Eleborate please?
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
yes i know what it means.
but i want to know why he come to that conclution?
i really cant see anything that contradict it..
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The purpose of that Dutch site is to provide a collection of interpreted "facts" in order to put the JF in a negative light. If you look at the site, the body of work is on the negative reporting, or creating a "body of proof". Such a site works by the idea that people that drop by, preferably journalist, will have a researched and interpreted case presented to them.
It works well with journos, who wants to write an easy piece, and so are looking for controversional material containing the elements of conflict, criticism, a high-profile case and snappy sound-bites like "clubbing baby seals. Just look at this:
http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html
Such a site may or may not be manipulating. Some are taking it to the absurd, like APA, some are just critical, but biased in their analysis by not taking things into context, being overly reliant on material from GAO (one should be careful with GAO, they have a role to fill and their predictions are not "fact")and not being able to interpret things properly (eg. not knowing the difference between TY and FY dollars, GAO plus FY/TY explains the Stigmata quote).
IIRC an example from the Dutch site is the how much return Holland got from its SDD investment or the delays and how relevant they are. A contextual issue is relevance, eg. politicians being duly dilligent is being interpreted as if there are actual problems. All this then filters into the mainstream media, like the KRO. This is one way of white-anting.
Now, saying that the Dutch site white-anting is referring to purpose - not quality. They may have more things right than most sites with an agenda, but quite frankly, I can't be buggered by disseminating every site on the net.
White-anting is an Australian term? He! My English is becoming a smattering of Aussie, British and Americans terms...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, opinions. However public interest is not nessecarily a function of an informed and active public.1030 posts means that people are mentally active and that there are many opinions...
It's also an issue of things being stirred up.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
My take is that you're thinking of using sound as a method of detection?
Most has been said in that thread.
Here are the questions that should be asked:
How does it help you out closing closing the kill-chain vs stealth jets? Detect-track-engage-kill. Are there better methods for collecting proxy data? Are you put at an assymetrical disadvantage (tactically, economically - are you being forced to invest disproportionately in systems above and beyond your means for a balanced defence? This is how stealth works from a higher perspective), and how vulnerable is it?.
It's the systems level thingie - I'd consider it a bottom feeder. Distributed radars and just pointing DAS type devices into the air might work better...
Yes, this is the scenario i envision. IRST is not suitable to scan wast volumes of air, but sound detection could possibly compress the volume of interest. And it was the incorporation of ground based IRST/DAS to zoom in that i imagine would be alot more survivable then using radars, coupled with fire and forget type of missiles like AMRAAM /Yakhonto.
In short, stealth air defence.
I'm thinking about Iraqs airdefence 1991, how easy target a ground based radar is when its active, and believe this system, if possible to build, would change the game.
A thread with futuristic IAD would be a better place, i just dont know how to start a thread.
Yes, the soul reason for building stealthy IAD is when i'm at an expected disadvantage
Dalregementet
New Member
Sorry for being indistinct. I responded to a post that thought that Gripen was a fighter aircraft for nations that put "price before capabilities". Now, if price isn´t an issue at all then there are better alternatives for Norway than F35 - volyme not the least... If you then are allowed to buy them, well that's a political/economical issue. My point is, all purchases is a compromise between price and capability. There is of course a limit where the capability is too low so you don´t reach your objectives whatever they are - in that case you don´t buy. In this case, Norway says that both Gripen and F35 meet the technical requirements - the rest, I guess, is the cream on top as we say in Sweden. Do Norway need/want that cream and to what price?
Dalregementet
New Member
A norvegian politician, Hallgeir Langeland - Socialistisk Venstre, think Norway will buy F35 and that the leftist party SV won´t object to that if that would be the case :fly.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
http://www.aftenbladet.no/innenriks/939152/SV_kan_droppe_dissens_om_jagerfly.html
http://www.aftenbladet.no/innenriks/939152/SV_kan_droppe_dissens_om_jagerfly.html
Don`t worry, this is no indication of what will be chosen. What this says is that the left wing of the socialist left party will not kick up a stink if the JSF is chosen.
If the gripen is chosen, one can not say that the government chose peace in the government instead of national security. If the JSF is picked the Socialist left can point to the labour party forcing through a decision.
Or if etc....
In my view it is as open as it will ever be in regards to wich aircraft is chosen. I just hope they can get them in pink
2 things that i see as FunnyDon`t worry, this is no indication of what will be chosen. What this says is that the left wing of the socialist left party will not kick up a stink if the JSF is chosen.
If the gripen is chosen, one can not say that the government chose peace in the government instead of national security. If the JSF is picked the Socialist left can point to the labour party forcing through a decision.
Or if etc....
