reduction and comparing the drag count to wind tunnel and simulation models. After validation, functional CFT/EWPs will be able to retrofit on existing Super Hornet Block II aircraft or included on new jets. These flight tests will provide the F/A-18 industry team with valuable data on flying qualities, drag and signature levels.

One of the major contributors to the fighter’s new stealth features is the EWP. Combining all stealth features, these signature enhancements result in a 50 percent reduction compared with the U.S. Navy’s stealth requirement for the current Super Hornet variant.


What this means is that operationally (a.k.a. with weapons!) a Super Hornet equipped with EWP will/would have its RCS reduced by 50% compared to the same aircraft carrying the same weapons but externally (but NOT compared to a clean Super Hornet), that's it!
It doesn't mean that Super Hornet with EWP has the same RCS of a clean Super Hornet, not even by a long shot!
Or do you think that those EWPs would have a ZERO RCS?? Heck just like the fuselage, wings, tails and intakes of the Su-57, no? :roll:


marsavian wrote:p.s. globalsecurity.org also have Typhoon and Rafale as 0.1 sq m class yet I don't see you using those figures from that source !


The source say 0.1 class. From what I gather that can be something between 0.1 to less than 1. I never disputed that the Rafale and Typhoon did have an RCS between those values, by the contrary!
I actually believe that the Rafale's RCS is closer to the Super Hornet while the Typhoon is just a little bit higher but again not by much. I believe - actually I'm sure of - that the Super Hornet has slightly lower RCS than Typhoon and even the Rafale (for all the reasons previously mentioned) while the Gripen is clearly the fighter whose RCS reduction measures didn't get much attention.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 18:07

Oh so suddenly stealthily designed airframes and EWP have RCS considerably greater than 0.01 sq m ? Someone forgot to tell F-22/F-35 designers as their airframes seem to be less than 0.001 sq m ! Su-57 has all the stealth design features you crow about yet it is stuck at 0.1 sq m which should tell anyone without preconceived bias that the engine blockers are the major sticking point preventing it from achieving true VLO. A non stealthy EWP would only be in the 0.1-0.2 sq m class itself, with stealth shaping you can reduce that by at least an order of magnitude so its contribution is negligible to Super Hornet's RCS.

p.s. Rafale has a flat radar antenna (not angled like other AESAs) which will limit its RCS to around 1 sq m. Gripen is the only Euro-Canard with an engine not at least partially exposed to incoming radar, it needed less work done to reduce its RCS further.
Last edited by marsavian on 10 Feb 2020, 23:29, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 223
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 20:41

Alright boys shake your dicks, this pissing contest is over.

Back on topic.

https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-c ... on-fighter

Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to Develop Next-Generation Fighter

The Navy wants to truncate production of the legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in favor of pumping money into accelerating the development of its long-gestating next-generation carrier-based fighter program, the service revealed in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request.

Next year’s order of two dozen F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would be the last on the books for the Navy under this plan. In 2019, Super Hornet maker Boeing won a $4-billion multi-year contract to buy 78 Super Hornets through FY 2021.


Notes for Canada: If the SH production ends, price per unit will go up and service support will be terrible. Sounds like something Canada will ultimately go for....
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 20:51

XanderCrews wrote:Yes, thats right. If you want to accuse me of moving the goal posts thats fine. The point is you now have an airplane of F-16 weight, but with far less than F-16 thrust.

Yes, and? In an era of BVR missiles and helmet-cued WVR missiles, does it actually matter that much, except for the obvious disadvantage in a bomb trucking role? Plus, in addition to T/W there is drag that differs between different aircraft.
You were literally telling us how standard 4th generation maintenance concepts were somehow unique to the Gripen

Not only you have issues with basic math, but also reading comprehension, obviously, because I literally said I haven't studied the maintenance concepts of other fighters and that you may know more about it. You're saying 4th gen is on its way out, should I read that as also the maintenance concepts being on the way out? If ALIS is supposed the embodiment of new generation of aircraft maintenance, in that case, thanks but no thanks :mrgreen:
And I guess it goes without saying that even when using the exact same basic principles, some aircraft need more maintenance than others, have a different mean time (flight hours) between malfunctions, etc.
what?

Let me rephrase that. You repeatedly voiced concerns over the small fleet of Gripen Es currently on order and how it might affect prices of spare parts and therefore operational costs in general. I explained that between all the Gripen C/D operators in the world, less than 200 planes are flying, and the maintenance costs are not skyrocketing. An order of 65 aircraft would bring the worldwide Gripen E fleet to a similar size, so neither Canada nor Finland should be particularly worried about this point.
Gripen E is clearly geared for export, right down to the fact that it would not be authorized by Sweden until Saab found a partner. Please don't pretend its some unique for Sweden only fighter. Its not. according to you Brazil has a huge say in its development correct?

"Huge say", no. Definitely not to influence very basic features of the design, which were set in stone before Brazil joined. Despite being a new airframe, it's just a larger Gripen with new avionics.
Especially SAMs that have the range to have coverage in your neutral country?

You seem to have every "boxed in" notion of all these things. Only Neutral countries can have planes that operate from dispersed fields, SAMs respect Borders, etc. planes are grouped into "self defense" and "Democracy dispensing freedom SAM killers" and theres apparently no overlap.

OK, fair point.
Pretty crazy the lengths some people will go to to not buy Gripens. The "coincidences" just keep piling up. only 22? man thats as many as the Swiss rejected. oh well think of all the nations that have bought airplanes in Europe the last 10 years, and not one of them was a Gripen NG/E/F.

You remind me of this joke.
Two conspiracy theorists walk into a bar.
Coincidence? I don't think so.

You are a military aviation enthusiast and a Gripen hater. Since you belive the Gripen is so bad, you look at how Saab is struggling to sell it and that confirms your bias - yes, it must be that bad! Well, not really. Because it's ultimately politicians, not enthusiasts and haters, who decide. Politicians have very little ability to distinguish good aircraft from bad, but they understand very well that buying from the US may get them some diplomatic benefits with the strongest NATO ally, while the other offer is from a neutral country that doesn't have nearly as many opportunities for trade. It might as well be that US applied some diplomatic pressure here and there to ensure victory. It's a more believable explanation than "the Gripen is so bad everybody goes to great lenghts not to buy it… even those who have evaluated and selected it before".
Gripen E's are expensive i guess. who knew?

Thus the Gripen E was never considered and under these conditions (= the Gripen not being considered) the F-16 Block 70 was the only one in their price range.

I understand that the gripen has "evolved" the problem is some of its fans sure haven't. We are still bellyaching about the "unevolved" Gripen that Norway Rejected? We're they right to reject it then? Norway is horrible for saying "no" to an airplane we ended up dramatically changing soon after? what monsters.

Who says that? I made the argument regarding Canada that 2010 was too early to pick the F-35, and Norway made the choice even earlier, and by that time it was also quite early for the Gripen E. But it's a moot point. Leaked diplomatic cables prove Norway was pressured by the US to buy the F-35, and Saab who at that time was interested in a US-made AESA radar would not get approval until the Norway deal was in the bag. How can you have a fair competition under such conditions? https://www.thelocal.se/20101203/30584
my big issue with the Gripen NG program was they "evolved" it beyond what made the Gripen successful. They have very little in common now.

In terms of part commonality, maybe. In terms of design philosophy they are very similar.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 21:55

pushoksti wrote:Alright boys shake your dicks, this pissing contest is over.

Back on topic.

https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navy-c ... on-fighter

Navy Cuts Super Hornet Production to Develop Next-Generation Fighter

The Navy wants to truncate production of the legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in favor of pumping money into accelerating the development of its long-gestating next-generation carrier-based fighter program, the service revealed in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request.

Next year’s order of two dozen F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would be the last on the books for the Navy under this plan. In 2019, Super Hornet maker Boeing won a $4-billion multi-year contract to buy 78 Super Hornets through FY 2021.


Notes for Canada: If the SH production ends, price per unit will go up and service support will be terrible. Sounds like something Canada will ultimately go for....

No need to worry -- Canada will go for F-35 not SH.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6448
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 22:34

Yes, and? In an era of BVR missiles and helmet-cued WVR missiles, does it actually matter that much, except for the obvious disadvantage in a bomb trucking role? Plus, in addition to T/W there is drag that differs between different aircraft.


yes it still matters.

why does the Gripens super cruise come up? why are you bragging in other threads about the F-16s "getting their butts kicked" in dogfights or whatever?

Not only you have issues with basic math, but also reading comprehension


You should show your reading comprehension by reading this entire thread from page 1, and maybe reading more about these aircraft in general instead of poor attempts at trolling via clickbait even you know isn't well researched.

I mean I'm sorry I can't recount nearly 400 pages for you. At one point you may have to attempt to understand the subject better.

obviously, because I literally said I haven't studied the maintenance concepts of other fighters and that you may know more about it. You're saying 4th gen is on its way out, should I read that as also the maintenance concepts being on the way out?


yes.

And I'm sorry, you speak so decisevely about so many things you have no idea about its hard to tell the times youre aware of your ignorance in a subject and when you are not. In my defense not even you know.

Image

If ALIS is supposed the embodiment of new generation of aircraft maintenance, in that case, thanks but no thanks


You have no clue what you are comparing at all anyway. you couldn't even name the comparative operating systems let alone talk about the differences between them.

"No ThAnKs-- I rEaD SoMeThnG on EnterNet dat Sa1d ALI5 dAt bAd. Gr1PeN GUdder"

Let me rephrase that. You repeatedly voiced concerns over the small fleet of Gripen Es currently on order and how it might affect prices of spare parts and therefore operational costs in general. I explained that between all the Gripen C/D operators in the world, less than 200 planes are flying, and the maintenance costs are not skyrocketing. An order of 65 aircraft would bring the worldwide Gripen E fleet to a similar size


that's an absolutely clueless statement.

neither Canada nor Finland should be particularly worried about this point.


WOW!!

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

You do realize that in terms of risks the Gripen E is the highest right? of all the european options and Super hornet and F-35? and you can spare me the "but A-d Gripen!" that has no bearing thats why its still got years of testing ahead. The airplane we know the least about right now, is the Gripen E.

Image


"Huge say", no. Definitely not to influence very basic features of the design, which were set in stone before Brazil joined.


What was set in stone when Brazil joined?

Two conspiracy theorists walk into a bar.
Coincidence? I don't think so.


thats a good one.


You are a military aviation enthusiast and a Gripen hater.


Image

nope. Your'e confusing the demand for a similar level of equal critique with the Gripens that I see leveled at the F-35 and other options for that matter. For some reason you think that me not liking the inconsistency of not only the media coverage, and PR campaign but its legions of brainwashed fans. means I "hate" it. For some reason you confuse the time and effort I spend attempting to show you that you may not know what you think you do is hateful.

and I'm more than an "enthusiast" thanks. once again you confused the people in the crowd with the people on the stage and decided they were all "the band"

you can whine about my reading comprehension, and math all you please it doesn't bother me given your chronic inability to see the differences in things and simply lump them all together. I'm betting this is a common issue among Gripen fans since I see it so often.

the silver medalist is always trying to convince everyone that its as good as gold and their similarity and everything is relative. The Gold medalist has no such illusions.

My ability to assess, discern, understand pros and cons, work within extremely rigid and complicated and political systems and properly group things given the evidence available is actually valuable enough that I've made a living in aviation. yes I've done the things you don't read about but post on the internet.

I'm not trying to brag, because lots of people have done my job before. I'm not special. I'm trying to point out that there are differences in things down to even tiny details and those details matter.


Since you belive the Gripen is so bad, you look at how Saab is struggling to sell it and that confirms your bias - yes, it must be that bad! Well, not really. Because it's ultimately politicians, not enthusiasts and haters, who decide.


unless theres a referendum apparently.

and its not a confirmation bias BTW. I thought it would have more sales than it does actually. This was before even AA-1s first flight. a Gen 4.5 Gripen made lots of sense in 2007-- in 2021? 2023? this is not good.

People in the know who are involved with contests with it who actually see the numbers that can't be bluffed quickly pass on it. I also thought that Saab would be smarter then to try and compete in what I will tactfully call "5th generation markets"


Politicians have very little ability to distinguish good aircraft from bad, but they understand very well that buying from the US may get them some diplomatic benefits with the strongest NATO ally, while the other offer is from a neutral country that doesn't have nearly as many opportunities for trade. It might as well be that US applied some diplomatic pressure here and there to ensure victory. It's a more believable explanation than "the Gripen is so bad everybody goes to great lenghts not to buy it… even those who have evaluated and selected it before".


I think its downright lazy of you to just blame "but muh politics" its the refuge of a sore loser honestly. This is F-16.net. we prefer to talk airplanes, more than politics, and reason over excuses. there are actual real life reasons to pick an F-35 over a Gripen E that have 100 percent reason to do with actual real life performance.

You thought 5th generation was a "marketing term" for example. This was another example of trying to employ relativism. 5th generation actually means something believe it or not. Its different enough meaning it embodies certain characteristics to a point to be considered a new generation of fighter.

An F-35 is a 5th Generation Fighter. A Gripen E is a 4.5 Generation fighter. if a nation is in the need for a 5th Generation fighter, there's no amount of anything that can be done to a Gripen E to make it a 5th generation fighter. So the contest is over right there. You limply say something about cost, or numbers but the bottom line is if the nation has requirements for 5th generation capability thats it. For example the only way the Gripen wins in Canada (Or Super Hornet for that matter) is if the requirements are completely changed, or completely ignored. AKA That would be politics.

moreover, if you count both Brazil being mad at the US for the NSA scandal, and Swiss picking Gripen because its cheap. You seem to be projecting the "politics only" narrative.

Leaked diplomatic cables prove Norway was pressured by the US to buy the F-35, and Saab who at that time was interested in a US-made AESA radar would not get approval until the Norway deal was in the bag. How can you have a fair competition under such conditions?


because the Norwegian Defence apparatus still does its homework and picks the winner. Norway, as discussed before was not interested in all in the Gripen NG. You've done it again. You can get a group of actual norwegian military and defense professionals. F-16 guys, guys with combat experience, and experience against the Gripen etc. And put them in a room with all the data on F-35 and Gripen NG and they're going to pick the F-35. Tactically the f-35 will win every time of people are given the the unclassed information on it. After that the ONLY obstacle is the politicians.


You have it backwards. In Canada right now the only reason the F-35 has NOT been picked already, and may not be picked would be 100 percent based on politics. Its politics, not the RCAF, not the DND, not the reams and reams of studies and audits etc the mountains of data etc. Every single metric Canada has to measure with says the F-35 is the winner to the point where the only thing that will stop it is politics. the F-35 is the better airplane. Thats why Gripen fans can't go 5 seconds without mentiong "cost" its the only real advantage the Gripen has on the F-35. and with the Gripen E, even that seems to be disappearing.

Thats a far cry from the bellyaching you are attempting to put forth. Norway desired capabilities the Gripen NG did not and would never have.

everytime you say cost or politics. I will laugh at you. but but but but pressure. The narrative that people locked onto with Norway was completely wrong. Norways defense appartus wanted F-35. Typhoon dropped out, since it was obvious. Then they said

but wait! we have to have a competition!

and so defense said "ok we pick the F-35"

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE but but it wasn't fair. Sure wasn't. Gripens aren't F-35s. better blame politics. OMG my wikileaks!

yes thats a better excuse than a bunch of defense and F-16 guys with experience against Gripens not being able to tell the difference between an F-35 and a gripen with a new engine and radar.


In terms of part commonality, maybe. In terms of design philosophy they are very similar.


I'm not seeing that. Thats why I'm so CRITICAL (not hate) of where the Gripen NG has gone.

its a light fighter that isn't light? its a cheap fighter that isn't cheap?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 10 Feb 2020, 23:52, edited 3 times in total.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests