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

[Aussie Digger]

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.

Nope. Try again. The F-22 has NO EO/IR targetting system of any kind, much less a 360 degree passive surveillance system, distributed around the aircraft...

What you won't find is these capabilities, carried internally on any other fighter. The F-22 might get an internal targetting pod, there is weight and space for it apparently, but it hasn't been funded and I doubt it's a big priority at present. Trying to get more and introduce full operational capability of the ones they already have would be the USAF's priority, I expect...

 

[Scorpion82]

Nope. Try again. The F-22 has NO EO/IR targetting system of any kind, much less a 360 degree passive surveillance system, distributed around the aircraft...

What you won't find is these capabilities, carried internally on any other fighter. The F-22 might get an internal targetting pod, there is weight and space for it apparently, but it hasn't been funded and I doubt it's a big priority at present. Trying to get more and introduce full operational capability of the ones they already have would be the USAF's priority, I expect...

I haven't said the F-22 has any EO/IR systems for targeting. I just refered to an article in which was said that LM is studying possiblities to use the aircraft's MLDs (a couple of IR sensors distributed over the airframe) not just for missile warning, but as IRST and FLIR as well. Very much like the Lightning II's DAS. But it was neither said that the Raptor has such a system, nor that it is planned.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/07/204487/lockheed-eyes-ir-opportunity.html

 

[Scorpion82]

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.

Cost wise the most attractive option? Ehm you know that the F-22 is the most expensive combat aircraft ever? And how would you perform maritime missions with the F-22?

Honestly the F-22 is currently the best fighter in service, but I don't think it would be the right choice for Norway, let alone that the US is not willed to sell it to anyone.

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.

I agree that the Gripen would be the poorest performer, but how do you come to the conclusion that the Gripen would cost 100 mln $ and what makes you sure that the F-35 will not be more expensive?

 

[energo]

Cost wise the most attractive option? Ehm you know that the F-22 is the most expensive combat aircraft ever?

Keep in mind that the program development cost is already paied by the USAF and Locheed. The fly away unit cost for the Raptor is a about $135 million today, including initial spares, maintainance and training equipment.

That puts it in the same ballpark as the Eurofighter, which has had an export price of between $100 and $160 million in recent years. The Tranche 3 version is likely to be more expensive.

And how would you perform maritime missions with the F-22?

The F-22 already has a formidable maritime capability as far as avoinics and performance is concerned. It would only be a matter of adapting it for use with your ASM of choice. A dedicated IR suite would be preferable, but the hi-res SAR radar capability weights up for this.

Honestly the F-22 is currently the best fighter in service, but I don't think it would be the right choice for Norway, let alone that the US is not willed to sell it to anyone.

That might change. There are strong voices in the US Congress in favor of exporting the Raptor on a case-to-case basis. In any case the current export ban runs out in 2015 and is unlikely to be extended in its current form.

I agree that the Gripen would be the poorest performer, but how do you come to the conclusion that the Gripen would cost 100 mln $ and what makes you sure that the F-35 will not be more expensive?

The Poland and Thailand Gripen C exports are already in the $75-80 million class. The Gripen NG is still on the drawing board and will be more expensive. As a comparison, the Swedish AF is currently upgrading its older Gripen A fleet to the current export version, Gripen C, for $15 million per. airframe. Considering that the upgrades for Gripen NG are much more comprehensive it's likely that it will be close to or even surpass the $100 million mark.

The F-35A will hit low rate production at about $110 million and will gradually drop to about $90 million from 2013. However it is likely that further programs delays might drive up the unit price.


All in all the F-22 will pack the same punch and survivability as two F-35s, which itself will perform on par with two, or so, Gripens. From this perspective the cost equation speaks for itself.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

 

[Scorpion82]

Keep in mind that the program development cost is already paied by the USAF and Locheed. The fly away unit cost for the Raptor is a about $135 million today, including initial spares, maintainance and training equipment.

You have to take into account that the US wouldn't sell the F-22 in the configuration which is flown by the US and I could imagine that they would try to get back some of the investments form the customers as well. It might easily be that an export customer would pay more for a downgraded version (including its development costs) than the USAF currently pays for its aircraft.

That puts it in the same ballpark as the Eurofighter, which has had an export price of between $100 and $160 million in recent years. The Tranche 3 version is likely to be more expensive.

One of the questions is what is included in the price. Taking figures without knowing what they include might be misleading.

The F-22 already has a formidable maritime capability as far as avoinics and performance is concerned. It would only be a matter of adapting it for use with your ASM of choice. A dedicated IR suite would be preferable, but the hi-res SAR radar capability weights up for this.

And how do you want to integrate an ASM on the Raptor? The weapon bays are limited in size and I seriously doubt that weapons like the NSM would fit there. That means you must rely on external carriage which would balance the aircraft's main advantages which are stealth and performance thanks to internal weapons carriage.

That might change. There are strong voices in the US Congress in favor of exporting the Raptor on a case-to-case basis. In any case the current export ban runs out in 2015 and is unlikely to be extended in its current form.

Norway is for sure not the first country which would benefit from an export bann lift, not to say that I really doubt they would be allowed to buy the aircraft at all. 2015 is also very late because the production run ends around 2011/2012 with the currently approved number of aircraft and I have some doubts that LM would reopen the production line years later for exports.

The Poland and Thailand Gripen C exports are already in the $75-80 million class. The Gripen NG is still on the drawing board and will be more expensive. As a comparison, the Swedish AF is currently upgrading its older Gripen A fleet to the current export version, Gripen C, for $15 million per. airframe. Considering that the upgrades for Gripen NG are much more comprehensive it's likely that it will be close to or even surpass the $100 million mark.

As mentioned what is included into these prices? Fly-Away cost for the Gripen is usually given with ~40 mln $. Much also depends on the customer and offer itself.

The F-35A will hit low rate production at about $110 million and will gradually drop to about $90 million from 2013. However it is likely that further programs delays might drive up the unit price.

We'll see. According a dutch press report their first F-35 will cost them 142 mln $! Of course the price will go down once full rate production is granted, but LM is still not willed to provide fix prices and further cost increasments can easily happen.

All in all the F-22 will pack the same punch and survivability as two F-35s, which itself will perform on par with two, or so, Gripens. From this perspective the cost equation speaks for itself.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

The F-22 will be a more effective fighter and it can strike better defended targets, but it is much less flexible due its avionics and weapon bays design. The F-35 is the better choice for countries like Norway.

 

[Eggy]

We'll see. According a dutch press report their first F-35 will cost them 142 mln $! Of course the price will go down once full rate production is granted, but LM is still not willed to provide fix prices and further cost increasments can easily happen.

That's not a production line model though, that is one of two test models of the OT&E phase that will be acquired as early as 2009.

 

[energo]

You have to take into account that the US wouldn't sell the F-22 in the configuration which is flown by the US and I could imagine that they would try to get back some of the investments form the customers as well. It might easily be that an export customer would pay more for a downgraded version (including its development costs) than the USAF currently pays for its aircraft.

There has been speculation on this regarding the F-35, but it has been dismissed by Locheed in the procedings here in Norway. I'm not aware of any such talks regarding the F-22, though I might be wrong.

And how do you want to integrate an ASM on the Raptor? The weapon bays are limited in size and I seriously doubt that weapons like the NSM would fit there. That means you must rely on external carriage which would balance the aircraft's main advantages which are stealth and performance thanks to internal weapons carriage.

NSM would need to be redesigned, but it's not a big issue. KDA have already been in contact with Locheed on this possibility.

Norway is for sure not the first country which would benefit from an export bann lift, not to say that I really doubt they would be allowed to buy the aircraft at all. 2015 is also very late because the production run ends around 2011/2012 with the currently approved number of aircraft and I have some doubts that LM would reopen the production line years later for exports.

In the wake of grounding the F-15 fleet the USAF has recently issued a request to keep the production line open and it seems likely that a follow-on batch of 20 Raptors will be ordered. It would extend the production line with about a year. Infact, extending the production to facilitate future orders is one of the arguments in favor of exports.

As mentioned what is included into these prices? Fly-Away cost for the Gripen is usually given with ~40 mln $. Much also depends on the customer and offer itself.

That's a good point, hence the 100-160 million figure for the EF. The mentioned 40 million for the Gripen, though, are very old figures. The price for the modernized Gripen C including spares, maintainence equipment and inflation is closer to twice that.

Ultimately industry offets will weight heavily on the decition, but that's a political issue and does not reflect on the capabilities and costs of the planes themselves.

The F-22 will be a more effective fighter and it can strike better defended targets, but it is much less flexible due its avionics and weapon bays design. The F-35 is the better choice for countries like Norway.

It's rather the other way around. With a few exeptions not of primary importance for the Norwegian AF, the F-35 can not match the F-22s avionics suite, stealth, payload and performance and will possibly be at a disadvantage against the new breed of russian and asian stealth fighters, surface ships and cruise missles in the comming decades. The F-22 is the only fighter with the ability to still dominate the future battlefield airspace, though even it will face tough competition from the new russian fighters.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

 

[Scorpion82]

NSM would need to be redesigned, but it's not a big issue. KDA have already been in contact with Locheed on this possibility.

Yes for the F-35, but not for the Raptor. The F-22's weapon bays are very different from that of the F-35. They are more optimised for a large number of AAMs, while the F-35 bays were designed for a greater varity of AG stores. The largest weapon you can fit into the F-22s bay is a 1000 lb JDAM, the F-35 can hold 2000 lb JDAM, JSOW, GBU-12 etc. in its internal bays.

In the wake of grounding the F-15 fleet the USAF has recently issued a request to keep the production line open and it seems likely that a follow-on batch of 20 Raptors will be ordered. It would extend the production line with about a year. Infact, extending the production to facilitate future orders is one of the arguments in favor of exports.

That might be, let us wait for the results. Fact is Norway itself seems not to be interested in the F-22 and the aircraft isn't issued.

It's rather the other way around. With a few exeptions not of primary importance for the Norwegian AF, the F-35 can not match the F-22s avionics suite, stealth, payload and performance and will possibly be at a disadvantage against the new breed of russian and asian stealth fighters, surface ships and cruise missles in the comming decades. The F-22 is the only fighter with the ability to still dominate the future battlefield airspace, though even it will face tough competition from the new russian fighters.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

I have to disagree about payload and avionics. The F-22s radar might be superior, but the F-35 features a more advanced MMI, a more comprehensive sensor package and it is better suited for AG operations, though the F-22 can fulfill the penetration strike role better and is of course the superior fighter.

 

[Ryttare]

As a comparison, the Swedish AF is currently upgrading its older Gripen A fleet to the current export version, Gripen C, for $15 million per. airframe. Considering that the upgrades for Gripen NG are much more comprehensive it's likely that it will be close to or even surpass the $100 million mark.

You say many things that you clearly don't know much about. The upgrade of SwAF existing A/B Gripens include brand new airframes and strengthened wings. The only thing that are really kept from the old planes are the engines and some avionics, mainly radar. Notice that the cost is for upgrading of existing fighters, not the difference in price between A/B and C/D.

The difference in the planes that are offered to Norway are mostly in the areas that werent affected in the mentioned upgrade, as engines and radar, plus a new landing gear. Apart from that, the basic structure as airframe and wings are the same.

 

[energo]

Yes for the F-35, but not for the Raptor.
The F-22's weapon bays are very different from that of the F-35. They are more optimised for a large number of AAMs, while the F-35 bays were designed for a greater varity of AG stores. The largest weapon you can fit into the F-22s bay is a 1000 lb JDAM, the F-35 can hold 2000 lb JDAM, JSOW, GBU-12 etc. in its internal bays.

KDA has looked into fitting the NSM on the F-22. It's just slightly larger than the JDAM so with a relatively modest redesign you could fit it into the center bays and still have room for AIM-120s and the AIM-9X on the sides.

That might be, let us wait for the results. Fact is Norway itself seems not to be interested in the F-22 and the aircraft isn't issued.

Perhaps, but nothing is carved in stone at this point. Consider that until last winter the Gripen was considered more or less out of the competition too.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Todjaeger]

That might change. There are strong voices in the US Congress in favor of exporting the Raptor on a case-to-case basis. In any case the current export ban runs out in 2015 and is unlikely to be extended in its current form.

Interesting. As far as I am aware, there are a few mechanisms in the US currently preventing foreign sales of the F-22. As mentioned before, the one I am most aware of is a section of law prohibiting the government from spending on F-22 sales. This prohibition denies the government the ability to conduct the needed aspects and reviews for legal export of military goods/supplies. AFAIK, there is no expiration date on this law.

In order to over come the law, a new law would need to be passed either changing or repealing the existing law, and there would be a political cost to do so. At present, I am unaware of any members of Congress (House or Senate) who would be willing to bear the political cost of trying to do so, nevermind actually having sufficient influence to succeed.

In terms of RNoAF air operations, I would think that it might be a good idea to think over the requirements for aircraft, paying particular attention to the environment, in which they would be operating.

As has been observed on a number of other aircraft threads, the overiding importance of the individual aircraft performance has been decreasing over the years, while how the aircraft fits into the overall system has been increasing.

Of course another important factor to keep in mind would be what aircraft (and muntions) would be available in the required timeframe, and at what price.

-Cheers

 

[energo]

You say many things that you clearly don't know much about. The upgrade of SwAF existing A/B Gripens include brand new airframes and strengthened wings. The only thing that are really kept from the old planes are the engines and some avionics, mainly radar. Notice that the cost is for upgrading of existing fighters, not the difference in price between A/B and C/D.

The difference in the planes that are offered to Norway are mostly in the areas that werent affected in the mentioned upgrade, as engines and radar, plus a new landing gear. Apart from that, the basic structure as airframe and wings are the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my information the centre fuselage will be retained and certain sections will be strenghtened to extend service life. Other than that the programe is largely about replacing the wings, new cockpit, new computer and management systems and NATO compatible munition and communication links.

The Gripen NG will face a more comprehensive redesign to accomodate the GE414 engine, new fuel tanks, repositioned landing gear and new weapon stations. It will have a completely new AESA radar and largely new avionics suite. Unlike the A-C upgrade these modifications are still largely on the drawing board and thus faces substantial programe risk which is likely to drive up cost.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Ryttare]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my information the centre fuselage will be retained and certain sections will be strenghtened to extend service life. Other than that the programe is largely about replacing the wings, new cockpit, new computer and management systems and NATO compatible munition and communication links.

The Gripen NG will face a more comprehensive redesign to accomodate the GE414 engine, new fuel tanks, repositioned landing gear and new weapon stations. It will have a completely new AESA radar and largely new avionics suite. Unlike the A-C upgrade these modifications are still largely on the drawing board and thus faces substantial programe risk which is likely to drive up cost.


Regards,
Bjørnar

You are wrong. The fuselage is totally new and the wings are rebuilt for the C/D.

The F414 has the same outher dimensions as the RM12 and do not require a new fuselage. The new landing gear will be housed in pods outside the wing roots and the new fuel tanks where the landing gear was. The new pylons is possible because of the repositioned landing gear and will probably use the existing structures. The AESA radar has been planned for a long time by request of SwAF.

The demonstrator for Gripen NG will fly next year in a rebuilt JAS 39B Gripen with a F414G engine, repositioned landing gear and more internal fuel. It will then get a Raytheon AESA radar, but thats for the demonstrator. Saab Microwave will develope an AESA, but if that against all odds wont work out the Raytheon radar is available according to Raytheon.

 

[Scorpion82]

KDA has looked into fitting the NSM on the F-22. It's just slightly larger than the JDAM so with a relatively modest redesign you could fit it into the center bays and still have room for AIM-120s and the AIM-9X on the sides.

If possible provide a source for that, because I doubt this statement as I see no reason why KDA should have looked at the possibility to integrate the NSM into the F-22. If they looked then at the possibility to integrate it into the F-35 and that's what I have read and the only thing which makes sense.

Perhaps, but nothing is carved in stone at this point. Consider that until last winter the Gripen was considered more or less out of the competition too.

The F-22 was never considered by the RoNAF and the only competors are Gripen N, Eurofighter and F-35. AFAIK a decision is planned for 2009. To make it short there will be no F-22 for Norway.

 

[energo]

Interesting. As far as I am aware, there are a few mechanisms in the US currently preventing foreign sales of the F-22. As mentioned before, the one I am most aware of is a section of law prohibiting the government from spending on F-22 sales. This prohibition denies the government the ability to conduct the needed aspects and reviews for legal export of military goods/supplies. AFAIK, there is no expiration date on this law.

In order to over come the law, a new law would need to be passed either changing or repealing the existing law, and there would be a political cost to do so. At present, I am unaware of any members of Congress (House or Senate) who would be willing to bear the political cost of trying to do so, nevermind actually having sufficient influence to succeed.

I'm not familiar myself with such a law, but on a general observation there has been numerous Senate and Congress evaluations on F-22 exports over the years, most recently a negative vote in June of this year for export to Japan. Despite these decitions the debate of whether to lift the restriction continues and the current US official stance is to review requests on a case-to-case basis.

In terms of RNoAF air operations, I would think that it might be a good idea to think over the requirements for aircraft, paying particular attention to the environment, in which they would be operating.
As has been observed on a number of other aircraft threads, the overiding importance of the individual aircraft performance has been decreasing over the years, while how the aircraft fits into the overall system has been increasing.

Of course another important factor to keep in mind would be what aircraft (and muntions) would be available in the required timeframe, and at what price.

-Cheers

Absolutely, it all boils down to a cost issue. It seems likely in that respect, that say a fleet of 36 F-22s would provide a far more lethal force than say 48 Gripens. Indeed I'd wager that a fleet of 36 F-35s would too.

From a rather objective point of viiew - perhaps ironically - the RNoAFs primary objective is still air superiority over norwegian territory - the strike and AG roles are secondary to this. A primary mission in this context is bomber and cruise missile interception. With the onset of russian supersonic and stealthy weaponry fielded close to the norwegian borders the intercept response time would be greately reduced. In such a scenario the F-22s high speed envelope would be an ideal meassure, especially considering that the RNoAF is down to three operational air bases nation wide.

Presently NATO and the norwegian millitary is fielding its new SINDRE AESA strategic radar systems. At the same time its's evaluating a network of smaller mobile tactical radar systems to complement SINDRE, to cover the many black spots on the rugged coast and inland. This coupled with long range maritime needs would again favor the F-22s high altitude station and long range radar coverage.



Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Grand Danois]

The Obey amendment

H.AMDT.295 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2266
Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (offered 7/29/1997)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibt the sale of F-22 aircraft to any foreign government.

STATUS:

7/29/1997 2:02pm:
Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Obey.
7/29/1997 2:16pm:
On agreeing to the Obey amendment (A008) Agreed to by voice vote.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ00295:

 

[energo]

If possible provide a source for that, because I doubt this statement as I see no reason why KDA should have looked at the possibility to integrate the NSM into the F-22. If they looked then at the possibility to integrate it into the F-35 and that's what I have read and the only thing which makes sense.

The KDA public relations office would probably be your best option. That said, KDA has a significant interesst in getting access to the US market - F-22 export policies lingering - and in that respect it seems only natural to investigate such a possibility when it already has one of the best suitable weapons for this role.

The F-22 was never considered by the RoNAF and the only competors are Gripen N, Eurofighter and F-35. AFAIK a decision is planned for 2009. To make it short there will be no F-22 for Norway.

The F-22 was considered, but fell short of the short-list primarily due to the export ban and exaggerated programe risk and cost. Besides, little of the aircrafts capabilities have been known until recently and, as always, the strategic hemisphere in the north has changed with the onset of massive russian defence investments in recent years. A strong reminder of this could be seen in the North Sea yesterday - probably the first of several encounters this winter - which will force the norwegian goverment to rethink its tactical requirements and composition.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

 

[Scorpion82]

@Energo,
never heared about that before. When exactly was the F-22 considered by the RoNAF?
It makes no sence to investigate into that topic in my opinion, when the USAF has no such requirement and the F-22 isn't settled for export. I read about KDA investigating into the integration of the NSM into the F-35.

 

[energo]

You are wrong. The fuselage is totally new and the wings are rebuilt for the C/D.

I might stand corrected, though factual confirmation seems to elude my sources at the moment.

The F414 has the same outher dimensions as the RM12 and do not require a new fuselage. The new landing gear will be housed in pods outside the wing roots and the new fuel tanks where the landing gear was. The new pylons is possible because of the repositioned landing gear and will probably use the existing structures. The AESA radar has been planned for a long time by request of SwAF.

The demonstrator for Gripen NG will fly next year in a rebuilt JAS 39B Gripen with a F414G engine, repositioned landing gear and more internal fuel. It will then get a Raytheon AESA radar, but thats for the demonstrator. Saab Microwave will develope an AESA, but if that against all odds wont work out the Raytheon radar is available according to Raytheon.

Quite true, however the F414 is not interchangable with the RM12. It has a different engine mount, a larger diameter fan and low pressure turbine and is heavier. It will require substantial redesign of the engine bay, inlets, undercarriage and load bearing structures to accomodate the increased thrust, airflow, fuel and weight while maintaining growth potential. It's an extensive task compared to an already well known upgrade programme.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[energo]

@Energo,
never heared about that before. When exactly was the F-22 considered by the RoNAF?
It makes no sence to investigate into that topic in my opinion, when the USAF has no such requirement and the F-22 isn't settled for export. I read about KDA investigating into the integration of the NSM into the F-35.

It's unclear exactly when the F-22 was considered, but probably early in the evaluations, which dates back to the mid 90s.



Regards,
Bjørnar