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

[swerve]

...
And if we get refurbished, surplus swedish Gripens, how much industry involvement can you get?

They've not been offered to Norway, or Denmark. Neither their requirements nor their timescales fit.

The surplus Swedish Gripens are being offered to countries (all poorer, AFAIK) which want aircraft sooner, the advantage being that they can get unrefurbished aircraft very quickly, to be replaced by refurbished or new airframes later.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If you are talking Typhoon v F-35, I'll give you range, but not payload.

I'd give range AND payload.

Payload includes fuel remember? F-35 has almost as much fuel on internal alone as a Typhoon does with a full internal load and three full external tanks.

F-35: 12.7 ton aircraft with 43,000lbs of thrust...

Typhoon: 11.4ton aircraft with 40,000lbs of thrust...

 

[oldsoak]

"Payload includes fuel remember?"

- eh ? I've got differing figures for payload and internal fuel for the F35A + C variants - the fuel being the larger faction. Surely if payload includes fuel, then we would not expect this ?

 

[Todjaeger]

"Payload includes fuel remember?"

- eh ? I've got differing figures for payload and internal fuel for the F35A + C variants - the fuel being the larger faction. Surely if payload includes fuel, then we would not expect this ?

I do not believe this is correct. AFAIK payload refers to the various stores that are carried by an aircraft, missiles, bombs, pods etc. The internal fuel carried by an aircraft is not included in the payload, however fuel carried in drop tanks would be included.

This becomes a factor when comparing the range and payload capacities of aircraft that have a low vs. high amount of internal fuel. In order for an aircraft with comparatively little internal fuel to have the same range, (in this case) drop tanks need to be used to achieve a similar fuel supply. In turn, having the drop tanks would reduce the speed of the aircraft due to drag, as well as reduce the max available payload by the weight of the fuel & tanks. Lastly, the hardpoints on the aircraft would not be available to carry other types of stores. Given that not all hardpoints are rated for the same weight, the loss of availability of hardpoints for external fuel could significantly impact a mission.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

"Payload includes fuel remember?"

- eh ? I've got differing figures for payload and internal fuel for the F35A + C variants - the fuel being the larger faction. Surely if payload includes fuel, then we would not expect this ?

The A and C model F-35's are different beasts, with the C model having a larger wing area and greater internal fuel.

I expect the difference is not that large in your figures...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I do not believe this is correct. AFAIK payload refers to the various stores that are carried by an aircraft, missiles, bombs, pods etc. The internal fuel carried by an aircraft is not included in the payload, however fuel carried in drop tanks would be included.

This becomes a factor when comparing the range and payload capacities of aircraft that have a low vs. high amount of internal fuel. In order for an aircraft with comparatively little internal fuel to have the same range, (in this case) drop tanks need to be used to achieve a similar fuel supply. In turn, having the drop tanks would reduce the speed of the aircraft due to drag, as well as reduce the max available payload by the weight of the fuel & tanks. Lastly, the hardpoints on the aircraft would not be available to carry other types of stores. Given that not all hardpoints are rated for the same weight, the loss of availability of hardpoints for external fuel could significantly impact a mission.

-Cheers

It's included because it is weight the aircraft must lift off the ground. An aircraft doesn't NEED to have a full tank to take off, but we're talking about combat configurations here and I cannot imagine a combat scenario where an aircraft would take off without full internal tanks, unless there was an emergency of some sort, or your refuelling assets are plentiful...

In any case the original point was that the Typhoon has a greater payload capacity than the F-35, which I very much doubt.

 

[Scorpion82]

I'd give range AND payload.

Payload includes fuel remember? F-35 has almost as much fuel on internal alone as a Typhoon does with a full internal load and three full external tanks.

F-35: 12.7 ton aircraft with 43,000lbs of thrust...

Typhoon: 11.4ton aircraft with 40,000lbs of thrust...

Where do you get these figures?

According Eurofighter GmBH empty weight is 11 t, while LM stated 13.2 t as empty weight for the F-35A in a press briefing one year ago.

 

[energo]

Not spending too much time researching these days I was quite surprised about an article on defenseindustrydaily.com about the F-35 hitting serious design problems.

It is claiming :

So now I'm wondering if Norway might be pushed towards Gripen or Eurofighter a bit more as full air superiority/ interceptor capabilities are definitely required given the reappearance of the legendary bears...

Norway is in the favorable situation that it doesn't have to rush its decition on which plane to go for. If the F-35 problems are solved within a reasonable timeframe and doesn't significantly impact flyaway unit cost, then I see no reason why this would tip in favor of the Gripen or EF. One has to remember that the EF and in particular Gripen program are also under considerable risk and could escalate cost-wise as none of them are currently in the configuration required by the Norwegian Air Force. The Gripen NG is very much on the drawing board, and its development is not within the current program budget. It might even end up more expensive than the F-35.


Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo, Norway

Admin, Bernard, I have deleted your family name for privacy issues. It is of course your choice if you want it displayed, but my advice would be not to have it on display for the whole spamming world to see....

 

[Waylander]

What special configuration aspect cannot be offered by the EF?

Are you thinking about integration of special weapons like NSM?

 

[energo]

What special configuration aspect cannot be offered by the EF?

Are you thinking about integration of special weapons like NSM?

The planned Tranche 3 version from 2012.


Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo, Norway

Admin, Bernard, I have deleted your family name for privacy issues. It is of course your choice if you want it displayed, but my advice would be not to have it on display for the whole spamming world to see....

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have read that the F-35 can carry 4 AAMs or 2 AAMs and 2 Bombs internaly, these can can any mix of AIM-9 or AIM-120 AAMs, JDAM, Paveway, JASOW, SDB and many more. It can also carry 6 external weapons, two wingtip stations can carry AIM-9 Sidewinders and 4 weapon stations under the wings and these can be AIM-120 AAMs, many types of bombs and missles or fuel tanks. So in the Air Supariorty role it can carry 10 AAMs or in the close air support, light bomber, and tactacle strike role it can carry 4 AAMs and up to 6 2000lbs bombs(the F-35 can carry more bombs if they use the SDB).

 

[kilo]

I would definitely go with the gripen it can perform more missions per day than the F-35 or the Typhoon. This will be invaluable considering the size of the Norwegian air force compared with the Russian air force. Also an areas like reconnaissance the gripen is superior. A force of 60 or so gripens would be great. It would also be cheaper than Typhoon.

 

[Grand Danois]

As far as I can tell, the delays of the JSF won't collide with a 2015+ delivery schedule to Norway.

JSF is the superior maritime reconaissance aircraft - no contest, from a sensor, range and persistence perspective.

I'd hazard the Typhoon is the best interceptor in the Norwegian context.

Where the yet to be developed Gripen NG fits in, I wouldn't know. But it is probably the cheapest.

 

[energo]

I would definitely go with the gripen it can perform more missions per day than the F-35 or the Typhoon. This will be invaluable considering the size of the Norwegian air force compared with the Russian air force. Also an areas like reconnaissance the gripen is superior. A force of 60 or so gripens would be great. It would also be cheaper than Typhoon.

The Gripen is an excellent plane, but from a technical point of view not the right one for Norway. Its 1980s era design and airframe, short range and standoff performance as well as a mediocre avionics and sensor suit makes it a minimum, but not a good choice for the future battlefield. Add to that a fairly steep price for its capabilities and the F-35, or preferably the F-22, is the better choice.


Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo, Norway

Admin, Bernard, I have deleted your family name for privacy issues. It is of course your choice if you want it displayed, but my advice would be not to have it on display for the whole spamming world to see....

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would definitely go with the gripen it can perform more missions per day than the F-35 or the Typhoon. This will be invaluable considering the size of the Norwegian air force compared with the Russian air force. Also an areas like reconnaissance the gripen is superior. A force of 60 or so gripens would be great. It would also be cheaper than Typhoon.

How is the Gripen superior to either the F-35 OR Typhoon in areas like reconnaissance? It's radar is certainly not as capable as either radar system that will be fitted to the Typhoon or F-35 and it's other system show no improvement, certainly when compared to the F-35, which will feature a development of the current Sniper XR series of targetting pods, which is amongst if not the most advanced targetting pod in-service.

F-35 will also have DAS ( http://www.jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_technology_das.jpg ). Show me an aircraft that is planned to ever have anything like it?

Can you show why the Gripen would be capable of performing more missions per day than a similar sized fleet of Typhoons or F-35?

 

[Scorpion82]

The Gripen is an excellent plane, but from a technical point of view not the right one for Norway. Its 1980s era design and airframe, short range and standoff performance as well as a mediocre avionics and sensor suit makes it a minimum, but not a good choice for the future battlefield. Add to that a fairly steep price for its capabilities and the F-35, or preferably the F-22, is the better choice.


Ragards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo, Norway

Typhoon nearly as old as the Gripen (from the design finalisation point of view). The Gripen NG which offered to Norway will be much more advanced than the current examples, including significantly longer range thanks to ~40 % more internal fuel and the ability to carry up to 4 instead of 3 drop tanks.
The price of the Gripen is not to high in my opinion at least not for current versions and I think its reasonable too. The F-22 is out of question at all.
In the end I hope for Typhoon in Norway, but that's just my personal hope.

 

[Scorpion82]

F-35 will also have DAS ( http://www.jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_technology_das.jpg ). Show me an aircraft that is planned to ever have anything like it?

The Raptor maybe
Honestly there was an article about LM looking for possibilities to further develope the F-22's MLDs to act as FLIR & IRST as well.
By the way all the talk about the F-35's unique technologies reminds me about what was said about the F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter etc. back in the 90's. Many of the so called unique technologies can be found on todays teen/teenski fighters as well. Let pass some more years and we'll probably see a lot of similar technologies on current jets around the same time when the F-35 enters service, maybe not all but many of them. That's at least my guess, looking at the references.

 

[Grand Danois]

Something that just dawned on me, is that because the EOTS is integrated in the F-35, it is also "integrated" into the unit cost, whereas for the Gripen and EF2000 it is "extra". High end targeting pods comes in at around 2m+ USD, iirc.

Another detail is that the F-35 won't suffer from that (minor?) extra drag from an external pod - more range.

EF2000 does have Pirate, though.

 

[energo]

Typhoon nearly as old as the Gripen (from the design finalisation point of view). The Gripen NG which offered to Norway will be much more advanced than the current examples, including significantly longer range thanks to ~40 % more internal fuel and the ability to carry up to 4 instead of 3 drop tanks.
The price of the Gripen is not to high in my opinion at least not for current versions and I think its reasonable too. The F-22 is out of question at all.
In the end I hope for Typhoon in Norway, but that's just my personal hope.

Perhaps, but the only real obsticle for getting the F-22 is political will. Technically and cost wise it's by far the most attractive option.

The Gripen NG, despite its considerable upgrades, will still be the poorest performer of the three current candidates. There is no getting around that if it was to enter Norwegian service around 2015-2020 it will basically be a 20-25 year old design. Morever, unit cost is likely to end up in the 100 million dollar territory - including spares and parts - which is about the same as the F-35.

A few parallels can be drawn to the situation in 1975 when the Saab Viggen and F-16 were contenders. The Viggen was a capable aircraft, but the F-16 - although expensive - represented the future. Today very few regret the F-16 choice.


Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo, Norway

 

[energo]

The Raptor maybe
Honestly there was an article about LM looking for possibilities to further develope the F-22's MLDs to act as FLIR & IRST as well.
By the way all the talk about the F-35's unique technologies reminds me about what was said about the F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter etc. back in the 90's. Many of the so called unique technologies can be found on todays teen/teenski fighters as well. Let pass some more years and we'll probably see a lot of similar technologies on current jets around the same time when the F-35 enters service, maybe not all but many of them. That's at least my guess, looking at the references.

I think that's a reasonable estimate. What sets the F-35 apart will be the internal bays, stealth and that it will introduce new avionics and maintainance technologies out of the box as well as having the best growth and service life potential. It's the best candidate today to "fill the gap" before the introduction of capable multirole UAVs towards the latter part of this century.


Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo, Norway