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

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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post15 Feb 2020, 18:50

Gripen E is at least a ton lighter than F-16 Block 70/72 and more if the latter carry CFT as they invariably do. Gripen E weight is more closer to the original F-16A than the current F-16C. Gripen is not the only fighter to have gained weight as more functionality has been added.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 10:03

Given the Super Hornet is still in the comp. This may be relevant? Mostly about the IRST and lot 26+/block II software and hardware

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... fa18ef.pdf
• The Navy released System Configuration Set (SCS) H14 for
use in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler
fleets. H14 introduced the following capability upgrades
and enhancements: Naval Integrated Fire Control (NIFC),
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B),
Ultrahigh Frequency (UHF) Satellite Communication, Long
Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), BLU-109 Laser Joint
Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), and an Active Electronically
Scanned Array (AESA) Radar Upgrade.
• Operational performance of NIFC capabilities and AESA radar
performance improved over previous SCS versions.
• The Navy fielded a small number of F/A-18E/F Infrared
Search and Track (IRST) Block I AV6+ pods to expedite fleet
delivery of this capability. This early fielding is also intended
to inform Block II IOT&E scheduled for FY21.
• The Navy increased testing efficiency by simultaneously
operationally testing F/A-18E/F/G SCS H14, E-2D, IRST
Block 1 AV6+, LRASM, and NIFC.
• The Navy has not yet completed H14-specific operational
cybersecurity testing.

SCS H14 introduced the following capability upgrades and
enhancements: NIFC-Counter Air, ADS-B, UHF Satellite
Communication, LRASM, BLU-109 Laser JDAM, and an
AESA Radar Upgrade.


F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 2 hardware includes the
APG-79 radar (Lots 26+), Advanced Targeting Forward
Looking Infrared Systems, Multi-functional Information
Distribution System for Link 16 tactical datalink connectivity,
Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, and the Integrated
Defensive Electronic Countermeasures. Software enables
the F/A-18 to perform single pass multiple targeting for
GPS-guided weapons, use of off-board target designation,
improved datalink for target coordination precision, and the
implementation of air-to-ground target aim points.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 11:29

optimist wrote:Given the Super Hornet is still in the comp. This may be relevant? Mostly about the IRST and lot 26+/block II software and hardware

It's irrelevant because there is no competition -- the F-35 is so superior, and also has reached a lower price point. Add to this that Canada is an F-35 partner nation, and it should be clear to everybody that purchasing anything than F-35 is simply not going to happen.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 12:03

loke wrote:
optimist wrote:Given the Super Hornet is still in the comp. This may be relevant? Mostly about the IRST and lot 26+/block II software and hardware

It's irrelevant because there is no competition -- the F-35 is so superior, and also has reached a lower price point. Add to this that Canada is an F-35 partner nation, and it should be clear to everybody that purchasing anything than F-35 is simply not going to happen.

I don't disagree. They will get the F-35A. Perhaps a bit relevance to the USN, Aussie who use them. Canuks, that will be working their F-35 with the Super Hornet. Probably more relevant than the Gripen E, but we get a lot about that.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 14:40

marsavian wrote:Gripen E is at least a ton lighter than F-16 Block 70/72 and more if the latter carry CFT as they invariably do. Gripen E weight is more closer to the original F-16A than the current F-16C. Gripen is not the only fighter to have gained weight as more functionality has been added.


The Gripen gained weight but didn’t gain thrust in proportion. They actually made it worse and it doesn’t even hold a candle to the latest block F-16
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 15:03

Empty weight increased by 2650lb, Thrust increased by 4000lb. Internal fuel increased by 2000lb to match the internal fuel of an F-16 with a less thirsty engine. Seems a wash to me.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 18:00

marsavian wrote:Gripen E is at least a ton lighter than F-16 Block 70/72 and more if the latter carry CFT as they invariably do. Gripen E weight is more closer to the original F-16A than the current F-16C. Gripen is not the only fighter to have gained weight as more functionality has been added.


F-16 gained between 2.4 to 3.7 tonnes of thrust (from 10.8 tonnes to 13.2 or 14.5 tonnes) when moving from F100-PW220 to F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-132.

Gripen gained only 2 tonnes of thrust from C/D to E/F.

F-16 T/W ratio went better, Gripens T/W ratio went worse.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 18:00

marsavian wrote:Gripen E is at least a ton lighter than F-16 Block 70/72 and more if the latter carry CFT as they invariably do. Gripen E weight is more closer to the original F-16A than the current F-16C. Gripen is not the only fighter to have gained weight as more functionality has been added.


F-16 gained between 2.4 to 3.7 tonnes of thrust (from 10.8 tonnes to 13.2 or 14.5 tonnes) when moving from F100-PW220 to F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-132.

Gripen gained only 2 tonnes of thrust from C/D to E/F.

F-16 T/W ratio went better, Gripens T/W ratio went worse.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 20:52

F-16 gained more weight, 3000lb from Block 15 to Block 50, 3900lb including CFT to mimic the 40% fuel increase from Gripen C to E. Again very similar thrust/weight increase but with internal extras like geolocators, IRST and low band jammer thrown in on the Gripen side.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post16 Feb 2020, 22:59

I've got a good idea..why don't you guys takes this to a f-16 vs gripen thread. This is so far off topic it starting to smell.

Here is a link to one of the f-16 vs gripen threads.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=54219&start=15
Last edited by optimist on 17 Feb 2020, 06:43, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6399
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 04:19

loke wrote:
optimist wrote:Given the Super Hornet is still in the comp. This may be relevant? Mostly about the IRST and lot 26+/block II software and hardware

It's irrelevant because there is no competition -- the F-35 is so superior, and also has reached a lower price point. Add to this that Canada is an F-35 partner nation, and it should be clear to everybody that purchasing anything than F-35 is simply not going to happen.



Everyday that Canada holds off on selecting a new fighter. Is everyday the F-35 becomes even more attractive! :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 13:46

lukfi wrote: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.


The perceived better chances of the Gripen E being sold to countries like Colombia and Philippines as opposed to the F-35, has nothing to do with cost! As it was already proven to you, the F-35 is actually cheaper to purchase and about the same cost to purchase+maintain in the short term while being likely cheaper to maintain in the long term compared to the Gripen E.
The better chances that Saab has in countries like Colombia and Philippines compared to the F-35 is because the US won't likely sell F-35s to these countries. Maybe the US will allow countries like Colombia and Philippines to purchase F-35s when these are about to the replaced by something else (resuming, decades from now).
Don't forget this: The F-35 will be "off limits" to many countries. For example they are "off limits" to countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (hence why for example the later recently purchased Super Hornets), countries which by the way are US allies and of course that these countries will need to look elsewhere, like for example the Saab/Gripen E, granted.
But then again, don't confuse all of this with a perceived and FALSE "sensation" that the F-35 is expensive to operate compared to other aircraft like the Gripen E.


lukfi wrote: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.


I don't know why you keep insisting on this! It's not only stealth that differentiates a 5th gen plane from a 4.5th gen. It's a COMBINATION of Stealth, with advanced sensors whose information is merged thru an advanced sensor fusion engine. For example in 4.5th gen fighter aircraft the "sensor fusion" is done thru cluttering. If you have a contact that it's detected by a Radar and EW, the "sensor fusion" of a 4.5th gen fighter aircraft will show the contact with the highest confidence which in the example above would be the radar (and hides the EW track).
In the case of a 5th gen fighter aircraft, the data if merged thru an advanced sensor fusion engine so in the end what you have is a single contact generated by the (merge of) information of each sensors as opposed to only showing the most reliable track while hiding the others.
Of course that it could be technically possible to implement a sensor fusion "ala F-35" on a 4.5th gen fighter aircraft. But then again this wouldn't be a 5th gen fighter aircraft because such aircraft MUST COMBINE sensor fusion WITH Stealth.

Imagine going back to the 1930's when monoplane fighter aircraft were being designed and starting to replace the in-service biplane fighter aircraft. What happened with biplanes during this era? Some of them were equipped with retractable landing gears (like for example the Grumman F3F) or with enclosed cockpits (like for example the Gloster Gladiator) or with wing mounted machine guns (again like the Gladiator) and there were even Biplanes with cannons like the I-153P, all of these like the monoplanes that were being designed and entering in service back then. As such, would a biplane with enclosed cockpits, retractable landing gears, wing mounted machine guns and/or cannons become a monoplane?? Of course not. Again, just because you put features of newer generation aircraft on older generation aircraft that doesn't make the older generation a newer generation, get it?

Resuming and looking at the analogy above:
- Biplane --> Gripen E (and any other 4.5 then fighter aircraft)
- Monoplane --> F-35 (and other 5th gen fighter aircraft like the F-22)

lukfi wrote: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.


Wrong! If the Canadian example shows anything is that the F-35 isn't more expensive then a Gripen or any other 4.5th gen fighter aircraft for that matter!
Trudeau vowed to purchase a cheaper aircraft than the F-35. Once he got to the office and was presented with actual and real data, he almost instantly retracted from the "decision/plan" of "not buying the F-35", period!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 14:10

Some 5th Gen Goodness from LM. First seen: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25426&p=369105&hilit=NC8VhGq0R4o#p369105

F-35: The Smart Fighter for the Warfighter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC8VhGq0R4o

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 20:06

XanderCrews wrote: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.

I agree, the other thread is better to discuss stuff like this.
except Gripen E is not cheaper.

I have my doubts about that. The F-35 has a lower flyaway cost but that's the cost USAF would pay; foreign customers have to pay FMS fees. Do we know if the $85M stated by Saab is fully comparable? We know LM is offering 64 fighters to Finland; Saab is offering 64 supposedly more expensive fighters and two AEW&C aircraft for the same total cost. There is also training and the usual, but I'd expect the extent of this would be comparable.
and it wouldn't be cheaper for Canada long term either.

If you mean the industrial benefits of the JSF program that Canada could potentially lose, that's a different story, of course.
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.

Gripen E carries 1 ton more fuel internally than a Gripen C. It will fly about the same distance on internal fuel as a 39C does with an external tank (and external tanks are usually draggy). 39E has either more performance with internal fuel alone, or more range with an EFT. It's a small improvement but it's not worse like you're trying to spin it.
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The Gripen gained weight but didn’t gain thrust in proportion. They actually made it worse and it doesn’t even hold a candle to the latest block F-16

Weight and thrust have gone up by the same percentage. They didn't make it a whole lot better but they certainly didn't make it worse.
ricnunes wrote:The perceived better chances of the Gripen E being sold to countries like Colombia and Philippines as opposed to the F-35, has nothing to do with cost! As it was already proven to you, the F-35 is actually cheaper to purchase and about the same cost to purchase+maintain in the short term while being likely cheaper to maintain in the long term compared to the Gripen E.

The better chances that Saab has in countries like Colombia and Philippines compared to the F-35 is because the US won't likely sell F-35s to these countries. Maybe the US will allow countries like Colombia and Philippines to purchase F-35s when these are about to the replaced by something else (resuming, decades from now).

The supposedly low cost of the F-35 hasn't been "proven" at all. But otherwise I agree, these are countries where US wouldn't sell the F-35 and even F-16 may be seen as too dependent on US while Gripen can offer compatibility with non-US and even non-NATO weapons.

I have some answers for you about the fighter generations and sensor fusion which I'm going to post into the F-35A vs. Gripen NG thread. Stay tuned :)
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 21:01

lukfi wrote:
except Gripen E is not cheaper.

I have my doubts about that. The F-35 has a lower flyaway cost but that's the cost USAF would pay; foreign customers have to pay FMS fees.

Partner nations, such as Canada, do not pay FMS fees.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests