F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1567
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 00:19

Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft.



:shock:

regards, OL
Offline

Casey

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 22:22

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 01:24

SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.
Welcome to the boards.. but your way wrong.

The F-35 will be replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, and others. Did you notice all the fighters that it will be replacing?

While the US will be using it in a secondary role (like the F-15 / F-16 roles), all the international partners, with the possible exception of the UK, will use it as their top of the line A2A fighter. It will be able to do anything a F-16 can do... only better.


It's going to replace F-16, that is the F-16's that has been performing ground attacks, the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft as is the AV-8B, it's replacing the Strike Eagle (F-15) (ground attack). F-22 will be the Us choise for a fighter. The problem with the F-35 is that it can't climb, can't turn, can't run.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 01:36

Casey wrote:
It's going to replace F-16, that is the F-16's that has been performing ground attacks, the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft as is the AV-8B, it's replacing the Strike Eagle (F-15) (ground attack). F-22 will be the Us choise for a fighter. The problem with the F-35 is that it can't climb, can't turn, can't run.


A fan of the Air Power Australia school of thought are you?

Still your facts are wrong. It is not replacing the F-117. The F-22 has.

It is not replacing the Strike Eagle. Nothing is yet.

And it can climb, turn and run as well as any 4th Gen fighter. Just because Dennis Jensen and Peter Goon say it can't doesn't make it so.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 02:20

Casey wrote:
Meteor wrote:I don't think that there is any doubt that the F-35 is a much superior fighter to the Gripen, and I don't think that anybody here has argued that. The question is; Is the F-35 or the Gripen the optimum fighter for Norway today?


The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.

Meteor wrote:We could argue that the F-22 is superior to the F-35, so obviously Norway should buy F-22s. We know that will not happen because of two things; Norway can't afford F-22s, and the US won't sell Norway F-22s. Those two reasons have nothing to do with combat capability. Rather, those are economic and political decisions.

The same will happen with the F-35 v Gripen decision. If it were left to a bunch of Norwegian fighter pilots to make the decision, I'm pretty sure that they would select the F-35. But they won't make the decision; Norwegian politicians will. And the politicians will do what governments all over the world do; They will balance military, economic and political benefits. As an example, witness the A400 mess in Europe. Although there was already an airlifter in production (the C-17) with far greater capabilities than the A400 will ever have, the politicians made a political and economic decision that building their own transport was the better move. The same will happen with the F-35 vs Gripen decision. Which of the two candidates makes the best technical, economic, and political case?


The A-400 is a totally different class of aircraft as the C-17. It's smaller an lighter, much less expencive, cheaper to operate, and can operate from airfields that are smaller than the C-17 needs. So your comparison is incorrect.



Sorry, the F-35 is not a attack aircraft like the A-7 for example! Its a Strike Fighter much like the F-16 Viper or F/A-18 Hornet. As for the A-400 I would agree that it is cheaper to own and operate than the C-17. :wink:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 02:23

Casey wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Casey wrote:The F-35 is not a fighter, it's an attack aircraft. The USAF will use it as a replacement for the F-117. Norway need a multirole fighter, not a bomb truck, that needs escort if it would have to enter an airspace with possible threat from figters.
Welcome to the boards.. but your way wrong.

The F-35 will be replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, and others. Did you notice all the fighters that it will be replacing?

While the US will be using it in a secondary role (like the F-15 / F-16 roles), all the international partners, with the possible exception of the UK, will use it as their top of the line A2A fighter. It will be able to do anything a F-16 can do... only better.


It's going to replace F-16, that is the F-16's that has been performing ground attacks, the A-10 is a ground attack aircraft as is the AV-8B, it's replacing the Strike Eagle (F-15) (ground attack). F-22 will be the Us choise for a fighter. The problem with the F-35 is that it can't climb, can't turn, can't run.



...........and how would you know if the F-35 can't climb, can't turn, or can't run???? Sorry, that doesn't seem to be the consensus of the people who know. :idea:
Offline

Meteor

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 14 May 2007, 19:46
  • Location: Southlake, TX and West Yellowstone, MT

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 04:37

Casey; If you have some inside information that the F-35 is a bomb truck that needs a fighter escort to enter contested airspace, that it can't turn, climb, or run, and that it is only a replacement for the F-117 (which by the way could and did repeatedly enter contested airspace without a fighter escort), then you need to do a better job getting the word out. There are many nations around the world (including the Israelis) who are apparently under the mistaken impression that they are getting a stealthy, supersonic, 9G fighter with the latest AESA radar and other fighter systems. If they have been mistaken in their multi-year, multi million dollar analysis, then I'm sure that they would appreciate you enlightening them.

As to the A400 v C-17 comparison; First of all, my point was not an aircraft to aircraft technical comparison. My point was that there are three factors in purchasing any military aircraft: Capability, economics, and politics. You can replace my mention of "C-17" with "C-130J" and my point would be the same. You can make the same point with "Sikorsky S-72 v US101 presidential helicopter competition", or "A330 vs 767 tanker competition". In each case, the aircraft were substantially different, and economic and political factors were major factors. My point (which you apparently misunderstood) is that in the F-35 v Gripen competition, or in the A400 v C-17/C-130J competition, the aircraft were not identical, and economic and political factors often trump technical capabilities.

As to the C-17 needing much longer runways than the A400; We don't really know what the A400 capabilities will be, because it hasn't flown yet, and because Airbus is currently negotiating to reduce the performance requirements for the A400. Similarly, we don't know the cost, because none have been delivered yet and Airbus is asking the purchasing nations to renegotiate the price. It's also hard to make a C-17 v A400 price comparison sice the dollar v euro rate has fluctuated wildly between 1:1.6 and 1:1.2 recently.

That being said, we know exactly what the C-17's capabilities are. The C-17 has been landing on short gravel airstrips, at night, in the mountains, in hostile conditions, for a number of years now. A quick check of the USAF website shows that a C-17 can operate off of a 1064m (meter) airstrip. A quick check of the Airbus A400 website

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

shows an advertised (unproven) ability to operate off a 914m runway. The C-17 has an 85 ton max payload. The A400 has an advertised (unproven) max payload of 37 tons. I doubt that either aircraft can operate off of that short a runway with a max payload, but it is fair to say that the C-17 can carry over double the payload of the A400 on a given runway. And it only needs 150m more to do it.

Although price comparisons are very hard to do, Boeing has recently been delivering C-17s at about $200 million per copy. We really don't know what the A400 price will be, especially is US dollars, but the numbers that I've been seeing are in the $130-150 million range.

So if the Europeans had opted for the C-17 a decade ago instead of deciding to build the A400, they would currently be operationally flying them, (like the UK, Canada, and Australia), it would fly further / faster / higher /and with more than twice the payload, it would operate on a runway only slightly longer than the A400, and it would cost about 25% more. Sounds like a pretty good tradeoff, if you ask me. But there were other economic and political factors. And that's why they didn't...
Last edited by Meteor on 07 Nov 2008, 04:55, edited 1 time in total.
F-4C/D, F-16A/B/C/D, 727, DC-10, MD-80, A321
Offline

F16guy

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 14:08

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 04:49

Casey...Mighty Casey at bat...Swing and a miss x3.

Wow three posts and you come up with the F-35 is not a fighter? Please introduce yourself and how you came up with that conclusion. I've at least flown in the sim's and I was under the distinct impression it was a fighter. I'd love to hear how I'm wrong.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 05:29

LMAO,

Conan and Casey, BOTH of ya are wrong!

F-35 is NOT a replacement for F-117 as F-35 will not be operational for another 6 years!

And F-22 is currently NOT a replacement for F-117! That is, until it finally gets it's long-awaited FLIR/laser designator it was designed for.. If you concur however, that F-22 should be funded for this long-awaited upgrade, then I'll give you the comparison.

But perhaps all of us can agree that F-117 not only should have NOT been retired as it was, but in fact should have actually continued in production (VERY CHEAP units), and further upgraded with off-the-shelf tech as it was originally designed with for economical, fast development! Wow!

Heck, perhaps today such an expanded production fleet of F-117s could have even been updated for future UCAV duty, thus saving an additional $20-30 billion R&D for future LO UCAV substitute?!?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

f-15eagle

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2008, 18:59

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 06:30

LOL holy sh*t whats with the retard saying the F-35 is not a fighter? I guess he forgets the F-16 and F-18 are FIGHTERS and unless the air force gets more F-22s it will replace most of the F-15s as well which are also fighters. The F-35 will be 400% more effective in A2A than any current fighter including the latest Sukhoi.

Too busy reading Air Power Australia I'm afraid. :lol:
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 08:18

geogen wrote:LMAO,

Conan and Casey, BOTH of ya are wrong!

F-35 is NOT a replacement for F-117 as F-35 will not be operational for another 6 years!

And F-22 is currently NOT a replacement for F-117! That is, until it finally gets it's long-awaited FLIR/laser designator it was designed for.. If you concur however, that F-22 should be funded for this long-awaited upgrade, then I'll give you the comparison.

But perhaps all of us can agree that F-117 not only should have NOT been retired as it was, but in fact should have actually continued in production (VERY CHEAP units), and further upgraded with off-the-shelf tech as it was originally designed with for economical, fast development! Wow!

Heck, perhaps today such an expanded production fleet of F-117s could have even been updated for future UCAV duty, thus saving an additional $20-30 billion R&D for future LO UCAV substitute?!?


Not really that cheap. At least not considering the absolute maintenance nightmare of an airplane it was. I remember as a kid getting a tour out at Holloman and seeing the chunks of RAM that had flaked off everywhere in the hangar.

The F-117's performance was also not very impressive (4,000 lbs?), and I'm skeptical about it's RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35- there was only so much you could do with computers back in the day.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

Casey

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 22:22

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 18:59

Conan wrote:
A fan of the Air Power Australia school of thought are you?

Still your facts are wrong. It is not replacing the F-117. The F-22 has.

It is not replacing the Strike Eagle. Nothing is yet.

And it can climb, turn and run as well as any 4th Gen fighter. Just because Dennis Jensen and Peter Goon say it can't doesn't make it so.


Nope, I'm not an Aussie. The F-22 can't replace the F-117, its systems are not suited to ground attack, and it can't take enough bombs to function as well in the bomber role as the F-35. When the F-35 is available, it will take over the F-117's tasks. The Strike Eagle wil of course be in operation for many years, but the F-35 will take over some of the more demanding tasks.
Offline

Casey

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 22:22

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 19:07

f-15eagle wrote:LOL holy sh*t whats with the retard saying the F-35 is not a fighter? I guess he forgets the F-16 and F-18 are FIGHTERS and unless the air force gets more F-22s it will replace most of the F-15s as well which are also fighters. The F-35 will be 400% more effective in A2A than any current fighter including the latest Sukhoi.

Too busy reading Air Power Australia I'm afraid. :lol:


The F-35 has significantly poorer performance than most modern fighters. Accelleration and climb rate are poor compared to all modern fighters. And it seems it can't climb to altitudes you expect from a modern fighter.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 19:19

Casey wrote:
f-15eagle wrote:LOL holy sh*t whats with the retard saying the F-35 is not a fighter? I guess he forgets the F-16 and F-18 are FIGHTERS and unless the air force gets more F-22s it will replace most of the F-15s as well which are also fighters. The F-35 will be 400% more effective in A2A than any current fighter including the latest Sukhoi.

Too busy reading Air Power Australia I'm afraid. :lol:


The F-35 has significantly poorer performance than most modern fighters. Accelleration and climb rate are poor compared to all modern fighters. And it seems it can't climb to altitudes you expect from a modern fighter.



..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!! :twisted:
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 20:01

Casey wrote:The F-22 can't replace the F-117, its systems are not suited to ground attack, and it can't take enough bombs to function as well in the bomber role as the F-35.
The F-22 is getting a present, a 1000 lb class special purpose penetrating GPS guided bomb. Think SDB on steroids. This, along with the normal SDB capacity, will more than makeup for the loss of the F-117s. Remember that the F-117s had no radar and had to have clear weather in order to bomb. The F-22s are getting ground attack modes for it's radar so it can operate in adverse weather conditions and in daylight hours. Last, but not least, the F-22 has much better RSC numbers than the F-117, so it can go in places that the F-117 is in more danger of.

Casey wrote:When the F-35 is available, it will take over the F-117's tasks
Mostly true primarily because the F-22 is too valuable when there will be a more numerous, more capable, and cheaper option in the F-35.

Casey wrote:The F-35 has significantly poorer performance than most modern fighters.
Where are you getting this??? Both the USAF and LM have stated, and it is stipulated in the contract, that the F-35 has to meet or beat the flight characteristics of the F-16. The only thing ever published about that "can't climb, can't turn, can't run", was a backup slide to a RAND study that had nothing to do with A2A combat.

The USAF and LM put out a Press Release thoroughly debunking that report.

Now, who do you trust?? The people who, on a daily basis, have hands-on knowledge of the F-35's ability, or a blogger who has a personal grudge?

When the first USAF pilot got a chance to fly the F-35, he called the handling phenomenal :) That does not sound like "can't climb, can't turn, can't run" to me.
Offline

Casey

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 22:22

Unread post07 Nov 2008, 20:50

Corsair1963 wrote:

..........and what information do you have to support such a claim??? As a matter of fact the only information. That I've heard of regarding climb performance for the F-35. Is from test pilots that have stated of the shear power and how its chase aircraft (F-16's & F/A-18's) have had a hard time keeping up!!! :twisted:


Actually my sources are within USAF/USN!
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests