F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post20 May 2019, 00:22

viper12 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Gripen fans were fast to talk about how brilliant a decision Gripen was, until the swiss voted it out


Note I wouldn't be surprised a lot of the no vote was just because they thought it was a waste of money to get new fighters to replace (technologically-wise) Vietnam-era F-5E/Fs, whether it was a Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen. I know some of them who think an air force is a complete waste of money...


Second this. Hate to say it but (in my opinion) this conversation is for naught. The 2nd Swiss eval will be a waste of time and money for participants due to the referendum. And Swiss AF will be flying QRA in ultralights catching thermals over the Alps in 2030 if the voters decide.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 971
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post20 May 2019, 10:52

Do a New Zealand and do away with fighter jets completely.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2218
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post20 May 2019, 12:57

The swiss vote was a referendum on the party, not the aircraft.

This has been covered ad naseum.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 May 2019, 15:20

viper12 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Gripen fans were fast to talk about how brilliant a decision Gripen was, until the swiss voted it out


Note I wouldn't be surprised a lot of the no vote was just because they thought it was a waste of money to get new fighters to replace (technologically-wise) Vietnam-era F-5E/Fs, whether it was a Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen. I know some of them who think an air force is a complete waste of money...



I'm sure the air force's actions had no effect of course.
Choose Crews
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post20 May 2019, 15:31

XanderCrews wrote:You can take anything they've done with their various aviation studies and put it up there with George RR Martin's flying dragons, the difference being Martin knows what he writes is fiction.

Oh and he made money writing his fictional flying things.


About that. First i had to watch the final episode, bevor i was ready to answer here. :mrgreen:



XanderCrews wrote:It was the politicians, which is why it "mysteriously" leaked. It seemed and "Swiss" here would probably know more, that their air force kicked and screamed and let it be know they favored Rafale.



It's very likely. Our ex MOD ( Now "präsident of Switzerland") stated, it where some Members of the Swiss AF, or one of the opposing manufacturers, who leaked the evaluations.

Here is an analysis, way the swiss population said no to the Gripen.

https://translate.google.ch/translate?h ... -die-armee

So it was manly a no, because of the cost, and the typ of the aircraft.

I have to say, im confident about the new referendum. Most people understand, we need a new Fighters. To replace the F/A-18 in 2025. But im not sure if its a good idea, to do the referendum first. And after that to choose the new Aircraft. We can only say, yes or no. But not which one the government will choose.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2021
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 May 2019, 17:31

XanderCrews wrote:Speaking of Linkomart, he was kind enough to PM me and let me know that he knew his stuff about this, (and I do indeed believe he does from all the posts here) to inform me that the RCS penalty I though that Canards carried was not nearly the penalty it was, and so I apologize for getting it wrong on the Canard canard. Apologies to Loke, Marsavaian, and him. The Gripen is still not LO but not for the reason I thought. I was wrong on the canard Radar return.


Is it possible to provide that same evidence of this?

Honestly I'm still very skeptical about an "eventual fact" that Canards don't give RCS penalties (for example there were pre-JSF concepts with canards which were later dropped and no truly stealth/VLO aircraft has them) but and as such I would really like to read such evidence.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post21 May 2019, 13:03

loke wrote:
https://www.icas.org/media/pdf/Workshop ... Nordin.pdf

Seems the Gripen canards are made of CFRP, and it seems that CFRP could be made radar transparant...?

If the Gripen canards are transparant to radar, could that affect the RCS?

Interestingly CFRP can also be designed to become RAM:

RCS reduction requires absorbers with broad-band characteristics since surveillance radars often employ wide bandwidths. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) composites are made of short carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix. They allow broad-band radar absorbing materials (RAMs) characterized by low reflection coefficient against impinging electromagnetic fields, and high resistance against environmental hazards.


https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4720745


No CFRP is not radar transparent. It is (almost as) reflective as pure aluminium. If CFRP were transparent, yes the canards would give a different radar return. Probably much bigger, as you would see the internal structure instead.....

The report you are quoting are using chopped fibers, wich have a lousy structural integrity, but as stated in the report CAN be made to absorb energy.

my 5 cent
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post21 May 2019, 13:54

ricnunes wrote:Is it possible to provide that same evidence of this?

:offtopic:
Not evidence exactly... look in your inbox.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2021
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 May 2019, 17:13

linkomart wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Is it possible to provide that same evidence of this?

:offtopic:
Not evidence exactly... look in your inbox.


Just read it. Thanks for the PM, linkomart :thumb:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

agrippa

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 21 May 2019, 18:59

Unread post21 May 2019, 19:13

Some details regarding Gripen E EW at the end this magazine: https://mags.shephardmedia.com/Show%20D ... -16_v2.pdf
Offline

agrippa

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 21 May 2019, 18:59

Unread post21 May 2019, 19:17

Regarding signature and canards, here is Lockheeds take on different JSF proposals (Lower number is better)

Image
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4241
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post21 May 2019, 19:43

Odd that it is equal to or better than the chosen configuration in every way... there has to be something else.
"Spurts"

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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post21 May 2019, 20:50

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Odd that it is equal to or better than the chosen configuration in every way... there has to be something else.

Two potential explanations that I can think of:

The above could be the result of one particular study that looked at some specific aspects -- and that before the final decision was done, other studies were completed that looked at other aspects, and those other studies demonstrated other advantages of the chosen solution that were sufficiently compelling to override the (very minor) advantages of the canard design shown in this table.


The above shows just a snapshot of an iterative process, and shows how specific solutions would score. Perhaps after making the above table they looked at other variants of ving/tail designs that scored much better than the one depicted in this table; and that variant (not shown in this version of the table) was then later chosen.

In any case this it somewhat OT; the main point was clearly that a canard solution does not necessarily score very poorly in the RCS department... ;)
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post21 May 2019, 21:30

agrippa wrote:Some details regarding Gripen E EW at the end this magazine: https://mags.shephardmedia.com/Show%20D ... -16_v2.pdf


Thanks!

I noticed this:

The level of threat directionfinding and geolocation detail provided by the MFS-EW will allow it to ‘act as a targeting sensor in a way that is not possible with the Gripen-C/D’. Consequently, highly detailed co-ordinates of an electronic threat could be gathered by the MFS-EW of sufficient quality to allow that threat to be engaged kinetically, as well as electronically.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2104
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post21 May 2019, 22:52

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Odd that it is equal to or better than the chosen configuration in every way... there has to be something else.


"Something else" is the chart does not give any indication how important each of the 15 factors is in a total evaluation. Empennage weight for example probably is not nearly as important as signature.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests