Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
Look at the range graphs - and see under which conditions the requirements are met.
Just like reading an annual report: Except in abnormal cases the bottom line has few shocks. .The interesting issues are hidden in items: How are stocks valued, how much has been plowed away in reservation for losses, stuff like that
Gripen NG will be able to perform a five-hour unrefuelled reconnaissance mission or a 90-minute 600 nm CAP with 4 AAMs. This meets the Norwegian DoD requirements, AFAIK. Perhaps F-35 can do better, but probably only marginally better. F-35 may have several advantages compared to Gripen NG, but range is not really one of them.
NG will have a fuel fraction of 0.31.
V
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, Gripen NG has a very impressive and useful range.
Noted "elsewhere" that 6 x AIM-120D+ config on the F-35 is to do OT&E in 2016-2017 (block 5)!
Ahh. Here it is: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1---executive-summary---part-1_dista.pdf
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Only with external tanks. Put the same external tanks on the F-35 and the Gripen's range doesn't seem so impressive any longer...
Do that and F-35 lose it's main advantage which is stealth...
5 hours un-refuelled reconnaissance mission with such a fighter is impressive.
Norwegians are not allowed to work longer w.o a break anyway, so longer range would cause serious problems
Aussie Digger, I thought you were above and beyond "mine is bigger than yours" discussions ? Point is, both a/c fulfil the customers requirements to range. Thus range is not a huge factor. Other things, a2a capability, a2g capability, sensors, costs, now there you may see important and decisive differences between the two candidates.
V
Never mess with the union, they will bite you hard if you try!Norwegians are not allowed to work longer w.o a break anyway, so longer range would cause serious problems
:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No it doesn't. What it will suffer is an increase in it's normal infinitesimal radar cross section. It's other LO features won't suffer the slightest bit of degradation because of this.
Does this mean however that the aircraft will suddenly become tactically useless, should this radar cross section be increased?
Is a Gripen tactically useless?
Because it has a larger radar cross section than a clean F-35?
I'm not attempting to PROVE any aircraft's superiority here, simply addressing the nonsensical claims that seem to permeate discussions in relation to a situation where an LO aircraft might be carrying external stores.
Obviously LO is a significant advantage in an aircraft. The US and other future operators of the capability would not be prepared to accept the design compromises inherent in an LO design otherwise.
Obviously external stores on an F-35 is likely to increase the radar returns from the aircraft.
For equally obvious reasons however, this does not preclude the aircraft from providing significant capability even when carrying external stores, be they fuel bags, weapons, sensor pods or whatever.
I would argue though should I ever be in a p**ing contest, that the F-35 would be a superlative combat aircraft even if it were NOT an LO aircraft.
It's aerodynamic design, tremendous thrust, range on internal fuel and outstanding sensor and weapons package guarantee this...
The Gripen will have a comparable radius with external drop tanks, but will suffer from reduced performance and greater radar signature until external ordnance is launched or ejected.
Based on a quoted 4600 pph fuel flow at Mcruise (0,73 mach at 32000 feet) the F-35 can do about 4 hours on on internal fuel (substract startup, taxing, takeoff and landing fuel). The quoted radius on a maritime patrol mission with 2x antiship missiles and 2x AAMs is 740 nm.
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Only 4 hours on internal tanks? Are you sure about that Energo? Sounds not impressive... If the external F-35 tank increases this by 25% you'll arrive at the 5 hour un-refuelled mission claimed by Saab. What happened to the highly impressive F-35 range!? Or does the external tanks increase this number by more than 50%...?
V
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Does that include all users of the F-35 both American and for partner nations for the block 5 F-35?
According to Lockmart the radius with only internal fuel is 673 nm and with external tanks it is increased to 728 nm.
No mentioning of weapon loads though.
Link to Lockmart numbers (thx GD) :
(h)ttp://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1---executive-summary---part-1_dista.pdf
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Those figures are with the standard load of 2x AMRAAM, 2x GBU-12 LGB's and a full ammunition load for the gun.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It seems to be scheduled at that point in the development spiral, in block 5. As Norway would get block 4/5 they should be able to use this config. I for one, don't see why US wouldn't export the D version of the AMRAAM.
Thx AD!
I have a question about range increase with external tanks in general on fighter jets :
Why is the increase in range with additional external tanks only a measly 8% (~8,17%) for the F-35 (with the aforementioned weapons load)? Is that normal for that category of aircraft?
It just seems to be too little or is it because the internal tanks are so massive it becomes a "mathematical delusion"?
I have heard that C-130 with external tanks adds almost no increase in range! That must be due to the extra drag I guess?
I think you're right. In percent the increase is not much, that's simply because, as you state, that the internal fuel tank is so big. So the range of F-35 w. external tank is not that impressive.
Vivendi
Your continued style of approach to discussions on here is starting to grate on my patience.I think you're right. In percent the increase is not much, that's simply because, as you state, that the internal fuel tank is so big. So the range of F-35 w. external tank is not that impressive.
Vivendi
You are rapidly being perceived as a nationalistic troll.
smarten up your style of debate or you'll be gone real soon.
Don't respond on here. If you are feeling justified in your behaviour then PM a Mod. Any posted responses re this warning will be deleted.
Take this as your 1st warning
From what I've read LM has offered offsets that might amount to a maximum of $2 billion until 2035 (but no guarantees, since LM wants competition based on price and quality of the products) and Saab has offered guaranteed offsets of $9 billion in a timespan of 15 years.
So Saab offers guarantees offsets of about 180% of the acquisition, while LM offers the possibility of about 40%.
While I think the AF should not (and probably will not) bother with the economical side of it, I'm sure Parliament will.
Can any Norwegian explain me what it is likely that Parliament will do (if the above is indeed correct)?
So Saab offers guarantees offsets of about 180% of the acquisition, while LM offers the possibility of about 40%.
While I think the AF should not (and probably will not) bother with the economical side of it, I'm sure Parliament will.
Can any Norwegian explain me what it is likely that Parliament will do (if the above is indeed correct)?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
- Status