Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
OH GOOD GOD!!!!
Your calculations are completely wrong. To even attempt such a simplified calculation proves that you know little about aviation.
Firstly, this is not a video game, Aircraft do not start at 40,000feet at Mach 2 with full internal fuel. They must take off, climb and accelerate. So for that last minute of afterburning flight, the aircraft may hit its top speed. For the 10 minutes prior the speed would be significantly less, so your 400+km range figure would be less than half of what you posted.
Basically your calculation is completely useless.
Secondly, not only are you using an incorrect, flawed formula you also used the wrong data. You did not use the Maximum speed of the F-35, but you used the Maximum speed of the Gripen. Your silly calculation is purely based on top speed yet you didn't even use the top speed of the F-35.
Finally you are comparing the top speed of the Gripen WITHOUT weapons to the F-35 WITH weapons. Put two 2,000lb bombs and a pair of AMRAAMs on the Gripen and see what its top speed is. Its top speed will no longer be Mach 2, it wont even be Mach 1.8. Many here will agree that it will be at or below Mach 1.6. The F-35's speed is Mach 1.8+ if measured at the same altitude as Gripen. Many here will agree that it will exceed this speed as it is a MINIMUM requirement to do so.
So in combat configuration the F-35 can fly faster for longer which means a longer range. How you managed to come to the conclusion that the Gripen can fly further is beyond me.
F-35 wins hands down.
The F-35 has hit Mach 0.9 in test flights with significantly less than 100% military power. Your calculation is wrong (again) as you assumed the F-35 uses 100% military power to cruise at Mach 0.9.
So the F-35's range at military power is again greater than the Gripen.
So the F-35 is faster and longer ranged regardless of military AB/power.
You remind me of this french fellow, who was posting similar calculations but for the Rafale. It didn't take long until he was banned as he simply ignored any counter argument from senior members and mods just like you continue to do.
In the context of the last few posts the added thrust gives increased fuel consumption at maximum military and wet thrust levels. So the extra speed is cancelled out by the extra fuel consumption. I like it how Dr Freud used the fuel consumption figures of the original F404 with the speed provided by the F414.
Everyone here knows the F-35 will fly significantly further than the Gripen yet Dr Freud is trying to bend facts and provide stupid unrealistic calculations to prove otherwise.
If you really want to go all the way and get very technical about comparisons between fighter aircraft you will need to look at the various mission profiles together with variations in fuel/weapons loadout. For example a fighter flying an air superiority mission profile (Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi) will need to consider in it's flight profile: take off, climb, cruise, dash, etc. Rather than try to explain all this, have a look at the NASA Technical Paper 1837. The technical paper is from the days when scientists and researchers wrote their own computer progams from equations to perform calculations. A far cry from todays GUI. The nice thing is that the equations and parameters are fully explained. Enjoy!
It is a lot of different contexts here lately. Some people here seems to be very doubtful about Gripen NG have a possibility to supercruise at all - with one droptank, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinder. SAAB stated during "The Demo rollout" that Gripen N should manage to "supercruise" at speed of 1.1 Mach in such configuration.
There is also a possibility that GE414 have a higher fuel efficiency than GE404. This difference will maybe not be big, but welcome.
Last edited:
GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~6900 lbsF-15 Eagle said:
(1xF414)
~22500 lbs A/B Thrust @ 1,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.180 = 11 min
~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0,657 = 40 min
--
Internal + 2 x 1200 L External fuel ~11133 lbs
~22500 lbs A/B Thrust @ 1,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.291 = ~17,5 min
~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~1,060 = ~64 min
(Gripen CAP 90min example)
--
F-35 Internal Fuel ~18,000 lbs
(1 x F135-PW-100)
~43,000 lbs A/B thrust @ ~2.0 lb/lb.hr = ~0.2093 hr = ~12.6 min
~28,000 lbs Mil thrust @ ~0.7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.9184 hr = ~55.1 min
1200 miles/hour = 1.617649003570677 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin]
http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml
cheers:cheers
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1874/gripennorwaycapnorden80io6.jpg
ps SlyDog this is with GE414:type
Last edited:
Yes, Mach numbers differs with altitude and temperature etc, so the Mach number isnt exact,(on purpose i suspect) of course, this goes for every a/c. mph or km/h is better. One can only dream of a/c manufacturers to agree on a certain condition when they specify Mach. But that wont happen either, coz some perform better at altitude, some at low altitude. Typically, attack a/c are optimized for low altitude.
