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

[ricnunes]

Riddle me this Ricnunes, Boeing say they applied more RAM to Super Hornet Block III to reduce its RCS by 10% ...

So did Super Hornet RCS go from Block 2 to Block 3 by

A) 0.1 to 0.09 sq m ?
B) 0.5 to 0.45 sq m ?
C) 1 to 0.9 sq m ?

If A) why bother ?!!!! Much more likely between B) and C).

None of the above, or more precisely:
Somewhere between A) and B) for the Super Hornet (Block II and III), with the Rafale being close to B) and the Typhoon being somewhere between B) and C) while the Gripen E is C) or bigger (1 sq m or bigger than 1 sq m).

Anyway, independently of whose RCS value or values you choose to believe in, a 10% reduction in RCS is nothing for any of the values above or in-between. These 10% reduction are basically a PR stunt by Boeing. You know, it isn't only Saab that does these things called "PR stunts"...

Capiche?

[weasel1962]

I wonder if it could be as simple as applying better paint on 10% more coverage area of the plane...There is therefore factually an RCS reduction of 10% (of the plane, that is)

[optimist]

The government statement I've recently seen about hornets. Was that the block I super is an order of magnitude less than the legacy. That's significant and shifting a decimal point. If the legacy was say 3 sqm the super block I would be 0.3 sq m.

Then you add the 5th gen tech they had to sell. That Boeing had from X-32 and proposed to the USN for block II. Including the spiral development, redesigned front fuselage and the LEX CAD and testing and much more. RCS would come down. I haven't seen a government comparison with block I and block II RCS, but it may be out there.

I have the opinion the super block II has the lowest of the 4.5 gen RCS.

[marsavian]

From what I see Radar Blockers should actually be more complex to design and build compared to DSI or like you say, hiding the engine fans, this for an aircraft designed "from scratch". So if Radar Blockers are so ineffective like you say/hint then why didn't the Russians design their new aircraft (Su-57) with DSI instead?? The Russians may have many faults, namely technologically speaking but there's one thing they cannot be accused of: They cannot be accused to not knowing how to design an aircraft. I'm pretty sure that designing an aircraft with DSI or otherwise with the engine fans hidden wouldn't be a problem for the Russians!

The Russians did not want to compromise the aerodynamic design they favored by using DSI as they value that as much as stealth. The fact that they are producing a lot of Series 1 with only Su-35 style engine inlet RAM shows it's not the primary consideration for them. They still expect to fight their way in and out and want the Su-57 to be able to do that as well as any of their previous Flankers so no compromise. They also don't believe the marble/golfball like RCS quotes for Western stealth fighters so did not especially feel the need to match them. Supercruise, supersonic efficiency, high maneuverability, super-maneuverabilty, acceleration, top speed mean as much to them as stealth. Different design philosophy, fighter evolution not revolution.

p.s. the EWP was not adopted because it wasn't stealthy but because an IRST carrying external fuel tank had prior claim on the centerline pylon ! That will do wonders for the supposedly stealthiest 4.5 gen fighter .

[kimjongnumbaun]

The Russians did not want to compromise the aerodynamic design they favored by using DSI as they value that as much as stealth. The fact that they are producing a lot of Series 1 with only Su-35 style engine inlet RAM shows it's not the primary consideration for them. They still expect to fight their way in and out and want the Su-57 to be able to do that as well as any of their previous Flankers so no compromise. They also don't believe the marble/golfball like RCS quotes for Western stealth fighters so did not especially feel the need to match them. Supercruise, supersonic efficiency, high maneuverability, super-maneuverabilty, acceleration, top speed mean as much to them as stealth. Different design philosophy, fighter evolution not revolution.

p.s. the EWP was not adopted because it wasn't stealthy but because an IRST carrying external fuel tank had prior claim on the centerline pylon ! That will do wonders for the supposedly stealthiest 4.5 gen fighter .

Lots of crack you're smoking. Who is your dealer?

[XanderCrews]

p.s. the EWP was not adopted because it wasn't stealthy but because an IRST carrying external fuel tank had prior claim on the centerline pylon !

