Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
The UK government is extremely tight with money when it comes to the military, so my idea was just hypothetical, it's doubted they will even go through with the new aircraft carriers, let alone the JSF, so I very much doubt there was any real risk/cost problems.
Doubted by who? Contracts have been signed for the carriers & work has begun. Cancelling now would cost several hundred million pounds for nothing (think of the political humilation!) and put people out of work in the Prime Ministers own constituency. It's now extremely difficult, politically, to cancel. Once you build the carriers, buying aircraft to put on them is a given.
There are many areas of defence spending at risk, but these are about the safest I can think of. At worst, numbers of aircraft, & capability (weapons integrated, for example) will be skimped on.
TSR2 comes to mind
Sorry, they are planning to build what, almost 3000 F-35? F-35 is going to be around, even if the UK did cancel, in all three variants. And the UK cancelling F-35 orders would be in the wasted money league that cancelling Typhoon Tranche 3 would be given we have invested what, just over £1Billion in F-35?
Yes the Defence budget is tight-but its not the all doom and gloom like the British Papers would have you believe.
Yes the Defence budget is tight-but its not the all doom and gloom like the British Papers would have you believe.
A project initiated by the Conservatives, of which development was cancelled by a new Labour government, with a defence cutting agenda when elected, & with viable procurement alternatives (F-111 & developed Buccaneer), at a time when we were spending almost 3 times the proportion of GDP on defence that we are now.TSR2 comes to mind
This government is unlikely to cancel CVF. It's their own project, & they've sunk political capital in it. The Tories won't cancel it, because they've been criticising the government for taking so long to decide to build it, & underfunding defence in general.
Dalregementet
New Member
Dalregementet
New Member
I don´t work for Saab, but the company I work for support the Gripen deal in the Gripen offset programme. Our people that are in talks with the Norwegian officials tell me that the officials have a quite negative attitude regarding F35 so it´s not only THS "virtual" attack on russian ground installations that counts.
Dalregementet
New Member
Could the Rafale be an alternative for the UK? Just a question - otherwise, the UK threat to pull out is meaningless.
Navalised Eurofighter was on the table.
For the carriers? Certainly. Also the F-18E, & theoretically (though I think it would be far too expensive to develop) a naval Typhoon. They're designed so that they could be completed - or refitted at a later date - with catapults.
The Rafale may be perfectly capable but I don't think the public would take too kindly to it, I am referring to the anti-French sentiment which is still at large in England.
I count at least 34...22....73......11....4.....at least 144 French Aircraft in the Uk's military inventory-about 10% of the total for the three services. The trick would be do get large parts of it built in the UK and for the French to make a return purchase of UK defence equipment. (Much like a previous Helo deal.)
Well the Harrier was the most famous part of the inventory, something that more people are aware of, I don't think many pay attention to the latter part (IE: Helos etc.), remember we're replacing the Harrier here
Waterfestival93
New Member
F-15 Eagle:
Quote: "The F-35 is as agile as the F-16 so thats means just as good as the Gripen/Gripen NG. T/W is very good because of the F135/136 of 40,000lbs thrust. The F-35 also has a slightly lower wing loading than the F-16 and weight has nothing to do with it if it has a powerful enough engine which it does. The F-35 will be no worst than the F-16/F-15 and Gripen/Gripen NG in ACM so I don't know were you get your info from".
Your points:
1. “The F-35 is as agile as the F-16 so thats means just as good as the Gripen/Gripen NG”.
The JSF might be as good as the F-16. That does not mean that it will be as agile as Gripen NG. The F-16 is a very good lightweight dogfighter. Block 50/52 with the General Electric F110 producing 128.9kN, and with that T/W 1.095. Initially intended as a dogfighter, and planned to stay on duty in USAF until 2025, it is still a powerful and lethal opponent to all newer fighter jets. With higher T/W than Gripen A/B/C/D (0.94), but also higher wing loading it should be comparable to the Gripen. So far in exercises the Gripens have performed well and I haven’t seen anything that supports that the F-16 is as good as Gripen. Some say “almost as good”. Which is expected. If you have any links supporting that the F-16 is just as good, feel free to post them.
If the F-16 is “almost as good” compared to Gripen A/B/C/D, then what do you think a significantly higher T/W in Gripen NG would do?
2. "T/W is very good because of the F135/136 of 40,000lbs thrust".
That is very high thrust, but the lightest variant (the conventional takeoff and landing) that is envisaged for Norway/Denmark is weighing in at 13,170 kg (29,036 lb). It still gives T/W of ca 1.10. But significantly lower T/W than the Gripen NG.
3. "The F-35 also has a slightly lower wing loading than the F-16 and weight has nothing to do with it if it has a powerful enough engine which it does".
It still has a lot higher wing loading than Gripen NG. And weight do have significance. You could compare it to sportscars; The all new MB SL 65 AMG Black Series (huh, long name…) with a fantastic 6-litre biturbo V12 and 661 hp, would stand no chance against a Lotus Exige with a tiny TOYOTA in-line 4 cylinder engine with just 192 hp around a tight racetrack. Now why is that? Well the MB weighs in at 1870KG, and the Lotus at only 890 KG. All that weight just won’t turn in as fast as the lighter Lotus. No matter stronger engine. With a higher HP/KG (i.e Trust/Weight), the MB will accelerate faster in a straight line, but it will not be as “agile” around the corners. And with a “spiced up” engine in the Lotus, producing higher HP/KG than the MB, well then the Lotus would drive around the MB in circles… That goes for boats, and jets to. Remember that the jets have to cut through thin air to turn. The heavier, the harder to turn tight, the rubber just won’t stick to the tarmac…
4. "The F-35 will be no worst than the F-16/F-15 and Gripen/Gripen NG in ACM so I don't know were you get your info from".
You have not substantiated any technical explanation for your conclusions.
If we can agree on that 2 modern jets that both have relaxed stability/unstable design, then their agility will differ correlated to their T/W, and wing loading (I know it’s not that simple, but to some how to make it understandable). If we can agree on that then the one with superior specifications should be the more agile right?
Quote: "The F-35 is as agile as the F-16 so thats means just as good as the Gripen/Gripen NG. T/W is very good because of the F135/136 of 40,000lbs thrust. The F-35 also has a slightly lower wing loading than the F-16 and weight has nothing to do with it if it has a powerful enough engine which it does. The F-35 will be no worst than the F-16/F-15 and Gripen/Gripen NG in ACM so I don't know were you get your info from".
Your points:
1. “The F-35 is as agile as the F-16 so thats means just as good as the Gripen/Gripen NG”.
The JSF might be as good as the F-16. That does not mean that it will be as agile as Gripen NG. The F-16 is a very good lightweight dogfighter. Block 50/52 with the General Electric F110 producing 128.9kN, and with that T/W 1.095. Initially intended as a dogfighter, and planned to stay on duty in USAF until 2025, it is still a powerful and lethal opponent to all newer fighter jets. With higher T/W than Gripen A/B/C/D (0.94), but also higher wing loading it should be comparable to the Gripen. So far in exercises the Gripens have performed well and I haven’t seen anything that supports that the F-16 is as good as Gripen. Some say “almost as good”. Which is expected. If you have any links supporting that the F-16 is just as good, feel free to post them.
If the F-16 is “almost as good” compared to Gripen A/B/C/D, then what do you think a significantly higher T/W in Gripen NG would do?
2. "T/W is very good because of the F135/136 of 40,000lbs thrust".
That is very high thrust, but the lightest variant (the conventional takeoff and landing) that is envisaged for Norway/Denmark is weighing in at 13,170 kg (29,036 lb). It still gives T/W of ca 1.10. But significantly lower T/W than the Gripen NG.
3. "The F-35 also has a slightly lower wing loading than the F-16 and weight has nothing to do with it if it has a powerful enough engine which it does".
It still has a lot higher wing loading than Gripen NG. And weight do have significance. You could compare it to sportscars; The all new MB SL 65 AMG Black Series (huh, long name…) with a fantastic 6-litre biturbo V12 and 661 hp, would stand no chance against a Lotus Exige with a tiny TOYOTA in-line 4 cylinder engine with just 192 hp around a tight racetrack. Now why is that? Well the MB weighs in at 1870KG, and the Lotus at only 890 KG. All that weight just won’t turn in as fast as the lighter Lotus. No matter stronger engine. With a higher HP/KG (i.e Trust/Weight), the MB will accelerate faster in a straight line, but it will not be as “agile” around the corners. And with a “spiced up” engine in the Lotus, producing higher HP/KG than the MB, well then the Lotus would drive around the MB in circles… That goes for boats, and jets to. Remember that the jets have to cut through thin air to turn. The heavier, the harder to turn tight, the rubber just won’t stick to the tarmac…
4. "The F-35 will be no worst than the F-16/F-15 and Gripen/Gripen NG in ACM so I don't know were you get your info from".
You have not substantiated any technical explanation for your conclusions.
If we can agree on that 2 modern jets that both have relaxed stability/unstable design, then their agility will differ correlated to their T/W, and wing loading (I know it’s not that simple, but to some how to make it understandable). If we can agree on that then the one with superior specifications should be the more agile right?
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'm not an expert, but...
the F-35 has far better "grip" than it's wing area indicate in terms of "wing loading". The same actually applies to the Gripen. The forces available for turning is made up by lift from fuselage and wings and, importantly, how they interact. Take a look at the planforms of the F-35 and the Gripen.
There is also the issue of vortex generation. Note for instance that the F-35 has no LERX. It is a very, very advanced aerodynamical design in this aspect.
You don't "cut" thin air to turn, you move it in the right way by the most efficient means.
Wing loading can be (or rather, it is,) misleading.
Just because something looks inefficient, doesn't mean it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow
the F-35 has far better "grip" than it's wing area indicate in terms of "wing loading". The same actually applies to the Gripen. The forces available for turning is made up by lift from fuselage and wings and, importantly, how they interact. Take a look at the planforms of the F-35 and the Gripen.
There is also the issue of vortex generation. Note for instance that the F-35 has no LERX. It is a very, very advanced aerodynamical design in this aspect.
You don't "cut" thin air to turn, you move it in the right way by the most efficient means.
Wing loading can be (or rather, it is,) misleading.
Just because something looks inefficient, doesn't mean it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Then I would expect the block 4/5 to be even better than the anticipated ones now in the future when they come online.
First of all, the LM offer was NOK 19.5 bn. for the planes and NOK 12.5 bn. for a 20 year service and maintainance agreement. The two offers vary in their content and definitions and thus are not directly comparable. Both are binding offers.
As far as I know, the cited NOK 50 bn. SAAB figure is subject to some confusion at the moment. Noone seems to have a good indication of what it represents. It does seem to somewhat contradict the 180% figure.
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
A few comments I'd like to shoot in.
T/W: You are quoting the AA-1 weight figure whereas the production version will be 600-700 kg lighter (ca. 12.500 kg). The F-35s engine has also been uprated to 43.000lbs. If the Gripen NG stays on 22.000lbs thrust the F-35 will have a higher T/W.
Wingloading: In terms of relevant mission layouts the F-35 actually has a lower wingloading compared to the Gripen in many cases. Especially as the combat load increases. However the F-35 is subject to considerable body-lift due to its wide body and various aerodynamic features, so a direct comparison is very hard to do.
Agility: F-35 is said to be on par with the F-18/F-16, which puts in the same class as Gripen and Eurofighter. It is reasonable to assume they all have strengths and weaknesses in different parts of the flight envelope - it's not an exact science.
One of the more impressive features of the F-35 is that it provides a 9g envelope with a full 8.4 tons of internal fuel and a full 2 ton internal combat weapons layout. I'm not aware of any other fighter, apart from possibly the F-22, which is capable of this. Also I'm not aware of any other current fighter, except the F-22 and F-111, which is mach 1.6 capable - or indeed supersonic - in such a configuration.
F-16 vs. Gripen: During training encounters with norwegian F-16s the Gripen has been tackled with sound concepts of energy maneuvering due in part to its more powerful engine.
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
- Status