What i have at my disposal is http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II if anyone has the homepage for F35 so we can see what LM got to say about their own aircraft, please link it.
What i have at my disposal is http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II if anyone has the homepage for F35 so we can see what LM got to say about their own aircraft, please link it.
Last edited:
That's why conditions are stated, eg sea level, nn altitude etc... It's got nothing to with a manufacturers spin. Climactic conditions influence outcome.
This was discussed in here a few years ago and I posted the response I got from NASA when I contacted Dryden re the definition of supercruise.
I have never seen conditions stated, hence my conspiracy theory between manufacturers and nature. Besides that, if one manufacturer actually do provide conditions at high altitude and cold weather at XMach, and the other manufacturer provide conditions at low altitude and hot weather at XMach, -its still apples to oranges. A plane should generally be faster at high altitude vs low when measured in mph or km/h tho, even if Mach nr are equal.
No it's not. why do you think that official speed records are measured over a proscribed standard course?
fighter performance figures are like car stats. nice to have but absolutely meaningless without context and conditions.
it's why anyone who quotes performance figures as a staple to their argument is at risk in their argument.
it's also why we shutdown threads where some think that arguing stats is a sign of competency in debate. Colour and movement, context and conditions.
outside of that immediate logic circle it becomes a borderline waste of time.
and for the last time, warfare is about systems - not platforms.
manufacturers quote figures in optimum conditions. ie hot, dry and clean as opposed to wet, humid and dirty.
NO manufacturer pushes out stats in unfavourable weather conditions, or an unfavourable loadout that will compromise an absolute desired outcome
Im curious as to where you found the F135s SFC figures. Also, are you perhaps quoting baseline F414 figures? The final production Gripen NG is likely to use a F414EDE or "Step B" derivate at a higher thrust rating, possibly 25000lbs A/B.
Regards
Bjørnar
Oslo
Last edited:
Col. Robert Simm at the US embassy here in Oslo recently confirmed publicly that the F-35 has a mach 1.05 supercruise capability in a "tactical layout" under "certain flight regimes". In a private correspondence mach 1.8 is ambiguously refered to as "probably at the edge of the aerodynamic placard". Whether accurate or not we can safely deduce that the F-35 will be faster than mach 1.6 in a lighter loadout than the quoted tactical configuration (18479lbs of fuel, 2xAIM120s, 2xGBU12s or GBU32s) used in public relations literature.
Mvh
Bjørnar
Oslo
STOVL F-35 completes last major step before first flight
I think the F-35B will gain more orders after the aircraft been in operations for a period of time. I think the short take-off-landing is just to good of a option to have and more countries will see a use for such a weapons platform.
Current countries ordering the B variant are according to this article are:
The F-35B, on order by the US Marine Corps
The UK Royal Air Force
The UK Royal Navy
STOVL F-35 completes last major step before first flight
By Stephen Trimble
Hover pit tests completed two days ago moved the first short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 within days or weeks of its first flight.
A Lockheed spokesman confirms the propulsion system for the STOVL demonstrator – named BF-1 – completed a series of conversions from conventional mode to vertical landing mode.
The tests were conducted at Lockheed’s hover pit, where the aircraft is tethered to the ground on top of a steel grate. The pit allows Lockheed’s engineers to measure vertical thrust generated by the engine.
The hover pit is the last major stop before the first flight event for BF-1, which has been scheduled for late May or early June.
Despite the need to complete hover pit tests before first flight, the lift-fan that helps power the aircraft during STOVL mode will not be engaged in a flight test for several more months. BF-1 will fly in conventional mode throughout the first flight.
Getting the aircraft airborne has wider implications for Lockheed. The US Department of Defense has linked the release of production funding for the first batch of six F-35B low rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft to completing the first flight event.
In addition, BF-1 is the first “weight-optimized” airframe produced after Lockheed re-designed all three variants in 2005 to reduce or offset weight by as much as 2,268kg (5,000lbs).
The F-35B, on order by the US Marine Corps, the UK Royal Air Force and UK Royal Navy, is the first western aircraft to combine supersonic speed with the STOVL capability.
Link
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...etes-last-major-step-before-first-flight.html
I think the F-35B will gain more orders after the aircraft been in operations for a period of time. I think the short take-off-landing is just to good of a option to have and more countries will see a use for such a weapons platform.
Current countries ordering the B variant are according to this article are:
The F-35B, on order by the US Marine Corps
The UK Royal Air Force
The UK Royal Navy
STOVL F-35 completes last major step before first flight
By Stephen Trimble
Hover pit tests completed two days ago moved the first short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 within days or weeks of its first flight.
A Lockheed spokesman confirms the propulsion system for the STOVL demonstrator – named BF-1 – completed a series of conversions from conventional mode to vertical landing mode.
The tests were conducted at Lockheed’s hover pit, where the aircraft is tethered to the ground on top of a steel grate. The pit allows Lockheed’s engineers to measure vertical thrust generated by the engine.
The hover pit is the last major stop before the first flight event for BF-1, which has been scheduled for late May or early June.
Despite the need to complete hover pit tests before first flight, the lift-fan that helps power the aircraft during STOVL mode will not be engaged in a flight test for several more months. BF-1 will fly in conventional mode throughout the first flight.
Getting the aircraft airborne has wider implications for Lockheed. The US Department of Defense has linked the release of production funding for the first batch of six F-35B low rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft to completing the first flight event.
In addition, BF-1 is the first “weight-optimized” airframe produced after Lockheed re-designed all three variants in 2005 to reduce or offset weight by as much as 2,268kg (5,000lbs).
The F-35B, on order by the US Marine Corps, the UK Royal Air Force and UK Royal Navy, is the first western aircraft to combine supersonic speed with the STOVL capability.
Link
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...etes-last-major-step-before-first-flight.html
The Italian navy will also buy it. Always intended to, in the JSF consortium, & just commissioned a ship specifically designed to operate the F-35B.
The Spanish navy has a requirement for it, but is not a JSF partner, & is less committed than Italy. Their new LHD is F-35B-capable, but (unlike Cavour), only as a secondary role.
Next_Generation
New Member
I bet gripen NG will be able to go faster than mach 1.1 with air 2 air configuration wihout A/B
Gripen C, was able to do mach 1.1 with air 2 air configuration. "on cold winterdays" as the swedes so nicely stated.
but the english pilot school confirmed, Gripen C/D was able to go supersoic wihtout A/B, full air 2 air configuration +droptank at all altitudes. and he told the locals he was sorry for the unexpected "booms" they had to stand out with
anyway. a powerboost on 20-25 percent and increased wieght of only 600 pounds. you do the math..
ps.
Emergio is right, Gripen NG will use a further upgraded version of the engine, and will aprx be able to get 25000 of thrust out of it
but back to the main question.
actually i cant see why norway should purchase F-35, more than their close relation with the US.
ok F-35 might be an overall better aircraft than Gripen NG, but you cant compare A/C vs A/C you need to look at norway´s specific needs, and certian qualities of the gripen plattform suits these needs better.
as you might have noticed by now, i´m huge fan of the gripen plattform, the simplisity and with the technical features the engineers had access to. they really managed to develop, an awesome machine, for a cost, small countries have afford to pay.
Gripen C, was able to do mach 1.1 with air 2 air configuration. "on cold winterdays" as the swedes so nicely stated.
but the english pilot school confirmed, Gripen C/D was able to go supersoic wihtout A/B, full air 2 air configuration +droptank at all altitudes. and he told the locals he was sorry for the unexpected "booms" they had to stand out with
anyway. a powerboost on 20-25 percent and increased wieght of only 600 pounds. you do the math..
ps.
Emergio is right, Gripen NG will use a further upgraded version of the engine, and will aprx be able to get 25000 of thrust out of it
but back to the main question.
actually i cant see why norway should purchase F-35, more than their close relation with the US.
ok F-35 might be an overall better aircraft than Gripen NG, but you cant compare A/C vs A/C you need to look at norway´s specific needs, and certian qualities of the gripen plattform suits these needs better.
as you might have noticed by now, i´m huge fan of the gripen plattform, the simplisity and with the technical features the engineers had access to. they really managed to develop, an awesome machine, for a cost, small countries have afford to pay.
