Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

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

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2095
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 19:56

marsavian wrote:Gripen C is a tenth of the original F-16 as F-18E is of the original F-18C yet Gripen E significantly improves on that, who has the lower RCS ?




The original Gripen design going from SAABs notes from the 1980s does seem to suggest the design seems to be more lead by aerodynamic considerations primarily.

1/ 10th the RCS of an F-16 claim (presumably before addition of RAM etc on F-16s) doesn't seem that likely however this guesswork really is just blowing in the wind so I would defer to someone with real world experience of military air defence radars:



I have seen with my own eyes how Gripen A is seen by radar systems in real world exercise and I must say it's not that different to F/A-18C, F-16 MLU or Mirage 2000-5. The difference in radar detectability and thus RCS seemed to be fairly small between all of those. I don't know what the aircraft were carrying during the exercise but it was large scale (up to about 40 aircraft in the air simultaneously) air combat exercise. All pictures I've seen, all aircraft have carried 1 or 2 EFT. I can believe Gripen has the lowest RCS of those mentioned, but it's not LO and definitely not VLO at any angle. C-model may have some minor improvements but there is no way it has seriously lower RCS than A-model.



viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=318189#p318189
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 23:30

lukfi wrote:
eagle3000 wrote:The wing is the same but different. Why? Because the actual wing in the Gripen is mounted to the aircraft outside the inner wing pylons, same where the leading edge slats start. The inner part of the wing is part of the fuselage. The Gripen E retains the outer wing (albeit with new tip pods). But the fuselage part is different/wider, hence the increased wing span. It goes without saying that increasing the wing span increases wing area also. Yes Gripen E has a bigger wing.

Wing span is higher because the wings are mounted on the fatter fuselage + the wing roots where the landing gear retracts to. But is wing area higher as well?


Yes, if you mount the same wing on a wider fuselage, your wing area increases.
But in case of Gripen E, I think the wing roots themselves are slightly wider too.
refarea.gif
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 23:37

lukfi wrote:Hang on a second. The fact that is says 7000 kg on an old picture does not mean "Saab chose the goal weight". They expected the plane would weigh 7 tons, but at that point they also expected the same overall dimensions of the airframe, and they made changes to the design since then. Whether the compromises they made are good or not is up for debate, but you make it sound like they had a goal and they failed to meet it. It's quite misleading to put it that way.


What some people choose to ignore is that the idea behind Gripen E evolved. At first, it was little more than increasing internal fuel by moving the gear to the wing roots. Estimated weight for that was 7000 kg.
Later, the program added a lot of additional stuff, resulting in Gripen E we see now. Estimated weight for that is 8000 kg. We don't know the actual empty weight afaik. But hopefully it's not north of 8 tons :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2865
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 15:27

marsavian wrote:Ricnunes, the Super Hornet was starting from a high RCS base, Hornet, the Gripen E wasn't. It still has open engine fans to the world.


Jezz, the engine fans on the Super Hornet are not open, for Christ Sake! The are protected by Radar Blockers which means that the engine fans are not exposed to radar.
On the other hand the Super Hornet has air intakes clearly designed for low RCS which are properly aligned with the airframe's surface while the Gripen has NOTHING regarding this (more on this below).


marsavian wrote:In fact CFTs and enclosed weapon bay would only reduce RCS by 50% over the current Super Hornet which should give even you a clue how big Super Hornet RCS currently is if getting rid of bombs and fuel tanks only halves RCS i.e. Super Hornet RCS is equal to multiple bombs and multiple fuel tanks !!


LoL, no! :doh:

Since when is a RCS reduction by 50% a clue about how big the Super Hornet RCS currently is??

Are you even aware that if for example the the Super Hornet has an RCS of 0.4 square meters and Boeing manages to reduce it to 0.3 square meters, this is a 50% reduction of the RCS??

And reducing from 0.4 to 0.2 would be a 100% reduction of RCS??

Does this mean that a RCS of 0.4 is "big" while 0.3 or 0.2 is "small"? This is a rhetoric question, don't bother answering it...

And of course the lower the initial RCS is than the lower a 50% reduction of the initial RCS will be! For example if the initial RCS is 0.3 than the 50% reduction will be in a magnitude of 0.075 which means that the RCS with a 50% reduction will end up being 0.22-0.23 or rounding to one decimal place, 0.2 or resuming, nothing to write home about but nice for PR that's for sure...

So, all of this can actually be an indication of the exact opposite of your reasoning - This may actually be an indication (together which what was already posted by others) that the Super Hornet RCS is actually very small (for a 4th gen fighter aircraft of course).


marsavian wrote:So stop promoting this fantasy that Super Hornet is the stealthiest 4.5 gen aircraft because I have never believed all your hand waving over it and it is only proven in your mind.

https://defense-update.com/20130830_sem ... ights.html

Block III adds more RAM to squeeze out another 10% RCS reduction, again I thought this was common knowledge ? The fact they added more shows Block II was not the finished RCS article.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... er-hornet/

...

You have not remotely proven anything to me to concede that Super Hornet has the lowest RCS of 4.5 gens apart from Su-35 although I would concede its all round RCS would be lower. Gripen and Typhoon would beat it frontally IMO but maybe not Rafale with its flat fixed head on AESA antenna.


No, it's you that must stop promoting that the Gripen E RCS is that low, this just because you read some bullshit from Saab or that you simply interpret sources/data in your own personal and twisted way/view/perspective.

The Gripen doesn't not have a lower RCS than the Super Hornet and for what's worth it also doesn't seem to have a lower RCS than the Rafale or Typhoon for that matter.
Many of us are aware about how a low RCS is attained which is attained mainly due to airframe shape while RAM coating being secondary.
One of the main features in order to attain low RCS is PLANFORM ALIGNMENT, something that even you mentioned in the past but now and in order to fit your rhetoric you seem to ignore.
Anyway, about PLANFORM ALIGNMENT:

Super Hornet:
Image

Gripen E:
Image

So which one complies with PLANFORM ALIGNMENT? Another rhetoric question...

So with the above, please stop with the absurd of "promoting" that the Gripen E can ever have a lower RCS than the Super Hornet (doesn't matter if its Block II or III).

Moreover that "swiveling radar" of the Gripen E will certainly do wonders for its frontal RCS... :roll:



marsavian wrote:Gripen E was improved in RCS from an already low Gripen C (which was much less than F-16) by adding composites and RAM to inlets as already posted by me from Saab statements if you had been paying attention.

...

Gripen C is a tenth of the original F-16 as F-18E is of the original F-18C yet Gripen E significantly improves on that, who has the lower RCS ?


I couldn't care less about Saab's BULLSH*T!
Saab has lied/exaggerated about the aircraft's (Gripen E) empty weight, range, price and a myriad of other things more concrete and "less classified". Why wouldn't they be lying or more precisely exaggerating about the Gripen C RCS (and thus also about Gripen E RCS)? This is also a rhetoric question.

On the other hand if you always or really believe what the manufacturers say then there's what Xander already posted which is:
- Boeing claims that the Super Hornet is the fighter aircraft with the lowest RCS except for the F-22 and F-35. Why don't you believe in this? Because it doesn't fit your narrative, perhaps??
So given Saab's record, I guess that I'll take the Boeing's word over Saab's at anytime. But of course what makes me having 100% sure that the Super Hornet has a lower RCS compared to the Gripen E isn't Boeing's word alone. This is like a puzzle and after putting all the pieces together - which you can find above, either on mine and others posts - the pieces fit together regarding the Super Hornet but they sure don't fit when it comes to the Gripen E.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2865
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 15:54

marsavian wrote:AESA EW still not operational by FY15 ten years later ...

The Navy has continued to defer development of the AESA’s full electronic warfare capability to later software builds and plans to test this capability in SCS H12 and H14.


Previous posts on this matter

viewtopic.php?p=392080#p392080



H14 is being tested at least since 2019:
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 115459-627


According to the following site (AirForce Magazine):
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1006electronic/

One can read the following:
A planned upgrade of the Growler will be to integrate its AEA systems with its APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, which is also being fitted on newer F/A-18Es and Fs.


From what I read above is that the ability to use the APG-79 as an AEA (Airborne Electronics Attack) system was at the time (2008) being planned for the Growler but otherwise being already fitted on the newer E/F variants of the Super Hornet.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 16:43

Ricnunes, you can directly see the engines of the F-18E from the front and just because they put a blocker in front does not change that fact as gaps are needed for air to get through and by which radar returns can escape. The only definitive way of removing engine fan RCS contribution completely is to hide the engine face as F-22, F-35 and Gripen do. The engine fans are the greatest contributor to frontal RCS by a mile.

100% of some value is that value it is not half that value, this is basic school math. When you short a stock to 0 your profit gain is 100% not 200% as it would be in your strange dimension. Your outer dimension mathematics even makes your case worse as it then suggests that 2 bombs, 2 fuel tanks and 2 missiles is only a third of Super Hornet RCS !! You are totally ignoring the fact that by removing all external stores this only halved Super Hornet RCS or in your strange world, reduced it to three quarters. Boeing have therefore quantified what the RCS of Super Hornet is compared to external stores i.e. the same and if you add the frontal RCS of bombs, fuel tanks, missiles and pylons there is not much change out of 1 sq m. These would then be eliminated by the use of stealthy CFT and EWP meaning Super Hornet RCS is either ~1 sq m by my calculation (or 3 sq m in your bizzaro dimension). Which does tally up with being an order of magnitude less than Hornet.

Saab's claim of low RCS for Gripen C has been validated by many pilots of different countries who have gone against it most recently the Chinese who weren't even flying against clean Gripens ! BAE also said that Typhoon was second only to F-22 RCS on release like Boeing did but their range detection example against F-35 suggested a lot lower RCS than Boeing did with their Advanced Super Hornet literature !
Last edited by marsavian on 09 Feb 2020, 22:41, edited 4 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 16:57

ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:AESA EW still not operational by FY15 ten years later ...

The Navy has continued to defer development of the AESA’s full electronic warfare capability to later software builds and plans to test this capability in SCS H12 and H14.


Previous posts on this matter

viewtopic.php?p=392080#p392080



H14 is being tested at least since 2019:
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 115459-627


According to the following site (AirForce Magazine):
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1006electronic/

One can read the following:
A planned upgrade of the Growler will be to integrate its AEA systems with its APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, which is also being fitted on newer F/A-18Es and Fs.


From what I read above is that the ability to use the APG-79 as an AEA (Airborne Electronics Attack) system was at the time (2008) being planned for the Growler but otherwise being already fitted on the newer E/F variants of the Super Hornet.


You read wrong, your comprehension is as bad as your math. The 2008 article does not say EW is already fitted to Super Hornet, only that the APG-79 was, and what was planned for Growler was the modest use of APG-79 as a geolocator. The fact is EW via the APG-79 has been MIA on Super Hornet since they started bragging about it in the early 2000s. It maybe on SCS H14, probably, finally, but it wasn't on SCS H12 as the F18 FY16 report was still complaining about lack of EW. Hopefully it is on H14 and it would certainly help its users and in competitions but Raytheon have not delivered timely as promised in 2006 and as Northrop Grumman did with this feature in F-22/F-35 much earlier.

A planned upgrade of the Growler will be to integrate its AEA systems with its APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, which is also being fitted on newer F/A-18Es and Fs. The AESA radar, by virtue of its high-resolution synthetic aperture mapping, can be used to precisely locate enemy radar emitters, the better to target them for jamming or attack with anti-radiation missiles.
Last edited by marsavian on 09 Feb 2020, 22:39, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 21:08

XanderCrews wrote:thats not a ringing endorsement at all. Its not a secret that the original gripen struggled with power, the whole "only 3 percent growth" in the advertisement was supposed to put that to bed and assuage fears that it would be gutless.

There is a saying in Czech, "one who wans to beat a dog always finds a stick". You kept saying that Gripen E has a worse T/W than the original Gripen, when I point out that may not be true, you start claiming the T/W was always bad.
Can we put this one to bed? if you want to come after me for being a hypocrite that's easy, my almost 3 year old does that all the time "but daddy you said... "

Yeah, let's. I would only be repeating what I already said earlier, and I don't think we are so much in disagreement. Canada's predictions turned out to be right but they might as well have turned out to be wrong. They were unable to justify it in front of the people.
it just doesn't add much to the thread, but knock yourself out. but before you do, please remember you were telling us Saab could accurately price things out to a design youre also telling us was in constant flux, and of course I've gone over how a small fleet, much smaller than their estimates could affect costs.

Sorry, that's a misunderstanding. Whether you're Saab, LM or any other manufacturer, you have a general idea of what it's going to cost to maintain an aircraft you are developing. For a conservative, evolutionary design like the Gripen E, that shouldn't be hard. Of course, as the design changes, the estimates may also change. If the aircraft becomes heavier, it will need more fuel, some components may be replaced earlier due to more stress, etc. Where economies of scale apply, obviously you don't know in advance how many aircraft you're going to sell and that may skew your calculations. But I've repeatedly tried to explain that spare parts are only part of maintenance costs and that small fleets of aircraft exist and are not prohibitively expensive to operate, with the Gripen C/D being one example. For a small air force that would be buying 8-12 planes it is not ideal to operate a type that almost nobody else has. But Canada is looking to buy about 65 aircraft (Saab offered them 88), so is Finland; if either one chose the Gripen E, that would make the fleet size close to the number of Gripen C/Ds flying now.
If you want to let us in on all the Gripen E/F sales the next 10 years, and overall numbers I'd love to hear it. F-35 had whats called a "Program of Record" its pretty helpful when you're trying to figure cost and fleet things out.

Obviously we both know that the Gripen does not have a backlog of 1000+ orders from the USAF. We can only guess how successful it's going to be in the sales competitions it's currently involved in. That's what companies do to estimate cash flow, they look at deals in the pipeline, guess how likely they're going to win, multiply the $ by the % and add it all up. Apart from Canada and Finland where the Gripen is up against the F-35, Saab is participating in several bids where the F-16 will be the most serious competition. Namely in Colombia and Philippines they have a good chance of winning, though both would be small deals.
how dare you? Implying its not a TRUE multi-role fighter? :lmao:

It is multirole, but with obvious limitations of being a light aircraft. Sweden wanted a fighter suitable for the country's defense (with the dispersed base capability, quick turnaround and all that, which is why I'm sad Switzerland hasn't bought it because it would have been a great fit), not a freedom and democracy dispenser. That's why the Gripen is what it is. USAF and RAF wanted a plane with good air-to-ground capabilities as they have F-22 and EF Typhoon for air superiority, and that's why the F-35A is what it is.
and why on earth was Saab then and now competing it against the joint STRIKE fighter? That seems stupid doesn't?

Why is LM entering their strike fighter into competitions for what should be primarily air superiority fighters? Finland is a neutral country, much like Sweden, that doesn't plan on attacking anyone. The ability to destroy enemy SAMs is probably not the highest priority of their air force. Canada needs to guard its own airspace but it also wants to participate in foreign missions, so they need a good balance of abilities in a single type and it will always be a compromise.
Can you handle it when people point out the many issues with F-35?

LOL is this a serious question?

Well then let's see you jump as a jack out of the box, saying how this is inaccurate and outdated.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 81.article
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... production
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... y-problems
The one that all the Europeans are buying up instead of the Gripen E? that one?

"All the Europeans" that bought it recently are Slovakia and Bulgaria. 22 planes in total. (Romania is replacing their MiG-21s with F-16s, too, but used ones.) Slovakia had an offer for Gripen C/Ds but they made a political decision to buy American fighters to strenghten their alliance with the US, and never even sought an offer for Gripen E. I wasn't following Bulgaria closely but they had an expert commission that selected the Gripen C/D (either from storage or used), the competing offer was used F-16A/Bs. Then they decided they want to buy new aircraft instead of used and that they want to buy from a NATO member instead of a neutral country. Thus the Gripen E was never considered and under these conditions the F-16 Block 70 was the only one in their price range.

eagle3000 wrote:What some people choose to ignore is that the idea behind Gripen E evolved. At first, it was little more than increasing internal fuel by moving the gear to the wing roots. Estimated weight for that was 7000 kg.
Later, the program added a lot of additional stuff, resulting in Gripen E we see now. Estimated weight for that is 8000 kg. We don't know the actual empty weight afaik. But hopefully it's not north of 8 tons :wink:

Yes, that makes sense. But I would expect that 8000 kg is a final number since the design has been final for a few years now.

ricnunes wrote:Moreover that "swiveling radar" of the Gripen E will certainly do wonders for its frontal RCS

I don't really want to get into a discussion of which plane has the lower RCS since the true numbers are classified and we can only guess, but I'm curious, could you elaborate on this in particular? Assuming the radar antenna acts as a mirror, it will contribute to RCS from whatever angle it's pointing, that's why a stealth plane would usually angle itself not directly against a target but a few degrees off. Same would go for a plane with swashplate radar, you would lock it in a position where it sees the target but doesn't reflect directly back at it. What am I missing?
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 22:44

ricnunes wrote:
I couldn't care less about Saab's BULLSH*T!
Saab has lied/exaggerated about the aircraft's (Gripen E) empty weight, range, price and a myriad of other things more concrete and "less classified". Why wouldn't they be lying or more precisely exaggerating about the Gripen C RCS (and thus also about Gripen E RCS)? This is also a rhetoric question.

On the other hand if you always or really believe what the manufacturers say then there's what Xander already posted which is:
- Boeing claims that the Super Hornet is the fighter aircraft with the lowest RCS except for the F-22 and F-35. Why don't you believe in this? Because it doesn't fit your narrative, perhaps??
So given Saab's record, I guess that I'll take the Boeing's word over Saab's at anytime. But of course what makes me having 100% sure that the Super Hornet has a lower RCS compared to the Gripen E isn't Boeing's word alone. This is like a puzzle and after putting all the pieces together - which you can find above, either on mine and others posts - the pieces fit together regarding the Super Hornet but they sure don't fit when it comes to the Gripen E.

In fairness to SAAB. It's not SAAB that is claiming the 0.1, it's the fanboys. It comes from the fabricated document that has been waved around for many years. marsavian is well aware of this, but like many other things. He ignores the reality of it.

As to the new influx of Gripen fans, I blame keypub for changing their forum layout and taking their home away. This is where this stuff belongs.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 22:50

It's an official Swedish Defense document.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 00:27

marsavian wrote:It's an official Swedish Defense document.

They altered a document to say that gripen had 0.1 There is no official document that says this. Please post it if you say there is.
Your **** on this subject is tiresome. The ISRN number is a real document and was posted here last year. What is the lie is that it says the Jas-39 has a RCS of 0.1. This is a fabrication.

Image
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 00:41

Those statements on that page are a direct translation of a quote from page 48 of the 5.6 Mb FOI-R--0338--SE document which is attached in the linked post below. Nothing has been altered or changed.

viewtopic.php?p=434539#p434539
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25102
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 01:28

Well Well Well Allo Allo Allo the 'current PDF document' was created 2002 and apparently it is LOCKED which means it cannot be EDITED - HOWEVER it was MODIFIED in 2012 according to the PDF document properties (seen in ACROBAT).
Attachments
NORSKmodifiedDOCdate.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 01:36

The link changed to it twice. I downloaded it on the link I posted last year which is now dead too, don't know where the link is to it now. The rest of the numbers in the document don't add up if that RCS number is changed.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Feb 2020, 01:55

marsavian wrote:Those statements on that page are a direct translation of a quote from page 48 of the 5.6 Mb FOI-R--0338--SE document which is attached in the linked post below. Nothing has been altered or changed.

viewtopic.php?p=434539#p434539

Show me, give me the page and paragraph where it says jas-39 0.1 .
You gave me a dead link on the f-16 forum. :doh:
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--0338--SE
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: joost, quicksilver and 9 guests