Wrong.

I'll let you keep guessing the real reason though. You seem to really enjoy guessing

supposedly stealthiest 4.5 gen fighter .

I don't think there is really too much "supposedly" about it. The only question is if Gripen E knocks it off the top spot and I don't think that's going to happen, as Saab has said many times on many occasions its not only not their priority but one of their bosses said stealth was "obsolete" flat out. That might be one of those "clues" as they call them, that they weren't going to prioritize that much ( Or maybe the boss was being a jackass, either way)

So we have the Super Hornet which took big and obvious leaps at signature reduction vs the Gripen's hidden engine face, and the RAM on the Gripen E (which keeps the extremely familiar shape of the same 1980s designed, 1996 in service bird we all know and love.)

This seems really obvious when we step back and consider the controversy.

[Corsair1963]

The government statement I've recently seen about hornets. Was that the block I super is an order of magnitude less than the legacy. That's significant and shifting a decimal point. If the legacy was say 3 sqm the super block I would be 0.3 sq m.

Then you add the 5th gen tech they had to sell. That Boeing had from X-32 and proposed to the USN for block II. Including the spiral development, redesigned front fuselage and the LEX CAD and testing and much more. RCS would come down. I haven't seen a government comparison with block I and block II RCS, but it may be out there.

I have the opinion the super block II has the lowest of the 4.5 gen RCS.

Sure a clean Super Hornet (Blk II) may have the lowest RCS of any of the 4.5 Generation Fighter. Yet, the second you add external stores (fuel, weapons, pylons, etc.) it all goes out the window. So, really what's the advantage???

As a matter of fact those same stealth features on the Super Hornet. Clearly impact the aircrafts overall performance in many respects. So, you have to question the real overall benefits?

In my opinion the Super Hornets stealth features have far more to do with marketing. Than any real benefit to the end user.

[hornetfinn]

Sure a clean Super Hornet (Blk II) may have the lowest RCS of any of the 4.5 Generation Fighter. Yet, the second you add external stores (fuel, weapons, pylons, etc.) it all goes out the window. So, really what's the advantage???

As a matter of fact those same stealth features on the Super Hornet. Clearly impact the aircrafts overall performance in many respects. So, you have to question the real overall benefits?

In my opinion the Super Hornets stealth features have far more to do with marketing. Than any real benefit to the end user.

I don't think the advantage goes out of the window but that depends on loadout. I think that otherwise not all of the 4.5th gen aircraft would have implemented reduced RCS. Modern weapons tend to have rather low RCS and I'm sure current EFTs and pylons are also designed with lower RCS in mind. I'm sure that even when loaded for typical missions, Blk II Super Hornet has noticeably smaller RCS than say C/D Hornet. Putting external stuff to older fighters also increase their RCS. So let's say from 3 m^2 to 5 m^2. SH might go from say 0.3 to say 2 m^2. That would reduce detection range by about 25%. Not huge difference, but will increase survivability somewhat. But it's definitely no F-35 or F-22.

[optimist]

The government statement I've recently seen about hornets. Was that the block I super is an order of magnitude less than the legacy. That's significant and shifting a decimal point. If the legacy was say 3 sqm the super block I would be 0.3 sq m.

Then you add the 5th gen tech they had to sell. That Boeing had from X-32 and proposed to the USN for block II. Including the spiral development, redesigned front fuselage and the LEX CAD and testing and much more. RCS would come down. I haven't seen a government comparison with block I and block II RCS, but it may be out there.

I have the opinion the super block II has the lowest of the 4.5 gen RCS.

Sure a clean Super Hornet (Blk II) may have the lowest RCS of any of the 4.5 Generation Fighter. Yet, the second you add external stores (fuel, weapons, pylons, etc.) it all goes out the window. So, really what's the advantage???

As a matter of fact those same stealth features on the Super Hornet. Clearly impact the aircrafts overall performance in many respects. So, you have to question the real overall benefits?

In my opinion the Super Hornets stealth features have far more to do with marketing. Than any real benefit to the end user.

I don't disagree, but you take what you can get. The USN is fussy about minor damage that could affect RCS and repair and test it's signature.The super hornet recently here in a link. Was referred to as the legacy Super Hornet. So its days are numbered

[Corsair1963]

Sure a clean Super Hornet (Blk II) may have the lowest RCS of any of the 4.5 Generation Fighter. Yet, the second you add external stores (fuel, weapons, pylons, etc.) it all goes out the window. So, really what's the advantage???

As a matter of fact those same stealth features on the Super Hornet. Clearly impact the aircrafts overall performance in many respects. So, you have to question the real overall benefits?

In my opinion the Super Hornets stealth features have far more to do with marketing. Than any real benefit to the end user.

I don't think the advantage goes out of the window but that depends on loadout. I think that otherwise not all of the 4.5th gen aircraft would have implemented reduced RCS. Modern weapons tend to have rather low RCS and I'm sure current EFTs and pylons are also designed with lower RCS in mind. I'm sure that even when loaded for typical missions, Blk II Super Hornet has noticeably smaller RCS than say C/D Hornet. Putting external stuff to older fighters also increase their RCS. So let's say from 3 m^2 to 5 m^2. SH might go from say 0.3 to say 2 m^2. That would reduce detection range by about 25%. Not huge difference, but will increase survivability somewhat. But it's definitely no F-35 or F-22.

I would have to be an extremely light loadout to have even a modest benefit....

[ricnunes]

The Russians did not want to compromise the aerodynamic design they favored by using DSI as they value that as much as stealth. The fact that they are producing a lot of Series 1 with only Su-35 style engine inlet RAM shows it's not the primary consideration for them. They still expect to fight their way in and out and want the Su-57 to be able to do that as well as any of their previous Flankers so no compromise. They also don't believe the marble/golfball like RCS quotes for Western stealth fighters so did not especially feel the need to match them. Supercruise, supersonic efficiency, high maneuverability, super-maneuverabilty, acceleration, top speed mean as much to them as stealth. Different design philosophy, fighter evolution not revolution.

p.s. the EWP was not adopted because it wasn't stealthy but because an IRST carrying external fuel tank had prior claim on the centerline pylon ! That will do wonders for the supposedly stealthiest 4.5 gen fighter .

Lots of crack you're smoking. Who is your dealer?

Yup, I've been wondering the same. Powerful stuff indeed

[hornetfinn]

I would have to be an extremely light loadout to have even a modest benefit....

I think there are benefits in air-to-air configurations or using stealthy air to ground weapons like JSOW or JASSM. I doubt all 4.5th gen fighters would've been designed with lower RCS if there was no operational benefits from that. Same with F-16 and Have Glass treatment.

[ricnunes]

I don't think the advantage goes out of the window but that depends on loadout. I think that otherwise not all of the 4.5th gen aircraft would have implemented reduced RCS. Modern weapons tend to have rather low RCS and I'm sure current EFTs and pylons are also designed with lower RCS in mind. I'm sure that even when loaded for typical missions, Blk II Super Hornet has noticeably smaller RCS than say C/D Hornet. Putting external stuff to older fighters also increase their RCS. So let's say from 3 m^2 to 5 m^2. SH might go from say 0.3 to say 2 m^2. That would reduce detection range by about 25%. Not huge difference, but will increase survivability somewhat. But it's definitely no F-35 or F-22.

I would have to be an extremely light loadout to have even a modest benefit....

Here I agree with hornetfinn but I also somehow or partially agree with you as well.

I believe that hornetfinn's example is spot on. However what you say makes some sense if we compare the Super Hornet with other 4.5th aircraft that supposedly also have a lower RCS compared to older 4th gen fighter aircraft. For example if we assume that the Gripen's RCS go from 1 to say 3 m^2 than this would mean a reduced detection range by about 15% (doing a rough calculation). Now we could debate if this 15% reduction in detection range is tactically relevant or not and as such if this brings any considerable benefits or not but and nevertheless the advantage in lower RCS and as such in reduced detection range is still there.

But then again, if we compare the Super Hornet to a similar or slightly/marginally higher RCS aircraft like the Rafale then I would fully and definitely agree you that the benefits would be negligible specially for aircraft with external weapons loadout.

[lukfi]

why are you bragging in other threads about the F-16s "getting their butts kicked" in dogfights or whatever?

The F-16 (according to "some guy on Quora") got their butts kicked in BVR if I recall correctly. Never said it was dogfights.

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.

I was talking about the risks/costs stemming from a small worldwide fleet. You're talking about the risk of buying an aircraft which is new and unproven, and even though testing may not take so much time as it would with a completely new design, that's of course a very good point.

What was set in stone when Brazil joined?

The Brazilian deal was signed in Oct 2014 and finalized in Sep 2015. The first production Gripen E was flying in 2019 and since it's small scale production it probably wasn't built in a week. Even if design work hadn't been finished by then, it was definitely set in stone that the aircraft is going to be a Gripen: single engine, light, modest payload capacity, non-stealth airframe, and so on. It was also set in stone that it's going to use an American engine and some British components so Brazil wouldn't be able to sell it freely to Argentina, for instance.

Article from early 2015:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/ho/noticia/ ... in-Brazil/

Other concern around the contract in Brazil is about the level of participation of Brazilian engineers on the aircraft development. The strongest argument in favor of the Gripen, during the F-X2 campaign, was the fact that 40% of the design would be done in partnership with local professionals, in this case, Embraer’s engineers. This participation would attend Brazilian demands related to intellectual property share. However, the President and CEO of SAAB, Håkan Buskhe, has declared that the development of the Gripen NG is already finished. The Brazilian participation on the design would be restricted to the biplace version, called Gripen F.

unless theres a referendum apparently.

But those are not decided by "enthusiasts and haters".

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"

You may be right about that. The "5th generation market" (of countries who can afford an F-35 and USA will sell to them) is becoming quite saturated and Saab may have better chances selling to countries like Colombia and Philippines.

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.

Yes, there's no argument about that. But not always is the aircraft picked because of those reasons.

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.

The point is that the classification is arbitrary, so proponents of the F-35 can do binary comparisons like this (F-35 = 5th gen, Gripen = not 5th gen). In reality, the only thing differentiating a 5th gen plane from a 4.5th gen (in general) is a stealth airframe with internal weapons bays. Everything else that is cited as a 5th gen feature, 4.5th gen designs can have as well. For USAF the distinction makes sense as they went directly from F-15 and F-16 to F-22 and F-35. For anybody else buying fighters today, and looking at Super Hornet, F-15EX and Eurocanards… not so much.
While LM was not the first to define or use the term, it speaks volumes that if you open the Wikipedia page for Fifth-generation jet fighter it doesn't use the 1970s definition that was mentioned here, but Lockheed-Martin's.

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.

I think we can mostly agree on this paragraph, especially the politics thing. For some countries it was a political decision to buy the F-35, for Trudeau's government it's a political decision not to buy it. If the F-35 is more capable and Gripen is cheaper, that's how it should be.

Norway desired capabilities the Gripen NG did not and would never have.

In that case it would be completely fine. If there was foreign diplomatic pressure that is not fine.

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?

And that's fair but I think you're over-dramatizing the weight.

the second you add external stores (fuel, weapons, pylons, etc.) it all goes out the window. So, really what's the advantage???

My thoughs exactly.

[XanderCrews]

The Brazilian deal was signed in Oct 2014 and finalized in Sep 2015. The first production Gripen E was flying in 2019 and since it's small scale production it probably wasn't built in a week. Even if design work hadn't been finished by then, it was definitely set in stone that the aircraft is going to be a Gripen: single engine, light, modest payload capacity, non-stealth airframe, and so on. It was also set in stone that it's going to use an American engine and some British components so Brazil wouldn't be able to sell it freely to Argentina, for instance.

Article from early 2015:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/ho/noticia/ ... in-Brazil/
Other concern around the contract in Brazil is about the level of participation of Brazilian engineers on the aircraft development. The strongest argument in favor of the Gripen, during the F-X2 campaign, was the fact that 40% of the design would be done in partnership with local professionals, in this case, Embraer’s engineers. This participation would attend Brazilian demands related to intellectual property share. However, the President and CEO of SAAB, Håkan Buskhe, has declared that the development of the Gripen NG is already finished. The Brazilian participation on the design would be restricted to the biplace version, called Gripen F.

very cool more on this later.

The point is that the classification is arbitrary, so proponents of the F-35 can do binary comparisons like this (F-35 = 5th gen, Gripen = not 5th gen). In reality, the only thing differentiating a 5th gen plane from a 4.5th gen (in general) is a stealth airframe with internal weapons bays. Everything else that is cited as a 5th gen feature, 4.5th gen designs can have as well. For USAF the distinction makes sense as they went directly from F-15 and F-16 to F-22 and F-35. For anybody else buying fighters today, and looking at Super Hornet, F-15EX and Eurocanards… not so much.
While LM was not the first to define or use the term, it speaks volumes that if you open the Wikipedia page for Fifth-generation jet fighter it doesn't use the 1970s definition that was mentioned here, but Lockheed-Martin's.

"in reality"?! NO.

its not "arbitrary". Definitions matter. Its actual official US government (and others as well) definition as was explained, requirements, key characteristics, and goals of the ATF and JSF programs. had Northrop won ATF, they'd be using it. Had Boeing won JSF they'd be using it. and I don't care what someone wrote on wikipedia-- that doesn't "speak volumes" it means someone is as lost as you are. and its not just the USAF, but USMC and even the US Navy and Australia that are both hornet operators using the term 5th gen along with several Typhoon customers so even your "not so much" claim is also off.

This was already explained once in this thread in fact. "arbitrary" is not factual its not "reality", its 100 percent your opinion, as supported by wikipedia. its not taking into account classified info and other key factors as well. An F-117 is LO so is it 5th generation? no. And no one in official-land would dare try to say it is.

I will admit that LM Gleefully uses it like an Atom bomb, throwing the gauntlet down in terms of marketing (not bragging if you can do it), and that's left everyone who isn't peddling 5th generation fighters to try and make word salad around it and explain why they are "almost as good". You'll notice how tactful they are, because they know they can't touch 5th generation fighters.

2010 NDAA definition of generation 4.5:

(b) 4.5 Generation Fighter Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the
term ``4.5 generation fighter aircraft'' means current fighter aircraft,
including the F-15, F-16, and F-18, that--
(1) have advanced capabilities, including--
(A) AESA radar;
(B) high capacity data-link; and
(C) enhanced avionics; and
(2) have the ability to deploy current and reasonably
foreseeable advanced armaments.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLA ... publ84.htm

I'm going to post more about it in the Gripen NG vs F-35 thread hopefully later today. it probably belongs there since this will be a direct comparison between Gripen and F-35 and Gen 4.5 and 5th. And its a walloping difference.

If the F-35 is more capable and Gripen is cheaper, that's how it should be.

except Gripen E is not cheaper.

and it wouldn't be cheaper for Canada long term either.

In that case it would be completely fine. If there was foreign diplomatic pressure that is not fine.

The pressure was irrelevant.

And that's fair but I think you're over-dramatizing the weight.

I don't think I am. This is a fighter with the smallest amount of thrust save for the original Gripen. Its going to be highly sensitive to weight, and thats 1000 kilos that can't be used for weapons, sensors, fuel, etc. or even just more thrust to have when general. Its going to effect performance, range etc. A lot of whatever glowing number Saab sold it as having are going to be affected. of all the fighter to gain 1000 kilos Gripen will fell the hurt the most.

as has been noted several times, it now has F-16 weight, but does not have F-16 thrust. You'll try and say thats ok because its more aerodynamic, but that didn't save the original, and I think aerodynamics on Gripen is over dramatized myself. and it all goes out the window when you add stores too. Even fuel tanks are going to have some serious effect which means even in the wonderfully optimized air to air load out its going to suffer.