Umm, forgive me if I am missing something and I am intrigued (despite the urge to say out of this.) Can expand on the "English pilot school" comment. Namely what 'school' and in what context?Gripen C, was able to do mach 1.1 with air 2 air configuration. "on cold winterdays" as the swedes so nicely stated.
but the english pilot school confirmed, Gripen C/D was able to go supersoic wihtout A/B, full air 2 air configuration +droptank at all altitudes. and he told the locals he was sorry for the unexpected "booms" they had to stand out with
.
Fritz
New Member
Is this confirmed ? do you have a link to this ? (skip http, i saw you cant post links yet)Next_Generation said:
This is a really subjective matter, first off, we dont know the MTBF of the F-35, so we dont know how many aircraft will be avaliable at any given time. This is crucial to a small airforce like Norways.Next_Generation said:
Secondly, better at what mission ? in terms of entering Russian AD with 2 bombs and 2 AMRAAMs, -yes, definitely, Gripen would have to use more expensive standoff missiles to do these missions. As for CAP, i dont think so, 2 bombs and 2 AMRAAMs is not a suitable load for that mission, and add missiles on pylons will transform VLO to low RCS, and the vast speed difference tilt the scale IMV.
Next_Generation
New Member
And why do i think Gripen is a better suited platform for Norway?
1. Norway doesnt have, hostal neighbours, and Russia, will not be an instantly threat, second, you can say what you want about russian military avaition, but technology speaking. they are inferior.
2, Norway, like it or not, has a very limited military budget as it is, and gripen is proven low LCC, easy to maintain, and high MTBF, not to talk about the reliability.
look at the MTBF for F-22, and it scares me to death, because of the VLO platform, its a big chance, F-35 will meet the same fate.
3, 95 per cent of the norwegian airforce assignments is to intercept and play with russians migs in the north. Gripen like many of you guys want to call it is a "toy" and with toys, you play!
4.
nato assignments. If norway will operate in hostal areas vs, other than 3rd world countries that doesnt even have an airforce, they will do so, after F-22 have cleaned the house sort of speak. so norway will never really have use for the stealh capabilities. because they will never engage, 4+ generation air supiority A/C. and not without support from US/UK, ok you never really know. but on the other hand. Gripen passed the requirements sat by norwegian government for their future aircraft fleet. and that is proof enough for me.
5.
the fact remains, F-35 was build upon US doctotrin in other words "offensiv warfare" Gripen was build after the Swedish doctotrin. with defence in mind.
you guys might laugh at me. its ok. im not an expert. but to say Norway shall purchase F-35, because its the best A/C on paper. is for me. unbeliievable.
i´m very interested to hear, what you guys think?
1. Norway doesnt have, hostal neighbours, and Russia, will not be an instantly threat, second, you can say what you want about russian military avaition, but technology speaking. they are inferior.
2, Norway, like it or not, has a very limited military budget as it is, and gripen is proven low LCC, easy to maintain, and high MTBF, not to talk about the reliability.
look at the MTBF for F-22, and it scares me to death, because of the VLO platform, its a big chance, F-35 will meet the same fate.
3, 95 per cent of the norwegian airforce assignments is to intercept and play with russians migs in the north. Gripen like many of you guys want to call it is a "toy" and with toys, you play!
4.
nato assignments. If norway will operate in hostal areas vs, other than 3rd world countries that doesnt even have an airforce, they will do so, after F-22 have cleaned the house sort of speak. so norway will never really have use for the stealh capabilities. because they will never engage, 4+ generation air supiority A/C. and not without support from US/UK, ok you never really know. but on the other hand. Gripen passed the requirements sat by norwegian government for their future aircraft fleet. and that is proof enough for me.
5.
the fact remains, F-35 was build upon US doctotrin in other words "offensiv warfare" Gripen was build after the Swedish doctotrin. with defence in mind.
you guys might laugh at me. its ok. im not an expert. but to say Norway shall purchase F-35, because its the best A/C on paper. is for me. unbeliievable.
i´m very interested to hear, what you guys think?
- Status