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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grand Danois

Entertainer
im curious about the story of the deferment do you have a link for that as ive not see it anywhere else
Could be that memory has failed me, I remembered it as no internal ASRAAM for internal carriage:

Janes.com is reporting that the original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised where it will be two internal and two external weapons instead.

The external ASRAAM configuration will be common accross all F-35 variants. This may generate interest among other F-35 customers that were considering using the AIM-9X Sidewinder.

Included for the external configuration will be a low observable pylon to keep the radar signature of the aircraft to a minimum.

Quoting Janes: The new ASRAAM plan is a 'work swap' that does away with the requirement to clear the ASRAAM on the F-35's two internal air-to-ground weapon stations. The integration team now has the more straightforward task of providing underwing carriage on stations 1 and 11.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2762.html
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Interesting quote from Gripen Internationals, Owe Wagermark, about Boeings participation in the danish aquistition programme:

- Super Hornet is a big and outdated airplane. It's good today, but if it's going to be delivered in 2015 and last for another 30-40 years, it's a design that wont hold up.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article413082.ece

This begs the question: except size, in what significant fashion does Gripen Int. feel the Gripen NG differs from the SH? And surely, if a 4.5 gen. fighter is already getting old, the same can not be said about the F-35, can it?


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
It's a weird article... and Boeing has apparently given a cost of 50 mn USD fly away to the Danish Govt. The press says that LCC is twice that of both the NG and F-35... I can believe it compared to the NG.

The SHs avionics package is probably the most sophisticated on the market right now, one that Gripen NG will have difficulty to match, however the SH has shorter range and is more of a striker than the NG, which has more of the true fighter breed in it. Horses for courses.

Btw, you might want to read this (in Danish):

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20080916/danmark/80916024/
 

energo

Member
Could be that memory has failed me, I remembered it as no internal ASRAAM for internal carriage:

Janes.com is reporting that the original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised where it will be two internal and two external weapons instead.


Actually, if you look again Jane's is saying that two ASRAAMs will be carried internally instead of the planed four.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 

energo

Member
The SHs avionics package is probably the most sophisticated on the market right now, one that Gripen NG will have difficulty to match, however the SH has shorter range and is more of a striker than the NG, which has more of the true fighter breed in it. Horses for courses.

Btw, you might want to read this (in Danish):

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20080916/danmark/80916024/
Thank's for the link.

I haven't seen any decent combat mission profiles on the SH and Gripen, but the US Navy states a 2360 km range clean + wingtips AAMs whereas SAAB says the NG will go 2500 km clean. Factor in the SHs 4.5% higher fuel fraction and they have an almost identical relative drag ratio at optimal cruise. Of course a combat load could look entirely different.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
Last edited:

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Thank's for the link.

I haven't seen any decent combat mission profiles on the SH and Gripen, but the US Navy states a 2360 km range clean + wingtips AAMs whereas SAAB says the NG will go 2500 km clean. Factor in the SHs 4.5% higher fuel fraction and they have an almost identical relative drag ratio at optimal cruise. Of course a combat load could look entirely different.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Thanks for the numbers (and correction? I'll have to investigate. ;)).

Btw, you're right, it is an odd comment coming from Gripen Intl:

- Super Hornet is a big and outdated airplane. It's good today, but if it's going to be delivered in 2015 and last for another 30-40 years, it's a design that wont hold up.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordo...icle413082.ece

Exactly the same argument could be (and is) leveraged against the Gripen NG as they are (will be) technologically very similar!!!
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Janes.com is reporting that the original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised where it will be two internal and two external weapons instead.

The external ASRAAM configuration will be common accross all F-35 variants. This may generate interest among other F-35 customers that were considering using the AIM-9X Sidewinder.

Included for the external configuration will be a low observable pylon to keep the radar signature of the aircraft to a minimum.

Doubtless those of Oz will find that interesting, as the other (so far) Asraam customer.

Does anyone know anything about IRIS-T integration on F-35? So far, there are one definite (Italy), one just about certain even if not yet announced (Spain), & two potential (Norway & Greece) customers for F-35 who've bought IRIS-T, AFAIK. One would think there's a market, & that the manufacturers would like to be able to sell it to other F-35 customers.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Found the complete article:

UK changes JSF configuration for ASRAAM

04 March 2008 By Robert Hewson

The UK has made a significant change to its weapons fit plans for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised to include two internal and two external weapons instead.

The configuration change was agreed with the JSF Program Office in the United States late last year and was shown in public for the first time during the Singapore Airshow in February. The external ASRAAM fit will be common across all three JSF variants and could therefore attract interest from other international customers, who will otherwise be tied to Raytheon's AIM-9X Sidewinder.

The new ASRAAM plan is a 'work swap' that does away with the requirement to clear the ASRAAM on the F-35's two internal air-to-ground weapon stations. The integration team now has the more straightforward task of providing underwing carriage on stations 1 and 11. The ASRAAM is a rail-launched missile and internal weapons must be carried on a trapeze that swings down clear of the F-35's weapon bay before they can be launched.

It has always been a credo of the JSF programme that external weapons carriage fundamentally compromises the aircraft's very low observable (VLO) design. Speaking at the Singapore Airshow, George Stanridge, Lockheed Martin's vice president of F-35 Business Development, noted that, in general, "if you see something hanging on the aircraft it means you are not a VLO airplane". A new 'stealthy' pylon has been developed for the external ASRAAM and MBDA notes that the finless missile already has a tiny radar cross-section.

Carrying the ASRAAM outside the weapons bay brings several advantages, primarily in allowing passive long-range - beyond-visual-range (BVR) - engagements cued by the missile's seeker or the F-35's infrared search and track sensor.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
This "simulator" story is nothing to worry about for F35 but ehh... this one I think is more difficult.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/September 2008/0908wynne.aspx

Former Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne, says (quote):

"I’m afraid the F-35 will fail a test"

Instead, Wynne said, he favors keeping F-22 production going until the middle of next decade, and then conducting a flyoff between the F-22 and the F-35 around 2014.

This remark has already been published by a norwegian paper.

http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article2671085.ece


"Who needs enemies when you have friends like this?" :)
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
This "simulator" story is nothing to worry about for F35 but ehh... this one I think is more difficult.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/September 2008/0908wynne.aspx

Former Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne, says (quote):

"I’m afraid the F-35 will fail a test"

Instead, Wynne said, he favors keeping F-22 production going until the middle of next decade, and then conducting a flyoff between the F-22 and the F-35 around 2014.
Yes, let's test it:

Test #
  1. Land a F-22A on a carrier - failed.
  2. Land a F-22A on an amphib - failed.
  3. Carry 5k lbs of internal munitions - failed.
  4. Affordable F-22A LCC vs F-35 - failed, particularly affordability in case of export.
  5. Reduce unit cost to that of F-35 - failed.
  6. Allow F-22A for export (Obey amendment) - failed.
  7. <fill in>
:D

So should Norway buy Raptors instead of Gripen NG?

Yeah, you're right - with friends like this...
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Yes, let's test it:

Test #
  1. Land a F-22A on a carrier - failed.
  2. Land a F-22A on an amphib - failed.
  3. Carry 5k lbs of internal munitions - failed.
  4. Affordable F-22A LCC vs F-35 - failed, particularly affordability in case of export.
  5. Reduce unit cost to that of F-35 - failed.
  6. Allow F-22A for export (Obey amendment) - failed.
  7. <fill in>
:D

So should Norway buy Raptors instead of Gripen NG?

Yeah, you're right - with friends like this...
Ha ha ha! I never said Mr Wynne was right, merely that media is picking up every piece of negative information and publishes it. This turn public opinion against the aircraft, in this case the F35. I think the Norwegians are particulary sensitive to this since the parliament elections are only 7-8 months away. What is important, was that Mr Wynne issued a negative comment about F35 and that is enough. This is also about "hearts and minds"...
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Ha ha ha! I never said Mr Wynne was right, merely that media is picking up every piece of negative information and publishes it. This turn public opinion against the aircraft, in this case the F35. I think the Norwegians are particulary sensitive to this since the parliament elections are only 7-8 months away. What is important, was that Mr Wynne issued a negative comment about F35 and that is enough. This is also about "hearts and minds"...
Yes, and it's most fun to attack the "big established, controversial project." Journos like to criticize authority and negative criticism makes for good conflict material - the core of "I'll leave my workplace in order to catch the 16:30 train home" - journalism.

I'll say though, that just quoting that the "F-35 will fail a test" without context is not exactly legit.

Btw, decisions are probably made within the next 2-3 months and contracts signed in 6-7 months...

As a sidenote: the Eurofighter T3 should also be defined inside ½ a year - will get interesting on many topics.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE
OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER


Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
Pentagon team in Israel for F-35 talks
Sep. 25, 2008
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST
A team of officers from the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program was in Israel this week for talks with the Israeli Air Force aimed at finalizing details regarding Israeli plans to officially purchase the stealth fighter-jet next year.
Top IAF officers met with the delegation to discuss the configuration of the plane Israel is interested in buying, and officials said that Israel was aiming to make an official order and sign a contract with the Pentagon in early 2009. If that happens, Israel will likely begin receiving the advanced aircraft in 2014.



www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017397236&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Found the complete article:

UK changes JSF configuration for ASRAAM

04 March 2008 By Robert Hewson

The UK has made a significant change to its weapons fit plans for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised to include two internal and two external weapons instead.

The configuration change was agreed with the JSF Program Office in the United States late last year and was shown in public for the first time during the Singapore Airshow in February. The external ASRAAM fit will be common across all three JSF variants and could therefore attract interest from other international customers, who will otherwise be tied to Raytheon's AIM-9X Sidewinder.

The new ASRAAM plan is a 'work swap' that does away with the requirement to clear the ASRAAM on the F-35's two internal air-to-ground weapon stations. The integration team now has the more straightforward task of providing underwing carriage on stations 1 and 11. The ASRAAM is a rail-launched missile and internal weapons must be carried on a trapeze that swings down clear of the F-35's weapon bay before they can be launched.

It has always been a credo of the JSF programme that external weapons carriage fundamentally compromises the aircraft's very low observable (VLO) design. Speaking at the Singapore Airshow, George Stanridge, Lockheed Martin's vice president of F-35 Business Development, noted that, in general, "if you see something hanging on the aircraft it means you are not a VLO airplane". A new 'stealthy' pylon has been developed for the external ASRAAM and MBDA notes that the finless missile already has a tiny radar cross-section.

Carrying the ASRAAM outside the weapons bay brings several advantages, primarily in allowing passive long-range - beyond-visual-range (BVR) - engagements cued by the missile's seeker or the F-35's infrared search and track sensor.
In real terms i'm not sure how important ASRAAM carriage in the internal A2G stations are, they are still cleared for carriage on the A2A stations. The only issue is if they want a battle load of 2x GPM's 2x METEOR's and 2x ASRAAM's. Realistically a striker with 1x METEOR + 1x ASRAAM will suffice for most strike profiles, those weapons are pureley for self defence and the pacakge should be covered by escort,i.e. A2A configured platforms.

Anyway as the article points out on the frontal aspect ASRAAM has to have a tiny RCS, it might lead to an increase of detection and track range of what, 2%?
 

stigmata

New Member
Ozzy Blizzard said:
Anyway as the article points out on the frontal aspect ASRAAM has to have a tiny RCS, it might lead to an increase of detection and track range of what, 2%?
Must admit i'm interersted in math myself, but in this case, i just hav'nt got any info to even guesstimate what inpact external carriage would have.

Could you please elaborate how you came to the conclusion it would increase detection range ~2% ? :)
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Must admit i'm interersted in math myself, but in this case, i just hav'nt got any info to even guesstimate what inpact external carriage would have.

Could you please elaborate how you came to the conclusion it would increase detection range ~2% ? :)
It was a shot in the dark mate, and if you look at my post it actually was a question.

Look at the impact on the F-35's head on silhouette of an external ASRAAM, tiny, then remember the RCS of an object is much smaller than the volume of said outline. The head on RCS of an ASRAAM must be what, 3~4cm2? (most of the return would come of the FPA seeker), add that to the estimated ~10cm2 RCS of the F35 and you get a total RCS of ~0.2m2? Of course this is all guestimation, i have no idea what the actual frontal aspect RCS of an F-35 is, but i heard 0.1m2. Such a small increase in RCS will have a negligible impact on the platforms D&T radii, that's the point. Whether it is actually 2% is in real terms superfluous because any increase would be tactically insignificant.
 

rjmaz1

New Member
Actually from my basic understanding of Stealth it would not surprise me if the radar cross section of the F-35 more than doubles with just a pair of missiles on the wing tips.

I'd say its probably more than likely. You'll be creating a concave surface between the missile and the rail which will create unwanted radar reflections not accounted for in the original design. This may cause the F-35's RCS to double/triple without even adding the extra cross section of the missile itself.

Not to mention the F-35's radar cross section is already reduced so much that it appears the size of an ASRAAM missile. So adding an ASRAAM would be doubling that area.

It is possible the ASRAAM is stealth and also has a radar cross section is also a fraction of its physical frontal area. Unless the missile is stealthy and the pylon is bloody well designed i could see a 10 fold increase in radar cross section, effectively doubling detection range.
 
Last edited:

irtusk

New Member
Not to mention the F-35's radar cross section is already reduced so much that it appears the size of an ASRAAM missile. So adding an ASRAAM would be doubling that area.
one thing to remember is that doubling the cross-section does not double the detection range
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top