F-35 Is Now the Air Force’s Second-largest Fighter Fleet

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

casador

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2016, 19:11

Unread post14 May 2021, 22:05

re: gripen hype

HEY GUYS do you remember way back to Once Upon a Time when the Hushkit Brain Trust quoted Newly-Off-the-Reservation 'Wild Bill' Sweetman to argue the Gripen E was a "6th-Generation Fighter"?

Because Pepperidge Farm Remembers

In an article Sweetman wrote for Aviation Week he argued that there was a case for describing the forthcoming Gripen E/F as the first sixth generation fighter. Whereas fifth generation was an old (1980s) concept based on the use of stealth and superior situational awareness to defeat a well-equipped (but easy to find and identify) enemy, Saab’s vision of 6th Gen Gripen E is a new kind of machine that puts kinematics second, and software and ISR capabilities first. What ‘software first’ means is that all the important software in Gripen E should be far easier to upgrade than in rival platforms. This is a big deal, as military aircraft technology currently moves at a glacial pace compared to that of the commercial world, such as the rapid developments in smart phones. The conventional approach would have been to produce a higher performance lower-observable fighter, a programme which would have proved too expensive for Sweden.


"Actually the capabilities I don't have, I don't need. Checkmate."

Wild Bill never disappoints. :lmao:

While the aircraft will not have the stealth and super-cruising abilities of the F-22, the super-manoeuvrability of the Su-35 or impressive weapons-carrying performance of the Rafale, the Gripen E will be an extremely potent aircraft punching well above its weight. Weight and cost often correlate for military aircraft and it is interesting to note that the F-35, intended as the ‘low’ (weight/capability) to the F-22’s ‘high’, has an empty weight of 13154 kg, compared to the Gripen E’s svelte 8000 kg (the respective maximum take-off weights are 27000 kg and 16500 kg). Though the F-35 may, by a combination of manipulation and mass production, eventually have a competitive quoted price tag, the Gripen E will be far cheaper to operate and maintain.


"We'll obviously win. And if we don't it's because they cheated, obviously. Super Checkmate."

It's like they took the worst parts of mid-70s LWF Hype, and the worst parts of Iterative Neo Century Series Hype, sprinkled in some generous Self-Deception and bundled it all into under-performing vaporware.

"I am henceforth unable to can," as they say.

*chef's kiss*

https://hushkit.net/2018/05/12/6th-generation-swede-the-saab-gripen-e/
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/saabs-new-gripen-future-fighters
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26158
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 May 2021, 22:09

Any chance you/someone can show us behind the paywall please? https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... e-fighters
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

casador

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2016, 19:11

Unread post14 May 2021, 22:28

spazsinbad wrote:Any chance you/someone can show us behind the paywall please? https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... e-fighters



Sure! I'm still catching up, and I unfortunately neglected to search before I posted. The full text this article can be found in the main Gripen NG thread, but I'll repost it here:

Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters?
New Gripen may be the next wave
Mar 24, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35 a “fifth-generation” fighter in 2005, a term it borrowed from Russia in 2004 to describe the F-22. Some of their rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable. Whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab can argue that the JAS 39E Gripen, rather than some of the wildly expensive-looking artist's concepts we have seen, is the first such aircraft.

The Gen 5 concept is almost 30 years old. It dates to the final turning point in the Cold War, when the Reagan administration accelerated the arms race, believing (correctly) that the Soviet economic engine would throw a rod first. The F-22 was designed for a challenging but simple war: If you were in a NATO fighter and the nose was pointed east, pretty much everyone headed your way was trying to kill you.

Defense technology led aerospace in those days, and aerospace drove many other technologies. Today's gaming, simulation and movies are descended from 1980s military simulators.

The world has changed a bit. Operation Allied Force in 1999 presaged the air campaigns of the 2000s, when targets were soft but hard to find, and harder yet to pick out of the civilian environment. We can say little for certain about the nature of future conflict, except that it is likely to be led by, and revolve around, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). For the individual pilot, sailor or soldier, that translates into situational awareness.

Demographics and economics are squeezing the size of the world's militaries—nations with more than 100 combat aircraft are few and becoming fewer. There are no blank checks for overruns.

Much of the technology of 1995, let alone 1985, has a Flintstones look from today's perspective. (My 1985 computer boasted 310 kb. of storage and communicated at a screaming 300 bits per second.) Software is no longer what makes machines work; an iPhone is hardware that is valued because of the apps that it supports. This technology is characterized by development and deployment cycles measured in months. In aerospace, the lead in materials and manufacturing has gone to the commercial side.

The conundrum facing fighter planners is that, however smart your engineering, these aircraft are expensive to design and build and have a cradle-to-grave product life that is far beyond either the political or technological horizon.

The reason that the JAS 39E may earn a Gen 6 tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: The new hardware runs Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly biennial release in the series that started with the JAS 39A/B.

Long life requires adaptability, both across missions and through-life. Like Ed Heinemann's A-4 Skyhawk, the Gripen was designed as a small aircraft with a relatively large payload. And by porting most of the software to the new version, the idea is that all C/D weapons and capabilities, and then some, are ready to go on the E.

The Swedes have invested in state-of-the-art sensors for ISR and situational awareness (AW&ST March 17, p. 28), including what may be the first in-service electronic warfare system using gallium-nitride technology. It's significant that a lot of space is devoted to the identification friend-or-foe system. Good IFF is most important in a confused situation where civilian, friendly, neutral, questionable and hostile actors are sharing the same airspace.

Sweden's ability to develop its own state-of-the-art fighters has long depended on blending home-grown and imported technology. Harvesting technology rather than inventing it becomes more important as commercial technology takes a leading role and becomes more global. The JAS 39E engine is from the U.S., the radar from Britain, and the infrared search and track system is Italian. Much of the airframe may be built in Brazil.

However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a Gen 6 tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world's fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others.

It's an ambitious goal, and it is the first time that Sweden has undertaken such a project in the international spotlight. But if it is successful, it will teach lessons that nobody can afford not to learn.

Is Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters? | AWIN content from Aviation Week


What stands out to me here the most--aside from the GaN snake oil salesmanship--is the 2nd-to-last paragraph, where Sweetman wants us to believe that ackshually being fast, agile, and stealthy are somehow...liabilities, and the Saab is playing some kind of special Nordic Extradimensional Aeronautical Chess.

But of course, this was in 2014, when "Wild Bill" was in his absolute prime.
Last edited by casador on 14 May 2021, 22:42, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26158
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 May 2021, 22:40

Thanks - I did not think of that option. Good to have you posting here.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3356
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 May 2021, 23:25

casador wrote:re: gripen hype

HEY GUYS do you remember way back to Once Upon a Time when the Hushkit Brain Trust quoted Newly-Off-the-Reservation 'Wild Bill' Sweetman to argue the Gripen E was a "6th-Generation Fighter"?


Yes, I do! That's one of the most pathetic things that I've ever read in my live :doh:

Personally, I don't even believe/agree that upcoming/future projects such as the Tempest, NGF or NGAD are 6th gen fighter aircraft (instead they will be 5th gen).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1794
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post18 May 2021, 07:39

XanderCrews wrote: so the score is 0 to 85. but the PR difference makes that score 0-85. if we factor in the weight of politicians its 0-85. and finally if we weigh the combination of PR/politicians/sub committees we come out to 0-85.


Not nothing X, a drop from forecasting 141 to be produced in 2020-2021, to 85 in 2021-2022 budget so far would be a massive downgrade in production, and it must not occur.

Other than that the idea that the A-10C is retained, along with this talk of F-22A going bye-byes is really disgusting. Last I looked the small B-2 force will operate alongside the still imaginary much larger B-21 force. So it would be out of the question to operate F-22A in parallel with NGAD as they're immiscible in time and space, which could detonate USAF's Cosmos.

"We must not allow an A-10C rathole gap!"
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7227
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post19 May 2021, 20:05

element1loop wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: so the score is 0 to 85. but the PR difference makes that score 0-85. if we factor in the weight of politicians its 0-85. and finally if we weigh the combination of PR/politicians/sub committees we come out to 0-85.


Not nothing X, a drop from forecasting 141 to be produced in 2020-2021, to 85 in 2021-2022 budget so far would be a massive downgrade in production, and it must not occur.



85 is just the United States' order. Maybe someone can dig up what the US's 85 means to the other international partners numbers but I don't doubt we are looking at 120 at a minimum+

the 2020 plan was in the low 140s, and they produced depending on who you ask 121-123 F-35s in 2020 with the loss of between "18-24" aircraft due to the pandemic, which they don't expect to catch up on until 2023. meaning an additional 9- 12 units already over the next two years.

So perhaps 150 in 2021?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7227
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post19 May 2021, 20:13

casador wrote:re: gripen hype

HEY GUYS do you remember way back to Once Upon a Time when the Hushkit Brain Trust quoted Newly-Off-the-Reservation 'Wild Bill' Sweetman to argue the Gripen E was a "6th-Generation Fighter"?

Because Pepperidge Farm Remembers

In an article Sweetman wrote for Aviation Week he argued that there was a case for describing the forthcoming Gripen E/F as the first sixth generation fighter. Whereas fifth generation was an old (1980s) concept based on the use of stealth and superior situational awareness to defeat a well-equipped (but easy to find and identify) enemy, Saab’s vision of 6th Gen Gripen E is a new kind of machine that puts kinematics second, and software and ISR capabilities first. What ‘software first’ means is that all the important software in Gripen E should be far easier to upgrade than in rival platforms. This is a big deal, as military aircraft technology currently moves at a glacial pace compared to that of the commercial world, such as the rapid developments in smart phones. The conventional approach would have been to produce a higher performance lower-observable fighter, a programme which would have proved too expensive for Sweden.


"Actually the capabilities I don't have, I don't need. Checkmate."

Wild Bill never disappoints. :lmao:

While the aircraft will not have the stealth and super-cruising abilities of the F-22, the super-manoeuvrability of the Su-35 or impressive weapons-carrying performance of the Rafale, the Gripen E will be an extremely potent aircraft punching well above its weight. Weight and cost often correlate for military aircraft and it is interesting to note that the F-35, intended as the ‘low’ (weight/capability) to the F-22’s ‘high’, has an empty weight of 13154 kg, compared to the Gripen E’s svelte 8000 kg (the respective maximum take-off weights are 27000 kg and 16500 kg). Though the F-35 may, by a combination of manipulation and mass production, eventually have a competitive quoted price tag, the Gripen E will be far cheaper to operate and maintain.




BOLDED PART: Weight and cost correlate indeed, which is why people were "very nervous" when Gripen NG went from 7000 kilos to 8000 kilos in the Gripen E. Funny that. it weighs 1300 more kilos than the original gripen yet, it magically has no cost difference? That's a curious one! Bill seems to be selectively applying logic.

Underlined part F-35 and Gripen E cost the same, but the F-35 will be more expensive to use. even though they cost the same.

80 million dollar F-35= but what does it cost!?!?!

80 million dollar Gripen E= But look at how cheap it must be!!

I'm reminded of the joke about a ton of feathers or a ton of lead. A ton is a ton. wouldn't want to be hit with either.
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests