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

[Fritz]

It's about thrust - not absolute speed. The 90's saw a shift away from speed as an empirical benefit in fixed wing combat design - the focus is on manouvre and thrust.

This sound really strange, because speed offer several huge advantages, while manouvre and thrust is really only useful in dogfight.
In this forum, many concider dogfights to be far less important then BVR engagements, and high offbore heatseeking missiles combined with helmet mounted display makes the focus on manouvre and thrust even more questionable.
Furthermore, most F/A today can allready pull 9g, and if they can do more, it is limited to 9g anyway because of safety concern. The pilot is the limiting factor, and has been for quite some time.
Is this your own conclusion, or can you verify which airforce has adopted this doctrine ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

This sound really strange, because speed offer several huge advantages, while manouvre and thrust is really only useful in dogfight.
In this forum, many concider dogfights to be far less important then BVR engagements, and high offbore heatseeking missiles combined with helmet mounted display makes the focus on manouvre and thrust even more questionable.
Furthermore, most F/A today can allready pull 9g, and if they can do more, it is limited to 9g anyway because of safety concern. The pilot is the limiting factor, and has been for quite some time.
Is this your own conclusion, or can you verify which airforce has adopted this doctrine ?

Aircraft manufacturers all shifted away from high absolute mach speed as sought after in the 60's and 70's to different capabilities. A cursory look at the history of combat aircraft will show the shift away by nearly every designer except for the russians - and even they have focused on manouvre.

It can pull 9g but the overstress alert kicks in at 7.5g. The idea of manouvre is because once the missile enters the NEZ, then a 7.5 - 9g aircraft will not outrun a 30+g missile - unless its at the end of its energy curve.

TVC on a 30+g missile vs 9G on an aircraft? Make sure your self defence systems and parachutes packed....

If you doubt what the focus is on, look at the absolute change from Mach 2.nn + fighters of the 70's to transonic specialists with signal management and manouvre mgt.

The reason for BVR is self evident in light of current missiles - you still want to be able to manouvre at max range advantage though - you're trading on killing off max engagement range vs AAM missile energy etc.....

It's not my theory btw. Speak to any aviation or fluid mechanics engineer involved in platform design and they'll identify the same conceptual shifts over the last 30 years.

Hint, the focus on hypersonic missiles and sustained thrust VC motors should also give you a clue as to where the missile developers think that their advantage lies

 

[Fritz]

Aircraft manufacturers all shifted away from high absolute mach speed as sought after in the 60's and 70's to different capabilities. A cursory look at the history of combat aircraft will show the shift away by nearly every designer except for the russians - and even they have focused on manouvre.

If i remember correctly, one key requirement the USAF had on F-22 Raptor was the ability to supercruise M1.5 dry thrust. And despite this speed, they still A/B during the merge to increase speed even further, to give highest possible initial speed on the missile.
About manouvre, i believe high speed manouvre is the more important, and aircraft design is more important then thrust in that respect. Which is one of the reasons Typhoon was built as a canard delta-wing fighter. Low-drag, low RCS, ideal high speed aerodynamics and simplicity, provided by the absence of horizontal tail surfaces being others.

It can pull 9g but the overstress alert kicks in at 7.5g. The idea of manouvre is because once the missile enters the NEZ, then a 7.5 - 9g aircraft will not outrun a 30+g missile - unless its at the end of its energy curve.

Yes, manouvre is not the answer, the better option is to fly as fast as possible away from the missile, even if you cant allways outrun it, it will be at the end of its energy curve, making out-manouvre the missile possible, and i recommend keeping high speed in that manouvre.

TVC on a 30+g missile vs 9G on an aircraft? Make sure your self defence systems and parachutes packed....

Yep, if you traded speed for low speed manouvre, Make sure your self defence systems and parachutes packed...

If you doubt what the focus is on, look at the absolute change from Mach 2.nn + fighters of the 70's to transonic specialists with signal management and manouvre mgt.

In case of fighters, the latest and greatest of them all, F-22 Raptor, is as far from transonic as it can get. Which makes me doubt the focus on transonic fighters.
If you mean attack aircraft, yep, speed is usually less critical, but there still is time critical attacks to be done, and i believe future battle will underscore this further.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If i remember correctly, one key requirement the USAF had on F-22 Raptor was the ability to supercruise M1.5 dry thrust. And despite this speed, they still A/B during the merge to increase speed even further, to give highest possible initial speed on the missile.
About manouvre, i believe high speed manouvre is the more important, and aircraft design is more important then thrust in that respect, which is why Typhoon was built as a delta-wing fighter. The low RCS was just a nice extra that came with it.

And we get back to the fundamental issue that all manufacturers are moving away from mach2+ solutions. Are you saying that you're ahead of the curve of the aeronautical engineers and tacair planners who assist in design?

Yes, manouvre is not the answer, the better option is to fly as fast as possible away from the missile, even if you cant allways outrun it, it will be at the end of its energy curve, making out-manouvre the missile possible. Yep, if you traded speed for manouvre, Make sure your self defence systems and parachutes packed...

See above. Your practical experience in this as compared to actual design trends that have been demonstrated for the last 30 years is.... ?

You manouvre to break sensor lock. Its pretty basic stuff that you seem oblivious of. Going away from the missile at flat chat serves no purpose except to help the next shooting box do their sums easier.

Manouvre is not just to break the missile behind you - its to confuse the locks of every other system sniffing you out.

In case of fighters, the latest and greatest of them all, F-22 Raptor, is as far from transonic as it can get.
If you mean attack aircraft, yep, speed is usually less critical, but there still is time critical attacks to be done, and i believe future battle will underscore this further.

Back to basics again. It's moved away from Mach2+ design. It's traded speed for stealth for air dominance.

The transonic ships have a different role - but I guess you knew that. What do all of the transonic aircraft have as a common profile....?
Rhetorical question: Why do you think the US and a few other nations are focussing on the weapons solution and not the platform? What do you think the US has been doing in australia for the last 4-5 years?

and before we beat this horse to death - please note the thrust and context of this debate. ie High speed intercept designs designed to get in and out, be it intercept or be it ferret missions have gone the way of the dodo for the last 30 years.

They have been replaced by sophisticated solutions that have new design elements, manouvre, carriage, sig management and system coherence have the priority.

Speed (ie, Mach 2.2+ is a sensor systems love child. There's a number of reasons why it's no longer the dominant design element

 

[Fritz]

And we get back to the fundamental issue that all manufacturers are moving away from mach2+ solutions

All recent planes with A2A as their primary role, except the pakistani Thunder, is M2+ solutions, preferably with supercruise ability.

and before we beat this horse to death

Agree with this, so i'll let you have the last word

 

[pitbikeracing]

The F-35 future is unclear for some European countries, these are tied in to cost, technology transfer, offsets and aircraft capability for the dollar paid.
A Dutch parliamentary report recently stated that the final cost of F-35 will not be known until the final aircraft comes off the production line and they were not happy with technology transfer issues, so what does the future holf for the F-35.
SAAB are making a great play to the Scandinavian countries with the next generation Grippen, and I personally think that is the way they will go.
F-35 seems a jack of all trades aircraft with what seems to be limited range and payload. It's plusses are stealth, AESA radar and whatever new technology is in place.
However some countries may want the accent to be on an aircraft which can do more and is better overall value, so for me it's Typhoon or Grippen for some countries, forget Rafale, no one seems to like it much.

good analysis!

 

[AegisFC]

good analysis!

Hi, welcome to the forum. Do not post one liners or even worse a couple words, it is in the rules and is even in a stick at the top of this forum.

 

[Fritz]

I think it was a mistake to bet all the money on one horse, F-35.
The reason was understandable, to make it as affordable as possible in regards to cost per flight hour, a decrease in operational cost was promised.

However, latest GAO estimate on JSF show that F-35 now exceeds the F-16 in CPFL. www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf

At 2003, One estimate for F-16 is roughly $3,600 per hour.
www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=224812

Also around 2003, SWAF reported
* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.

Perhaps the US had been better of having two different aircraft, provided by two different competing companies, what do you think ?

 

[Grand Danois]

I think it was a mistake to bet all the money on one horse, F-35.
The reason was understandable, to make it as affordable as possible in regards to cost per flight hour, a decrease in operational cost was promised.

However, latest GAO estimate on JSF show that F-35 now exceeds the F-16 in CPFL. www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf

At 2003, One estimate for F-16 is roughly $3,600 per hour.
www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=224812

Also around 2003, SWAF reported
* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.

the gripen had averaged, what, 350 hrs per airframe in 2003, the F-16 average was 4000 hrs(?). get back when current gripens have clocked the same number of hours and compare (that would be in 2043?). btw, considering how little the gripens fly, and yet they still have the full infrastructure behind them, those numbers for the gripen are hardly derived from real world numbers.

Btw, you get what you pay for.

Perhaps the US had been better of having two different aircraft, provided by two different competing companies, what do you think ?

nope, bad idea. The reason the F-35 is cheap is due to economies of scale. Having two options will each be more expensive than one on a per unit basis. also, there isn't room in the budget for two competing projects.

 

[Fritz]

the gripen had averaged, what, 350 hrs per airframe in 2003, the F-16 average was 4000 hrs

But that doesnt matter. What matter is that brand new F-35 is now expected to cost more then old 4000 hrs F-16.
Which means a brand new F-35 is around twice as expensive to operate compared to an equally brand new Gripen.

Btw, you get what you pay for.

At least that was the idea, from its outset, the first and foremost goal with JSF was to get as affordable attack aircraft as possible. Performance was secondary...

nope, bad idea. The reason the F-35 is cheap is due to economies of scale. Having two options will each be more expensive than one on a per unit basis. also, there isn't room in the budget for two competing projects.

What i meant was, they went into a trap. Now is too late to cancel, both USAF and USN must replace old aircraft soon. Had there been an alternative, they could have canceled the JSF and went with the better managed alternative.

 

[Grand Danois]

But that doesnt matter. What matter is that brand new F-35 is now expected to cost more then old 4000 hrs F-16.
Which means a brand new F-35 is around twice as expensive to operate compared to an equally brand new Gripen.

what is the source for that brand new F-35 are more expensive to operate than a 4000hr F-16s? What is the average age, flights hrs and block of the comparison? Or are they talking of JSF of all types and LCC vs a block 50/52 F-16 with 2k fh?

You don't know, do you?

...and is there something to ponder wrt the gripen numbers, that looks to be extracts and extrapolations of real world numbers on the premise of ideal conditions? iow massaged, hypothetical, numbers, whereas the F-16 are real.

At least that was the idea, from its outset, the first and foremost goal with JSF was to get as affordable attack aircraft as possible. Performance was secondary...

not as affordable as possible - just affordable: an affordable first class multirole fighter. - and it looks to beat every other jet hands down on every parameter, including a2a. more expensive (and this is only perhaps more expensive), but by far the most value for money.

What i meant was, they went into a trap. Now is too late to cancel, both USAF and USN must replace old aircraft soon. Had there been an alternative, they could have canceled the JSF and went with the better managed alternative.

no they didn't. usually when the arguments are thin, suggestions that something's fishy or customers are being cheated pops up. suggestions that people are being lied to and promises are being broken.

To sow badwill without presenting any relevant information.

Btw, what is the better managed alternative?

 

[Sea Toby]

Actually, there was an alternative. The Lockheed F-35 had to beat the prototype Boeing F-32. From that competition the F-35 won....a decision made by all of these countries involved in the program.

Everyone keeps talking about all of the F-35 problems, but Lockheed has slowly eliminated all of the problems. With the GAO still supporting the F-35, unlike the F-22, I would expect Congress will too.

 

[Grand Danois]

Actually, there was an alternative. The Lockheed F-35 had to beat the prototype Boeing F-32. From that competition the F-35 won....a decision made by all of these countries involved in the program.

Yes, I know of the -32. But beyond the prototypes, it was only the F-35. What Fritz suggest is two parallel development and production lines, to maintain competition at all stages of the program, which is unfeasible, given the resources.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I thought the X-32 was ugly and I don't see how that could be a top-notch fighter. It does not look like its that maneuverable, well I guess thats why its lost to the F-35.

 

[Fritz]

Yes, I know of the -32. But beyond the prototypes, it was only the F-35. What Fritz suggest is two parallel development and production lines, to maintain competition at all stages of the program, which is unfeasible, given the resources.

Yes, exactly, but the two programs could still have share things like engine, radar etc. And the companies would be at the mercy of US gouvernment, and not the other way around.
It is also my impression that LM's resources are stretched to the absolute limit.

 

[cobzz]

F-35 seems a jack of all trades aircraft with what seems to be limited range and payload.

F-35 can carry almost as much fuel as a F-14 or SU-27, and a massive amount more than another of F - teen fight could ever carry. Fuel fraction of the F-35 is about 0.39, one of the highest of any fighters. Internal payload is reasonable, but when you combine internal stores with external... it can carry more than a F-16 / F-18 / Gripen.

Gee I sound like a Lockheed salesman don't I.

 

[irtusk]

F-35 can carry almost as much fuel as a F-14

incorrect

it can carry MORE fuel than an F-14

(excepting the B version of course)

Internal payload is reasonable, but when you combine internal stores with external... it can carry more than a F-16 / F-18 / Gripen.

or a Tomcat for that matter (for C version)

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think it was a mistake to bet all the money on one horse, F-35.
The reason was understandable, to make it as affordable as possible in regards to cost per flight hour, a decrease in operational cost was promised.

However, latest GAO estimate on JSF show that F-35 now exceeds the F-16 in CPFL. www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf

Both DoD AND (predictably) L-M disagreed with that estimate. GAO haven't exactly been known for overwhelming accuracy in the past...

That report also doesn't differentiate between VARIANTS of the F-35 aircraft.

But in ANY case, it's a VLO rated tactical fighter aircraft. It IS going to be more difficult and probably costly to maintain, then a legacy non-VLO fighter.

But as others have said, you gets what you pay for...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I thought the X-32 was ugly and I don't see how that could be a top-notch fighter. It does not look like its that maneuverable, well I guess thats why its lost to the F-35.

I thought the X-32 looked like a pig too, and you know what they say, if it looks right it flies right. However ugly it was the X-32 did come with 2D TVC (not sure of the final model), and 6AAM capability off the bat & AN/APG-79, so it would have been a pretty capable fighter. But considering the forward placement of the engine, LO may have been its achillies heel. Unless Boeing figured out a way to make a naked engine face much less reflective without hiding it.

 

[Fritz]

I thought the X-32 looked like a pig too,

Yep, when i saw how that plane looked like, i actually regret bringing up the idea of produce it as a backup.