Swiss Lightning?

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23271
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 06:25

boilermaker wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
Flight Evaluations Begin For Swiss Fighter Contest
yadayadayada

With the short runways of the Swiss, there is no way the typhoon and its canards in front would make it , imo.
Rafale is a bit under powered, but then so is the Gripen and F35 while the super hornet is getting heavier by the day.

Well Well. The F-35B answers that problem "short runnies, & underpowers" eh. But you'll think of something else also. :doh:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 06:30

hornetfinn wrote:
magitsu wrote:Gripen Demonstrator or actually one of the precious 3-4 E test planes?


Saab was in the exact same situation when Finland last selected a fighter jet in early 1990s. Finnish pilots flew Gripen prototypes in Sweden when they had 5 of them IIRC. Then they did similar testing in Finland where Swedish test pilot flew the test missions with the last prototype Gripen (with pretty much production avionics). I think they will do the same again.

The swiss should make a group buy with the Finns and take whatever the Finns are going to take. Given the French Air Force is already patroling for the Swiss...
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 17:36

Tough for the Swiss to commit to any group buy when they have that referendum hurdle which they already once failed to clear.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 19:38

In all the sound studies of decibel levels, they have never taken into account the added noise of almost 3 dB when two planes are flying in formation. They always fly in tandem, and it nearly doubles the sound levels. Also, according to NAVAIR, the 150 dB generated during takeoff on an aircraft carrier is louder than any ear protection currently available for naval personnel. “We are creating a hearing loss certainty, not just a risk.”
The NAVAIR study differs from the Air Force study in one very important matrix. The noise measured is not just in decibel units (dBs) but also in watts-per-square-meter. “The F-35A watts-per-square-meter is two times greater than those generated by the F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet). You can’t use a single dB number to measure noise to fully quantify the acoustic pressure levels generated by an engine, or to compare one engine to another.”
This fact was graphically demonstrated to us on the morning of May 31, when the F35s took off from our airport. In addition to the increased dB levels, there was also a much louder low-frequency rumbling. So the noise has expanded from the normal jet frequencies of the F-16 to much lower cycles-per-second that will penetrate even a closed environment such as the inside of our homes. New windows or doors will not protect us from these frequencies.
Again, according to the NAVAIR study: “Noise levels below 500 Hz are normally not recorded by either dosimeters or medical audiograms. (Low frequency noise was not part of the Air Force study.) Those who have stood near an F-22 or F-35 at high power levels report uncomfortable sensations and believe their internal organs are moving.”
The NAVAIR study continues: “Critical organs of the body have harmonic resonances ranging from a few Hz to 400Hz. For these reasons, greater bio-medical research into the adverse effects of low frequency, air-propagated sound is needed.”

https://vtdigger.org/2019/06/05/joe-ran ... ought/amp/
As mentioned previously the sound level could become the achilles heel of the F-35 in the very sensitive Swiss population.
Last edited by loke on 07 Jun 2019, 20:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23271
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 19:46

'loke' The rong HILL URL has been posted. Care to give the correct one please? Save a lot of messing about. Thanks.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 20:08

spazsinbad wrote:'loke' The rong HILL URL has been posted. Care to give the correct one please? Save a lot of messing about. Thanks.

Ooooops, I am so sorry :oops:

Thanks for letting me know! Corrected now...
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 20:42

Fighter noise is primarily a takeoff issue. While the F-22 is very loud on a Max AB takeoff, operationally most takeoffs are
made at Mil power, due to high excess thrust, especially on a hot day. This makes the F-22 significantly quieter than F-15s and F-16s, which are making Max AB takeoffs most of the time.

I’m not sure the mix of Mil vs Max AB takeoffs with the F-35. At Nellis, I saw quite a few F-35s accelerate down the runway at Max AB, but then retard to Mil shortly after lifting off. These were certainly louder than the Mil power F-22 takeoffs in the immediate area of the base, but were probably not significantly louder in the populated areas around the base.

Where I live about 10 miles west of Nellis, the loudest aircraft passing overhead are the F-15E, still in AB and not as
high as some other aircraft, not counting the B-1s which are the loudest on base and when climbing out.

None of which bothers us: The Sound of Freedom !
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Jun 2019, 20:49

f119doctor wrote:None of which bothers us: The Sound of Freedom !


I could not agree more!

However here we are talking about the Swiss...

I still believe the most likely outcome is that they will go for the F-35, in terms of capabilities it is far above and beyond the other (4.5 gen) fighters that to any air force, anywhere, it is a no-brainer. Only politics can change the outcome. Anyway let's wait and see.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23271
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2019, 01:52

The 'loke' noise article has excerpts from an unnamed source (just NAVAIR). Noise was discussed in detail in several places on this forum a few years ago. Without searching for the posts I will say that the noise the USN refers is that experienced/ heard around the catapult. I'm hoping the good citiZENS of burleytown are not living at the threshold of their runways.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 647
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post08 Jun 2019, 15:45

None of which bothers us: The Sound of Freedom !


Amen brother. Nothing beats jet blast!
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2649
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post08 Jun 2019, 17:14

You can almost bank on the VT opposition crowd to misrepresent either fact and/or context.

To refresh everyone’s memory —

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20141031_F ... ummary.pdf

I would also point out that NAE bureaucrats were the source of much of the doom and gloom about melting flight decks and blowing people off of flight decks — complete with supporting data. Conspicuously, noise and sound suppression around the catapults had been an issue long before F-35 ever showed up on a flight deck.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2289
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 Jun 2019, 18:15

Does F-35A really take off shorter than non-M variants of Rafale?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Jun 2019, 23:10

I would not put anything past them as they think that just because the F-35 is a DCA aircraft that nuke will be stored in VT and that the airport there will be a special target in the event of nuclear warfare.

What's really funny is that they have no problems with the nukes in general, just not in VT, like that will save them in the event of an all-out nuclear war.

Almost forgot, their existing F-16s are DCA too but that apparently never bothered them.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post09 Jun 2019, 07:48

Here is one for spaz. the Aussie's did an airfield noise study on the f-35.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... RWS30m_gAj

http://www.defence.gov.au/AirCraftNoise ... Report.asp
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23271
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jun 2019, 08:39

Thanks. For interest: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=414149&hilit=noise#p414149
05 Mar 2019 "...The fighter has also turned out to be a little less noisy than predicted. Residents near Williamtown have complained about F-35 noise; however, they do so even on days when neither of the two aircraft have been flown...."

& viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=363595&hilit=noise#p363595
28 Feb 2017 "...The previous issue of noise associated with the introduction of the JSF at RAAF Base Williamtown is no longer assessed as a major issue or major risk, as the Minister for the Environment has approved the operation of the F-35A, and Defence intends to comply with the conditions for operation that the Minister for the Environment included with the approval on 17 July 2015...."

&& viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=295754&hilit=noise#p295754
17 Jul 2015 "...The Final EIS was approved with four core conditions. They include requirements to implement aircraft noise management plans in accordance with the RAAF Aircraft Noise Management Strategy as well as ongoing monitoring and public reporting of aircraft noise measurements around F-35A operating bases."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 14 guests