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

[AGRA]

They list generations of AESA radars that they have produced. This is not AESA radar technology generations, which is what we were talking about. I just gave the web link so you can do some reading. This is not my source for making such a claim as PESA is considered first generation AESA technology.

This kind of debating points of definition based on what you see in front of you is extremely immature. You may notice that I have the ‘grand’ status of “Defense Professional / Analyst”. This is because I work in this profession and for some perverse reason I am yet to fully define I enjoy talking about this profession online with complete strangers.

When I say that the US radar community define AESA technology into currently five generations with B-1B type PESA as the first this not because of something I made up or have interprets from reading about defence online or in ‘air nerd’ magazine. It’s because I have had such a thing explained to me by the very people who build the damn things.

Now what is an AESA radar? It’s an electronically scanned array radar… Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the first way this technology was practically utilised was in a passive form and that this evolved into an active form?

 

[Scorpion82]

They list generations of AESA radars that they have produced. This is not AESA radar technology generations, which is what we were talking about. I just gave the web link so you can do some reading. This is not my source for making such a claim as PESA is considered first generation AESA technology.

This kind of debating points of definition based on what you see in front of you is extremely immature. You may notice that I have the ‘grand’ status of “Defense Professional / Analyst”. This is because I work in this profession and for some perverse reason I am yet to fully define I enjoy talking about this profession online with complete strangers.

When I say that the US radar community define AESA technology into currently five generations with B-1B type PESA as the first this not because of something I made up or have interprets from reading about defence online or in ‘air nerd’ magazine. It’s because I have had such a thing explained to me by the very people who build the damn things.

Now what is an AESA radar? It’s an electronically scanned array radar… Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the first way this technology was practically utilised was in a passive form and that this evolved into an active form?

M8 I think you get me wrong here. What I mean is that PESA is not the first generation of AESA, because these are 2 completely different technologies. PESA was in fact the first ESA system which ultimately developed into AESA. And to quote Northrop-Grumman from the document:

As the largest producer of airborne fire control Electronically Scanned Arrays (ESA), we have delivered more than 250 active and passive ESA radars...

If you define the generations of ESA then you have to take into account PESA and AESA, but if you define the generations of AESA you can't count in a PESA system! That's a simple fact and it won't change independent of who you are.

 

[AGRA]

If you define the generations of ESA then you have to take into account PESA and AESA, but if you define the generations of AESA you can't count in a PESA system! That's a simple fact and it won't change independent of who you are.

You just don’t get it. PESA is an AESA! Just because one is passive and one is active does not make them different systems or applications of different technology.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You just don’t get it. PESA is an AESA! Just because one is passive and one is active does not make them different systems or applications of different technology.

Out of curiosity (and maybe if RickUSN is lurking he can comment), but I'm wondering whether SCANFAR (USS Longbeach) would be regarded as PESA (even though it's actually PAR)

 

[AGRA]

Just to help set the record straight the only difference between PESA and AESA is in the 'passive' ESA there is a single source of RF energy for all of the T/R elements. In an 'active' ESA each T/R element has is own source of RF energy. Which is obviously an evolution from single source PESA.

Phased arrays are a way of getting use out of multiple T/R array radars by varrying the 'phases' of the array to create a desired radiation pattern. Most of what we consider to be PAR are PESAs or AESAs.

 

[Scorpion82]

You just don’t get it. PESA is an AESA! Just because one is passive and one is active does not make them different systems or applications of different technology.

Admin Text deleted. Refer to forum rules. No. 7 and 8.
PESA is in the end nothing else than MSA with a fixed antenna using phase shifting to sweep the beam. There are no T/R modules for PESA. PESA still uses a separate tranismitter (TWT) and receivers. That comes more close to MSA than AESA. Still the NG document confirms what I said. If you speak about ESA in general then PESA is first generation, but PESA has nothing to do with AESA. There are worlds between this two technologies! Apart from rapid beam sweeping through phase shifting these radar technologies have nothing in common.

 

[gf0012-aust]

NOTE:

Read the forum rules before continuing on.

If you have an issue with someones qualifications then take it up on PM or confirm it with a Mod. The forum is NOT the place to vent about someones professional quals or stature.

 

[martitrmartitr]

Eurofighter has suspended talks with Norway and Denmark. The feel that they are being threated unfairly, and will not reenter negotiations unless it is on equal terms.
Source: Pretty much all norwegian newspapers

also
http://air-attack.com/news/news_art...rticipation-in-Danish-Norwegian-Contests.html

 

[Melk]

Yup that is pretty sad. All of us here in norway have seen over the years how the government(s) have favored the JSF . To SOME extent i can understand it as we have a very close tie with the US when it comes to purchasing aircraft and more importantly perhaps... some of the training.

I do personally think that the JSF is the wrong plane for our current and future needs but i guess the brass are "scared" of not beeing in bed with the US airforce especially when it comes to training. In my opinion we need the best air superiority fighter to defend the homeland and the EF is a better choise than the JSF attack plane. The Gripen is really nice, but if you have to intercept a growing and far better equipped russian airforce than today then both the Gripen and JSF may fall short in many respects. I also like the fact that the EF has two engines when flying over the north sea and mountains.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yup that is pretty sad. All of us here in norway have seen over the years how the government(s) have favored the JSF . To SOME extent i can understand it as we have a very close tie with the US when it comes to purchasing aircraft and more importantly perhaps... some of the training.

I do personally think that the JSF is the wrong plane for our current and future needs but i guess the brass are "scared" of not beeing in bed with the US airforce especially when it comes to training. In my opinion we need the best air superiority fighter to defend the homeland and the EF is a better choise than the JSF attack plane. The Gripen is really nice, but if you have to intercept a growing and far better equipped russian airforce than today then both the Gripen and JSF may fall short in many respects. I also like the fact that the EF has two engines when flying over the north sea and mountains.

The ONLY benefit the Typhoon has over the JSF is a limited possible advantage in acceleration and agility over the JSF.

The JSF OTOH, still has great performance, but this is supported in an LO airframe and equipped with superior sensor and avionics, internal weapons carriage and an enormous (internal carried) fuel fraction.

Now Tyhoon MAY receive an avionics as good as the F-35 at some point. So might any fighter but it's far less certain than the capability the F-35 WILL have.

Now if you need an "air superiority fighter" so much, what's going to be the better option? Air to Air combat these days is focussed upon beyond visual range engagements remember.

LO will dominate future engagements, when going up against no-LO aircraft, even assuming everything else is equal, which it certainly is not...

It's as simple as that...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The ONLY benefit the Typhoon has over the JSF is a limited possible advantage in acceleration and agility over the JSF.

Are you sure? I thought the F-35 has a very high thrust to weight ratio because of the 40,000lbs of thrust the F135 engine has, I think the F136 has even more. Agility shouldn't be an issue for the F-35, it will be at least as maneuverable or more than the F-16, and the F-16 is hard to beat with the 9g instantaneous and sustained high g performance. Rate of clime should be very good too though that is still classified.

 

[Melk]

The ONLY benefit the Typhoon has over the JSF is a limited possible advantage in acceleration and agility over the JSF.

The JSF OTOH, still has great performance, but this is supported in an LO airframe and equipped with superior sensor and avionics, internal weapons carriage and an enormous (internal carried) fuel fraction.

Now Tyhoon MAY receive an avionics as good as the F-35 at some point. So might any fighter but it's far less certain than the capability the F-35 WILL have.

Now if you need an "air superiority fighter" so much, what's going to be the better option? Air to Air combat these days is focussed upon beyond visual range engagements remember.

LO will dominate future engagements, when going up against no-LO aircraft, even assuming everything else is equal, which it certainly is not...

It's as simple as that...

Your opinion is noted, but what you say about the JSF vs Typhoon is yet to be tested and is pure speculation.

Now.. Stealth is not as important when intercepting russians. They go within visual range to "show them off" anyway. The JSF is also only stealthy as long as you only use internal weapon bays.

 

[swerve]

Are you sure? I thought the F-35 has a very high thrust to weight ratio because of the 40,000lbs of thrust the F135 engine has, I think the F136 has even more. Agility shouldn't be an issue for the F-35, it will be at least as maneuverable or more than the F-16, and the F-16 is hard to beat with the 9g instantaneous and sustained high g performance. Rate of clime should be very good too though that is still classified.

The Typhoon has the same thrust & a lower empty weight.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The Typhoon has the same thrust & a lower empty weight.

So there both just as good when it comes to thrust & weight ratio and acceleration right? What is the max take off weight for the EF2000 and F-35?

 

[swerve]

So there both just as good when it comes to thrust & weight ratio and acceleration right?

That is not a logical conclusion to draw from what I said. Your arithmetic is faulty.

What is the max take off weight for the EF2000 and F-35?

Try a search engine. You'd be flooded in numbers by now, if you'd typed in a query instead of that question.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Are you sure? I thought the F-35 has a very high thrust to weight ratio because of the 40,000lbs of thrust the F135 engine has, I think the F136 has even more. Agility shouldn't be an issue for the F-35, it will be at least as maneuverable or more than the F-16, and the F-16 is hard to beat with the 9g instantaneous and sustained high g performance. Rate of clime should be very good too though that is still classified.

As other have pointed out, the F-35 does have a lot of thrust, a light airframe (considering the payload it can lift), a very large (internal) fuel fraction and will possess a "clean" airframe in operational configuration.

It will be a very good air to air performer in any situation. Other aircraft will possess advantages here and there, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the F-35 WILL be very good.

I would suggest that the Typhoon will probably out-perform the F-35 by a small margin, but the difference ,should the 2 go "head to head" won't be significant, compared to the difference an LO airframe will make compared to a non-LO airframe in operational configuration.

BTW, the engine thrust figures for the F-135 need to be re-considered. It has already demonstrated 43,000lbs of thrust for entended periods, some 3000lbs of thrust MORE than it's design requirement and the F-136 has allegedly demonstrated 50,000lbs of thrust... :shudder

Attempting to make comparisons at this point, even on "open sourced" data is therefore obviously futile...

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Typhoon has the same thrust & a lower empty weight.

Again, as I pointed out above, that's hardly definitive, but again, what's the point of measuring aircraft performance at "empty weight"?

These aircraft aren't going "head to head" without any payload...

If anything some sort of operational configuration baseline, such as 2x WVR missiles, 2x BVR missiles and equivalent fuel loads, needs to be factored into the equations.

But then of course the Typhoon needs BIG external tanks to match the F-35...

 

[Grand Danois]

I also like the fact that the EF has two engines when flying over the north sea and mountains.

That would require some redundancy of subsystems, which I am not sure the EF has. If one engine goes on a twin engined fighter, cascading failures will mean that a fighter has a 10-15 min window to find a place to land.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

That is not a logical conclusion to draw from what I said. Your arithmetic is faulty.

You still did not answer my question. OK then, whats your opinion on this issue?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Your opinion is noted, but what you say about the JSF vs Typhoon is yet to be tested and is pure speculation.

Thanks, but of course it is. The F-35 is only at the VERY beginning of it's flight test program. I am not aware of too many operational aircraft that have become LESS capable during their flight test program however. Usually quite the opposite, though I've only read reasonably extensively on the Super Hornet program and I am quite possibly making an inaccurate generalisation here.

However it's basic statistics and design goals stack up very well upon comparison against ANY other fighter.

I have however only ever said, I consider this or that "likely". If I make a definite statement, I can back it up. The 43,000lbs of thrust claim for example can be found easily.

One other issue is not speculation though and that is the benefits of being a full LO aircraft if one wishes, or an aircraft capable of carrying a wide variety of "heavy" munitions externally if one wishes. (Both in-board wing pylons are rated to 5000lbs for example, necessary for GBU-28 "Bunker Busters" amongst other things).

Now.. Stealth is not as important when intercepting russians. They go within visual range to "show them off" anyway. The JSF is also only stealthy as long as you only use internal weapon bays.

Well, if you are only purchasing a fighter to intercept Russian bombers and maritime patrol aircraft, than why bother upgrading from the F-16? They intercept Russian bombers just fine... Current new-build Block 50/52's can likely be had likely cheaper than either Typhoon OR F-35 and will be "viable" for many years to come.

But returning to your earlier comment, I'd argue that even WITH external stores the F-35 is likely to STILL be more "stealthy" than any other tactical fighter bar the F-22 given it's inherent LO design philosophy, but quite obviously it's RCS will increase in such a situation, as will it's drag levels. Of course they this occurs with ANY fighter or indeed aircraft of any kind, funny how no-one bothers to mention that, however unlike any other tactical aircraft bar the F-22, at least the F-35 WILL be capable of an operational configuration comprising internal stores only...

What you should probably state however is that the RCS won't be as small on the F-35 if external stores are carried.

I could not argue with that statement, but it's IR reduction measures, emission control measures etc aren't likely to be effected by external stores, are they?