Swiss F-35 Lightning?

vilters · by **vilters** » 09 Jun 2019, 10:50

Higher Trust = Higher fuel consumption = More sound.
More trust is more sound.

What's so complicated about that?

botsing · by **botsing** » 09 Jun 2019, 15:58

vilters wrote:What's so complicated about that?

Noise profile.

Not what you hear but how you hear it and for how long.

The human hearing is adapted to certain sounds, which means that certain sounds frequencies are felt differently subjectively than what they are measured with equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

Also the duration of that subjective noise profile is important to see how much stress it brings to the individual. For example: many might prefer a louder short grumble over a long whiny takeoff.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 09 Jun 2019, 17:14

The USN is concerned about noise at the catapult, measures have been taken and 'will be taken' to reduce aircraft engine noise. I'll bet the 'noise' heard in SWISS valley runways is quite different to runways in flat fields in the USA for example.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 09 Jun 2019, 21:45

vilters wrote:Higher Trust = Higher fuel consumption = More sound.
More trust is more sound.

What's so complicated about that?

One other thing to consider is if one engine can produce the same thrust as another while at the same time being at mil power while the other requires AB, the mil power jet will be significantly quieter.

jetblast16 · by **jetblast16** » 10 Jun 2019, 00:51

Higher Trust = Higher fuel consumption = More sound

Which do you think would be louder? A Pratt & Whitney F135 in Max AB or a General Electric GE90-115B?

noth · by **noth** » 11 Jun 2019, 10:24

Two problems for the Swiss Air Force, noise related:

1) They take off AB on with the F/A-18s, as a safety measure. This generates a lot more noise than when they previously took off at 90% power, and generated a ton more complaints. Noise pollution in a space constricted country is a serious issue.

2) There was actually a referendum in the last decade launched by the mad green lobby to restrict military airflight of "tourist areas" (aka just about everywhere), because of noise pollution. Luckily it was voted down but it shows just how far the Left here will go to restrict anything military.

The F-35A if operated by the Swiss would no doubt take off on AB... No echoes yet from Payerne on how loud the locals are finding this but there's parliamentary pressure to take noise into account when selecting the future aircraft I'm afraid.

gideonic · by **gideonic** » 11 Jun 2019, 11:57

noth wrote:Two problems for the Swiss Air Force, noise related:
The F-35A if operated by the Swiss would no doubt take off on AB...

Why is that a must? Considering it won't have any external loads and has a lot of power to bear compared to legacy aircraft. Pilots even mentioning they had to resort to afterburner on chase F-16's just to keep up with a F-35 (not using afterburner) on test flights.

optimist · by **optimist** » 11 Jun 2019, 12:48

why guess? there was a link to the Australian study, with all the facts on the last page.

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 13 Jun 2019, 08:38

https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... ght-tests/

SAAB is still offering the Gripen E, but has been asked by Sweden not to participate in the flight trials as they only want jets already operationally ready to participate. SAAB offered to fly Gripen Cs alongside Gripen Es, but that's been declined as well.

magitsu · by **magitsu** » 13 Jun 2019, 11:45

Official communication by the ministry overseeing the matter.
https://www.vtg.admin.ch/content/vtg-in ... 75390.html
(edit: ty Dragon029)

Tidbits:

With the non-participation in the flight and ground testing Gripen E leaves the evaluation process. Retrofitting the flight and ground testing at a later stage would contradict equal treatment of all candidates and is not an option.

Based on current information and analyzes on the degree of maturity and the integration of the subsystems, specialists from armasuisse and the Swiss Air Force came to the conclusion that several of the planned missions could not be carried out in a purposeful matter. For this reason, armasuisse Saab has recommended that it withdraw from the evaluation. Apparently, Saab also came to the conclusion in a separate estimate not to participate in the flight and ground trials.

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 13 Jun 2019, 11:56

Link doesn't work without another ".html" on the end:

https://www.vtg.admin.ch/content/vtg-in ... 75390.html

It's confirmed then; the Gripen E will not longer be part of the competition.

krieger22 · by **krieger22** » 13 Jun 2019, 12:28

On Thursday, June 13, 2019, the Swedish manufacturer Saab armasuisse announced that Saab would not participate in the flight and ground trials for a new fighter plane for the Swiss Army in Payerne with the Gripen E. The trial for the Gripen E was scheduled from 24 to 28 June 2019. With the non-participation in the flight and soil testing Gripen E leaves the evaluation process. Retrofitting the flight and ground testing at a later stage would contradict equal treatment of all candidates and is not an option.

optimist · by **optimist** » 13 Jun 2019, 13:26

who's going to be brave enough to tell the gripen fanboys about this politically motivated injustice. That excluded the best fighter. So far ahead of the others. It's not even built yet.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 13 Jun 2019, 17:04

optimist wrote:who's going to be brave enough to tell the gripen fanboys about this politically motivated injustice. That excluded the best fighter. So far ahead of the others. It's not even built yet.

Expect mass suicides during the next few day in BF4C :mrgreen:

doge · by **doge** » 13 Jun 2019, 17:56

Stunning views...