Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[stigmata]

The Air Force’s goals for the aircraft require substantial
increases in maneuverability; decreases in detectability, take-off and
landing distances, and maintainability; and new capabilities such as ability
to cruise at supersonic speeds for long distances. The ATF program
has elevated supportability and affordability to a co-equal status with
performance.

The Air Force is striving to incorporate technologies and capabilirles
into the ATF that have never been incorporated before on an air superiority
fighter. For example, the expected highly integrated avionics and the
supersonic cruise and short take-off and landing capabilities arc nttw for
a high performance air superiority fighter.

Yep supersonic cruise and performance. Still nothing about the top speed of the aircraft.

again, not one reference to absolute speeed as a primary design element.

You are confusing supercruise with top speed, it is not the same thing.
Supercruise is the ability to maintain speed over Mach 1 dry thrust, =without the use of afterburner in level flight.

The use of afterburner will increase that speed, and will allow you to reach top speed.
The catch is that fuel consumtion quadraples while speed not even double with this method.

There is no doubt top speed will remain important, but having significantly higher speed at fuel economic dry thrust offer some serious advantages.
I never mentioned top speed, i was talking about supercruise.
An F-22 has the potential to reach M1.75 at 35.000 feet dry thrust, and M2.4+ with afterburner

 

[Grand Danois]

Which countries are you refering to?

Norway and Denmark have never used that regarding their doctrine.
what i'm aware of, actually i can't remeber a singel NATO country use similar mobile roadbases like Sweden and Finland.

From mwmory: RAF (Harrier), USAF (A-10), Luftwaffe (F-104)...

All in Germany during the Cold War.

As far as Denmark is concerned: I understand that a lot of auxillary air bases were available for the influx of RAF during mobilisation (adding about 280 jets for Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein).

 

[Grand Danois]

3. Gripen can be made ready for the next mission by 1 mechanic and 4 conscripts. In a war such robustness and ease of maintainance can be an important capability.



V

Hi V,

I think Base-90 (the Swedish concept) is great, but I wonder if the present and future road network in Norway might be too heavily constrained by topography for it to be implemented?

 

[Vivendi]

You are confusing supercruise with top speed, it is not the same thing.
Supercruise is the ability to maintain speed over Mach 1 dry thrust, =without the use of afterburner in level flight.

The use of afterburner will increase that speed, and will allow you to reach top speed.
The catch is that fuel consumtion quadraples while speed not even double with this method.

There is no doubt top speed will remain important, but having significantly higher speed at fuel economic dry thrust offer some serious advantages.
I never mentioned top speed, i was talking about supercruise.
An F-22 has the potential to reach M1.75 at 35.000 feet dry thrust, and M2.4+ with afterburner

In addition to the above, supercruise offers the advantage of high speed at a low IR signature; AFAIK, the use of A/B will cause the IR signature of both F-35 and F-22 to increase significantly, compromising the IR aspect of stealth.


V

 

[Vivendi]

Hi V,

I think Base-90 (the Swedish concept) is great, but I wonder if the present and future road network in Norway might be too heavily constrained by topography for it to be implemented?

In a war with an enemy that has much greater resources it can be helpful to operate robust and easily maintained equipment, even if road bases are not employed.

V

 

[Grand Danois]

In a war with an enemy that has much greater resources it can be helpful to operate robust and easily maintained equipment, even if road bases are not employed.

V

Ah. I misread you. I took it you was referring to road mobile basing.

 

[stigmata]

Hi V,

I think Base-90 (the Swedish concept) is great, but I wonder if the present and future road network in Norway might be too heavily constrained by topography for it to be implemented?

You might be on something there GD, especially in northern Norway, where the fighters would without doubt be operating if worst scenario come true.

Call it wishful thinking if you wish, but i dont believe worst scenario will materialize as long as MAD is still relevant.

Should'nt it be a 1st class priority to prepare dispersed airfields in Norway if worst nightmare seem to materialize ?

gf said Germany and Switzerland are also using the doctrine, or is there any significant difference ?

edit: someone in this thread or otherwise in dt concluded a smal airforce will be annihilated on the ground, i holly agree with the assessment.

 

[Vivendi]

If you want to develop something better than what is rehashes of COTS/MOTS today, you develop new.

Like the engine for the Gripen NG - 414G - it was developed and was brand new once. It is really not going to be developed much further now. The end of the upgrade path.

So you develop new engines, like the F-135, which will take you beyond tinkering with older engines. And you put them in new planes - which also are built with newer technology and improved concepts and to new concepts. And then you upgrade them.

To put it to the point, in the fighter context: "COTS/MOTS was leading bleeding edge yesterday."

Otherwise, following your concept, you'd be showing up with a modded Ford T in a Formula 1 race.

The reason why COTS/MOTS is cheap is because someone took the effort to spend the money to develop them.

But I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge the lower level of systems integration and sensor fusion on the Gripen.

The advantage of COTS is that you can upgrade more often since it's cheaper. If you develop something new and you wait 10 years to update, after those 10 years, the COTS based system can easily have surpassed you if updated, say, every 3 years.


The F414 is certainly not at the end of it's upgrade path. Thrust can be grown by another 30%. When it comes to engines I would favor robustness and reliability more than being on the "bleeding edge". F414 als has some quite advanced IR signature reduction techniques. Don't underestimate the Super Hornet engine, made by one of the leading engine developers in the world.

Re: sensor fusion and MMI on Gripen NG: To quote from the Danish evaluation team: "Wow!" and "very innovative!".


V

 

[Aussie Digger]

You are confusing supercruise with top speed, it is not the same thing.
Supercruise is the ability to maintain speed over Mach 1 dry thrust, =without the use of afterburner in level flight.

No we weren't. We were responding to those who described "speed" as an important component of air combat. It isn't so critical. Acceleration is FAR more important.

As for your definition of "supercruise", I can't say I really agree with it. L-M's definition is achieving speeds of M1.7 on dry thrust because innumerable aircraft (including the F-16) can actually supercruise if one is to use your definition.

It is an overrated capability anyway IMHO. It does not "double sortie rate" as Carlo Kopp suggests it will, but it does decrease the operational range of the aircraft employing the capability. It doesn't use fuel as quickly as reheat does, but whenever you produce more power from an engine you use more fuel. The F-22 is reportedly reduced to a range of 290nm when using it's supercruise capability "all the time" and it's a big fighter with a big internal fuel load. Imagine what smaller fighters with less fuel manage to achieve when they do a similar thing?

A pretty ordinary tradeoff wouldn't you say?

The only reason the Eurofighter consortium and SAAB even mention the term is because the F-22 possesses an obvious capability. Every single tactical fighter in the world is going to spend the major part of it's lifespan cruising efficiently at high subsonic speeds.

Supercruise is most usual for impressing those whose ability to understand these things is not great. It's operational usefulness is dubious at best.

The use of afterburner will increase that speed, and will allow you to reach top speed.
The catch is that fuel consumtion quadraples while speed not even double with this method.

Precisely why having a large internal fuel load is such a huge benefit. More fuel = greater range or more use of an afterburner. Internal fuel = less drag.

There is no doubt top speed will remain important, but having significantly higher speed at fuel economic dry thrust offer some serious advantages.
I never mentioned top speed, i was talking about supercruise.
An F-22 has the potential to reach M1.75 at 35.000 feet dry thrust, and M2.4+ with afterburner

F-22 has never demonstrated that sort of speed. At best it has been publicly disclosed that F-22 has reached M1.68 or M1.72 in supercruise mode, depending on who you choose to believe.

No speeds on reheat have been publicly discussed AFAIK.

At the end of the day, Supercruising reduces the F-22's operational range to such a degree that it will rarely be used in most circumstances.

 

[Grand Danois]

The advantage of COTS is that you can upgrade more often since it's cheaper. If you develop something new and you wait 10 years to update, after those 10 years, the COTS based system can easily have surpassed you if updated, say, every 3 years.

Partially acknowledged. The systems that benefit from the COTS approach, like processing power, eg. CPUs and software certainly benefit. Some sensors can benefit from MOTS (eg. MMICs). However, many other sensors and engines don't have that benefit - you'll have to develop new. And stealth is certainly not mots/cots.

The F414 is certainly not at the end of it's upgrade path. Thrust can be grown by another 30%. When it comes to engines I would favor robustness and reliability more than being on the "bleeding edge". F414 als has some quite advanced IR signature reduction techniques. Don't underestimate the Super Hornet engine, made by one of the leading engine developers in the world.

Except that the F-135 is probably more "robust" than the 414. At least "robust" enough that the USN/USMC have aceepted to rely on a single engined fighter. And its built to be reliable and low-maint.

I knew I might be caught out on the 414. But isn't the G the one with the 30% increase in thrust?

Re: sensor fusion and MMI on Gripen NG: To quote from the Danish evaluation team: "Wow!" and "very innovative!".

V

Coming from F-16s (But the MMI on the Gripen is very innovative.)

 

[stigmata]

No we weren't. We were responding to those who described "speed" as an important component of air combat. It isn't so critical. Acceleration is FAR more important.

As for your definition of "supercruise", I can't say I really agree with it. L-M's definition is achieving speeds of M1.7 on dry thrust because innumerable aircraft (including the F-16) can actually supercruise if one is to use your definition.

It is an overrated capability anyway IMHO. It does not "double sortie rate" as Carlo Kopp suggests it will, but it does decrease the operational range of the aircraft employing the capability. It doesn't use fuel as quickly as reheat does, but whenever you produce more power from an engine you use more fuel. The F-22 is reportedly reduced to a range of 290nm when using it's supercruise capability "all the time" and it's a big fighter with a big internal fuel load. Imagine what smaller fighters with less fuel manage to achieve when they do a similar thing?

A pretty ordinary tradeoff wouldn't you say?

The only reason the Eurofighter consortium and SAAB even mention the term is because the F-22 possesses an obvious capability. Every single tactical fighter in the world is going to spend the major part of it's lifespan cruising efficiently at high subsonic speeds.

Supercruise is most usual for impressing those whose ability to understand these things is not great. It's operational usefulness is dubious at best.



Precisely why having a large internal fuel load is such a huge benefit. More fuel = greater range or more use of an afterburner. Internal fuel = less drag.



F-22 has never demonstrated that sort of speed. At best it has been publicly disclosed that F-22 has reached M1.68 or M1.72 in supercruise mode, depending on who you choose to believe.

No speeds on reheat have been publicly discussed AFAIK.

At the end of the day, Supercruising reduces the F-22's operational range to such a degree that it will rarely be used in most circumstances.

I don't want to put words in anyones mouth, but this is gd's own words...

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
The first 4-7 seconds are thrust - the rest of the flight including manouvre is based on energy.

like jet fighter combat - energy is the key to engagement. if the engagement loop is too long, if the red platform has superior flight behaviour under power, if red team has better energy management, then any missile going terminal running on energy will be at risk.

all the fancy stats in the world don't change that simple but significant impediment.

it's an energy war in the end

So i don't think

No we weren't. We were responding to those who described "speed" as an important component of air combat. It isn't so critical. Acceleration is FAR more important.

actually include gf's view, tho this view was not connected to Lockheed Martin or JSF in any way, so his view might change in this thread

More specifically, if an aircraft has anywhere near the speed the missile has, and has a missile aproach warner system (MAWS), the No Escape Zone (NEZ) shrinks to nuffing (playing cat&mouse until the 2 missiles on JSF is expanded)

 

[Grand Danois]

You mean gf.

And gf and AD are in agreement - acceleration is more important than top speed.

Enter the fast transients.

 

[Vivendi]

Partially acknowledged. The systems that benefit from the COTS approach, like processing power, eg. CPUs and software certainly benefit. Some sensors can benefit from MOTS (eg. MMICs). However, many other sensors and engines don't have that benefit - you'll have to develop new. And stealth is certainly not mots/cots.


Except that the F-135 is probably more "robust" than the 414. At least "robust" enough that the USN/USMC have aceepted to rely on a single engined fighter. And its built to be reliable and low-maint.

I knew I might be caught out on the 414. But isn't the G the one with the 30% increase in thrust?

I agree that the F-135 is probably also going to be very robust. I really don't see a need for an engine more robust than the 414. Difference in robustness levels will be hard to measure. Interestingly some of the improvements in F414 are actually from RM12 and lincensed from Volvo.

To my knowledge the F414 version for gripen NG will not have 30% increase compared to the current F414. AFAIK RM12 has 10% increase compared to F404; F414 is 35% above 404, and the NG engine is said to be "approximately 25% above RM12". OTOH you never know what those pesky Swedes are up to...

Coming from F-16s (But the MMI on the Gripen is very innovative.)

Yes, but I believe that the Danish evaluation team also has had some exposure to the Typhoon MMI (before Eurofighter quite the race) as well as SH and F-35. The MMI on Gripen NG is according to Saab a significant upgrade from the current Gripen MMI.


V

 

[Grand Danois]

To my knowledge the F414 version for gripen NG will not have 30% increase compared to the current F414. AFAIK RM12 has 10% increase compared to F404; F414 is 35% above 404, and the NG engine is said to be "approximately 25% above RM12". OTOH you never know what those pesky Swedes are up to...

OK, so it's the 414-400 on the Gripen NG. Volvo did substantial and impressive work on the 404, but it's my impression that they're not going to do that to the 414.

Btw, an excellent articel in Swedish on the GE404 -> RM12 work.

http://www.idg.se/17.108/2.1085/1.174315

 

[stigmata]

You mean gf.

And gf and AD are in agreement - acceleration is more important than top speed.

Enter the fast transients.

lol allow me to edit emmidietly
:drunk1

 

[stigmata]

Fanboys point out that SAAB has announced the Gripen CAN supercruise. Ergo the Gripen has an advantage right? What is supercruise?....Perhaps it's what L-M claims it means. The ability to fly at sustained supersonic speeds at M1.7 or above, on dry thrust. SAAB disagrees with that definition. Of course it does. It's fighter can barely make that speed on full mil power.

And by the same token: JSF/F-22/LM Fanboys/Lobbyists/shareholders point out that only F-22 can supercruise Is'nt that facinating ?

 

[swerve]

As for your definition of "supercruise", I can't say I really agree with it. L-M's definition is achieving speeds of M1.7 on dry thrust because innumerable aircraft (including the F-16) can actually supercruise if one is to use your definition.

Not quite. That definition is chosen for one reason, & one reason only: it's what the F-22 can do & other fighters can't. The LM definition is derived entirely from F-22 performance. All arguments they use in favour of that definition are post facto. We know this precisely because of how their definition has changed over time: it has always matched the published F-22 performance figures, & excluded other aircraft. When another aircraft has demonstrated performance that matched the LM definition, LM has changed their definition.

Call me cynical if you like, but I've tracked the changes over the years, & the pattern is unmistakable. And personally, I strongly dislike having the meanings of any terms dictated to me by any firms marketing department, & I therefore reject the LM definition. I'd do the same if it was a Dassault, Sukhoi, Saab or any other firms definition, or a politician distorting language, e.g. Margaret Thatchers attempt to redefine "federal" to mean "centralised". I object on principle to the mutilation of language to suit the aims of particular individuals or groups. It is a pernicious practice, which should be resisted wherever it is attempted.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So i don't think actually include gf's view, tho this view was not connected to Lockheed Martin or JSF in any way, so his view might change in this thread

You might want to engage pause in future before posting in case I begin to think that you're trolling.

I will argue on facts in the debate - it's irrelevant to me whether the plane comes from Mars or Sweden - as your implied response is.

Here's a simple concept for you.

If one plane reaches supercruise (non AB thrust supersonic at Mach 1), and aother can reach and hold supercruise at Mach 1.4+ (Typhoon and F-22) - then guess who has a platform energy advantage?

The physical air battle is about energy management (in simple terms, but not excluding electronic and signature management issues) - absolute speed is the least important delta in that battle.

and then we factor in the weapons systems, ewarfare systems and regional/theatre battlespace systems on top of this.

it's the system that counts.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is no doubt top speed will remain important, but having significantly higher speed at fuel economic dry thrust offer some serious advantages.
I never mentioned top speed, i was talking about supercruise.
An F-22 has the potential to reach M1.75 at 35.000 feet dry thrust, and M2.4+ with afterburner

Don;'t make the mistake of thinking that supercruise is fuel efficient. While only full military power is applied and no reheat for the F-22 to reach those speeds requires a lot more fuel consumption than at efficient cruise (Mach 0.8) the difference is actually quite huge. 100 NM at supercruise (~M 1.5) equals about 300 NM at efficient cruise (~M 0.8) for the F-22. That is with a 200 NM supercruise stage mission range is reduced to 820 NM (range not radius) on a full tank of gas. The F-22 flying at M 0.8 can fly 1,200 NM (range not radius) the same as an F-35 at similar speed.

The original designers of the F-22 for the ATF RFP had a much higher fuel fraction so the aircraft could get a lot more out of supercruise. But since its importance was seen to be less and less in a network centric environment (who needs speed of flight when you know what's going on around you) fuel got cut by 1/4-1/3 during detailed design.

Considering the altitude limitations of the F-22 and supercruise its hard to really see the benefit in weapon's launch compared to the F-35 as the later can dash before launch. With the F-35's weapons bay growth potential to up to 12 internal carriage AMRAAM/ASRAAM (according to USAFRL), it's DAS and LOAL capability and better sensor integration it will be a superior ATA platform to the F-22.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

More specifically, if an aircraft has anywhere near the speed the missile has, and has a missile aproach warner system (MAWS), the No Escape Zone (NEZ) shrinks to nuffing (playing cat&mouse until the 2 missiles on JSF is expanded)

The most significant effect on speed or energy is maneuver. You change your vector and you lose energy. The F-35 thanks to its DAS/LOAL and high level of sensor integration onboard and offboard does not need to maneuver in a dogfight. It just keeps flying where it wants to go while everyone else has to respond and use their nose authority to stay in the battle.

If you look at the most equal WVR scenario with one on one fighters passing each other at the merge the F-35 will win against ANY fighter: F-22, FLANKER, a stripped down YF-16A with HMD/AIM-9X, IAF Miro from '67, even Clint Eastwood in the FIREFOX.

As for it being limited to only two missiles. This is crazy. The original internal weapons config gives it four internal missile stores (up to 12 more external). The original internal stores is for one per bay to support a very large JSOW type weapon, there is plenty of space in there. USAFRL has designed two new configurations one for four AMRAAM/ASRAAM sized missiles per bay and another, that doesn't 'follow the rules', for six.