I did: I said that the Typhoon weighs less, & has the same thrust. Which has the better thrust-weight ratio is rather obvious, from that. Which accelerates better is less obvious, since it also depends on aerodynamics, but I would expect the aircraft with the greater T/W ratio, top speed & greater speed on dry thrust would also accelerate better. And you can find which one that is via a search engine quicker than by asking me.
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
Scorpion82
New Member
I don't think the F-35 will be the pig, as many say. Its main advantages are a huge internal fuel load and internal weapon carriage. The F-35's range can only be matched with external fuel tanks by most current fighters. Nonetheless no one should forget about aerodynamics. While the F-22 for example is relative sleak, the Lighting II is a fat lady. This is caused by the fact that a relative small airframe is required to carry a lot of fuel and weapons internal. The F-35's wing sweep angle is relative modest and optimised for subsonic operations, with super sonic dash if required. The F-35's super sonic performance will probably not be impressive, but sufficient considering the aircraft's intended primary role. I don't think that the F-35 will be much better than the F-16 in terms of agility. As a primary strike fighter I suppose the F-35 to featre relaxed stability, there is no TVC and the wing loading is relative high.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
The F-35 will have the same top speed of the F/A-18 around 1200mph and have the 9G loading of the F-16. As for wing loading I read from a book and several websites saying the F-35 has 91 lbs/ sq ft compared to the F-16s 95 lbs/sq ft. I think lower is better in pounds per square foot when it come to wing loading, correct me if I'm wrong. The F-22 has 65 pounds per square foot in its wing loading. And the F-35 will have an air superiority role that is second only to the F-22. So yeah the F-35 will not be a pig or a turkey as many people think it is. As for weapons not an issue, 4 air to air missiles and 6 2000lbs bombs or 10 air to air missiles and a 25mm cannon, the PAK-FA and F-15 carry a total of 8 air to air missiles and the F-35 can carry more bombs than the F-16 or F-18, thats is when it uses external stations but it is still stealthier than any other jet out there. I think the F-35 can replace some F-15s but the Air force should get no less than 223 F-22s.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You can find a lot when you search the internet. Not much that's relevant though.
This however should probably be fairly relevant:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/apr_07/flighttest/index.html
This is on a non-representative aircraft, that is 2200lbs heavier than production models will be...
As I said earlier, current stats are almost worthless comparing because none of US knows what they are...
True, F-35 figures are predictions or targets, not reality. We won't know that for a while.
Indeed. It's going to be interesting to see what the Gripen implements. The hi-res SAR, multi channel agile beam AESA modes, threat management and EW capabilities for the future requires immense signal processing capability.
The current F-22 CIP 2000 computer consits of PowerPC/i960 based processing modules with a signal processing (DSP) speed around 20 GFLOPS plus 1400 CPU MIPS, hooked onto a 1 Gbit/s fiber channel network bus.
Compare with the Mk4 Gripen C's SDS80 computer, hosted by D96/MACS processor modules running PowerPC G3 processors at around 7 GFLOPS of DSP speed, built around a 5x1 Mbit/s standard MIL-1553B bus (used since the 1970s).
The F-35s Intergrated Core Processor is currently PowerPC G4 based, hooked onto a 2 Gbit/s fiber channel bus and supplemented by a 800Mbit/s IEEE 1394B link. It has a baseline 40000 CPU MIPS plus 76 GFLOPS DSP capasity, but will likely be in the 1-2 TFLOPS range in the final production version. The display processor running the panoramic LCD cockpit alone runs at 220 GFLOPS.
Some of this will also find its way into the F-22 CIP 2005 plug-in upgrade.
I agree with the general consenus that Ericsson will develop a capable AESA radar for the Gripen, but it still remains that this will be fielded over a decade after the first US fighter AESA. Consider that the first Gripen AESA, around 2012, will still retain the current PS-5 backplane. Full multi mode, multi beam/channel capability for "sensing, mapping, communication and jamming" is not planned untill the 2018 timeframe - still some years behind the F-35 and F-22.
Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Last edited:
Congratulations, you have proven Moores law. F-35 will be able to take advantage of the increased capability in modern processors and Gripen can also do that in it's upgrade.
SwAF has ordered the multi-role M-AESA NORA radar for the 2018 upgrade of Gripen. The timing with the norwegian aquisition of new fighters is quite good. Any AESA before that will probably be some kind of demonstrator or a more or less off the shelf solution for international costumers that can't wait.
For Norway it might be an advantage to get a radar that is brand new and has less lead time than a radar that has to go through the total integration of a new fighter.
It's more nuanced. The MIL-1553 is whoefully outdated as a main systems bus. Currently there are no bolt-on revisions which allows for the huge bandwidth demands we are looking at in the future. The Gripen will most likely have to migrate to a completely new bus architecture, which - from an engineers' perspective - is a major undertaking.
Perhaps, we certainly have ample opportunity to choose what fits our needs the best. Looking a bit beyond, there are already plans for a radically new tail-less version of the Gripen in the 2020-2025 timeframe. Considering that this will serve no further purpose than to bring the Gripen up to F-35 standards - sans the internal weapons and, thus, stealth capability - it seems like a costly meassure having to go through such an massive upgrade early in the project life span - if it indeed will even be available as an upgrade.
Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
That's later in the "project life span" than the entire life from first flight to retirement from service of many types. Even with the prolonged lives that combat aircraft have nowadays, I don't think that anyone can really believe that 32-37 years after first flight, and 23-28 years after becoming operational, is "early". For comparison, that's like saying that 2006-2011 is "early in the project life span" of the F-16.
Forgive me, but I really doubt that you know wether it would be a major undertaking to upgrade Gripens avionics or not. I actually think Saab knows more about that than you do.
http://www.ntva.no/seminarer/manus/eddy-270207.pdf
It's really entertaining to see how you make things up all the time. Saab did openly say that they were considering giving the new engine thrust vectoring, and said that one of the advantages would be the possibility to make Gripen completely tailless. To my knowledge there are no such plans and Gripen NG will not get TVC.
That you think a totally tailless Gripen would be a way to get closer to F-35 is very strange as JSF not only has retained the traditional elevetors in the tail but also has a twin tail.
Whats next, will you say that Gripen is planned to get STOVL in 2031?
I know F-35 will have stealth, you would have to be deaf and blind to not get that because Lockheed Martin doesn't talk about anything but that and avionics. For a while they were also talking a lot about how cheap it should be, but it's pretty quiet on that front now.
F-35s airframe is more conventional in terms of aerodynamics than the European planes, as all fighters it will use contemperary processors and HMD is available for Gripen today. It's engine is big, but it's also a bigger plane than Gripen, about twice as heavy and whith the F414 EDE with 26'000 lbs of thrust for Gripen you might get the math.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Perhaps that's because the ECDs are aerodynamically oversophisticated in a future of LOAL/HMCS/HOBS.
Perhaps because drag is a significant factor and the F-35 will carry its fuel, sensors and weapons internally as its basic config, whilst the alternatives will have pods, fuel tanks weapons externally; adding significant drag and puts an additional cost on top of basic unit acquisition cost.
Perhaps because "stealth" is even more of a force multiplier in the system of systems world; netcentrics, off board sensors, etc., than on a simple 1 vs 1 comparison and non VLO sys of sys comparisons.
Perhaps because in a defensive scenario, survivability/attrition rates (stealth again) is affecting sortie generation rates at day D + xx, to a degree that sortie generation from a larger number of jets under peacetime conditions is not an applicable metric of capability. I f your jet doesn't come back, it doesn't generate any more sorties.
Perhaps because these aircraft will have to stay in the Norwegian and Danish air forces until 2050, and the Gripen NG will be struggling from the onset in the air superiority, deep strike and interdictor missions to stay up to F-35 standards.
If these two govts go with Gripen, it'll be because they will be looking to avoid high end missions anyway and because of the savings.
There is a lot of selective arguments and semantic exercises.
Last edited:
Yes, exactly, there are pros and cons for both alternatives. What's interesting is what gives the best value for the money in the possible scenarios.There is a lot of selective arguments and semantic exercises.
To be honest, we can boast about capabilities of different fighters, but in reality any of them would be sufficient. Even F-16 would be enough, at least with CFTs, but I believe the costs for keeping it in service would be rather high and with very little industrial benefits.
I was refering to a Norwegian Gripen N purchase, not the entire Gripen project.
Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Given you are European, I will tolerate your bias. Gripen and Eurofighter and Rafale have HMD, but they are not close to how good F-35's HMD is. F-35 is the first fighter to have no HUD!
The new generation of European jets were built to be conventional, with external weapons pylons and few if any radar absorbent paint. Heck, Rafale can't even replace Mirage 2000 due to its high cost. French air force only ordered around 60 Rafales if I'm not mistaken. Also, F-35's integrated display just blows every other cockpit away, even F-22's.Those include navy numbers. Either way, Rafale is too expensive and doesn't offer a lot of advantage over Mirage 2000, its weak engines being a factor and has no AESA. That's why it doesn't export.
If you can provide it, I would be very interested in a reference to this particular SAAB information.
"Major undertaking" in this respect would be in terms of the avionics, not the Gripen system as a whole. But it's quite possible you are correct, I don't have sufficient details on the Gripens' SC to claim as much. It's possible that some kind of omnibus solution - which supports several bus standards - is used that will ease the migration, but I've seen no evidence of this myself.
However I do know that a systems bus is the most integral part of any integrated computer hardware and thus the most comprehensive part to change. I also know that this has previously forced avionics designs to comprimise and provide proprietary solutions, the Gripens 5-bus design is an example. This is no less true for the F-22 and F-35 - or any system - of course, the only difference being that these developed from scratch with newer technology.
I would reconsider using insults towards your like-minded forum participants.
However, I was (obviously?) refering to a possible upgrade path in the 2020-2025 timeframe for existing Gripen customers. A major (but clearly not the only) argument for the tail-less design is to provide better stealth characteristics, in which it would approach the F-35. Though purely speculation, I also think it's reasonable to expect an avionics upgrade that would be on par with the F-35.
The major point of the matter is that the Gripen is often portrayed as the cheaper candidate of the "three" wheras the big picture is much more complex. Such a comprehensive upgrade or rebuild would have to be factored into the life cycle cost at this point. One could of curse choose not to upgrade, but then be left with a less capable fighter which has already reached its conventional design limits.
It's not necessarily a good deal for a weapons system which is expected to be operational until the year 2050 with relatively incremental upgrades.
Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
- Status