In my view it is as open as it will ever be in regards to wich aircraft is chosen. I just hope they can get them in pink
LM is frustrated because false information about their plattform in Norwegian media. haha and SAAB doesnt have that problem??
LM who cares what media thinks? is not media who will choose..
second.
LM always points out the stealth feature nothing els. and seems to forget, other capabilities where gripne has an advantage might suit Norways needs better than you beloved stealth!!
Admin Edit. Text deleted Stop being a child and exercise some self restraint. Read the rules - again.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No, they say a LOT more than that, if you'd care to understand what they are actually saying.
Internal weapons bay = minimised drag, which means the performance potential of the aircraft can actually be reached. Despite what SAAB, Sukhoi etc state publicly, large external stores creates drag issues. Only one other tactical fighter in the forseeable future will feature this. The F-22.
There is no WAY that the performance fiugures they quote can be achieved with large external stores loads.
Fuel fraction. The F-35 has a far better internal fuel fraction than any other tactical fighter on the planet. More internal fuel, again equals less drag. More fuel means more range and more time for afterburning should the poo hit the fan.
DAS/EOTS - 360 degree EO/IR coverage throughout the flight envelope. No other tactical aircraft on the planet will have this capability.
Advanced 3rd (or 4th depending on your POV) generation AESA radar. Euro-Canard manufacturers haven't produced an operational fighter-equipped AESA radar yet. The APG-81 follows the work American radar manufacturers have already done on the APG-63 (v3), APG-77, APG-79 and APG-80... No Euro-Canard fighter is likely to have such a capability when the F-35 enters service.
VLO design. This does not simply mean "stealth". It means a reduced radar cross section. It means reduced IR signature. It means tightly controlled electronic emissions and low probability of intercept modes for active electronic emissions.
Features which other tactical aircraft are using only partially, if at all.
A production run which will exceed the combined production runs of ALL the Euro-Canard aircraft, put together. Due to economies of scale, this means the F-35 IS cheaper to buy.
The outcome is an aircraft with better airframe performance (in an oprational configuration, ie: with bombs and missiles strapped on), better situational awareness, better target acquisition capability, very low levels of detectability (ie: I can see you, you can't see me) outstanding range, even without refuelling or external fuel tank carriage and one that is cheaper overall than it's competitors.
Says a bit more than what you have obviously picked up, doesn't it?
i was refering to 2 Norwegian artikels. not what LM say in general.
why make so much Drama about it.? let the platform speak for itself.
i know you 200 per cent love for this platform. and no one doubt the capabilities, in the end. with that amount of money spent. it have to be good.
but the world is not this or nothing. its a reason why different platforms has different capabilities.
and because of all fancy gadgets, does not always make the platform best suited for ALL countries.
ps.
and because you just mention something even close to critcal attitude or put a question mark to LM or F-35 doesnt mean you don admire the platform. or that you are anti the platform.
Last edited:
Haavarla
Active Member
Jesus...
U right about it's internal drags and stuff like that, but all the rest is just your own opinion and nothing to do with fact's of these terms..
Like others stated before, do anyone here know anything about the PAK-FA, and the Su-35's.
"VLO design. This does not simply mean "stealth". It means a reduced radar cross section. It means reduced IR signature. It means tightly controlled electronic emissions and low probability of intercept modes for active electronic emissions."
And who are you to state that the PAK-FA is someting less than the VLO design fighter in the years to come.
All thing considering, the Russian PAK-FA program didn't start this decade..
I mean this is below this treads topic's to even mention the PAK-FA features in the 2-3 years to come. It has nothing at all to do with the circle of facts existing today.
And is just hearsay and make beleves..
It's just pointless statement from pepl that dont recognize the the advancement made by the Russsian R&D in reecent years, and that the PAK-FA is an program to be recon with..
If anyone folow this path, it's only gonna decrease the hard earned credibility
apprehended by this forum.
Actually for various reasons we do follow russian developments.
So the question is, in all their procurement development in the last 4 years - at a maritime , air defence and air development level - what HAS physically been rolled out and been seen for review?
How and why is PAK-FA a program to be reckoned with when there is less known about than the J-10? (let alone real VLO aircraft)
Haavarla
Active Member
When you'r asuming that less is known about the PAK-FA, is less to be reconed with??
What's the logic about that?
Good grief. If you need s stellar lesson in the impact of the media, then look at the australian press. (Ah yes, another swedish product that was rejected at first review with over 11,000 failed welds)
Now even though those problems were fixed (because they incurred penalties for shoddy work done in Sweden - not australia) The press still have damaged the reputation of these platforms.
- This is beside the fact that all faulty welds done in sweden were redone in australia
- This is beside the fact that even though the swedes didn't tank test the prototype, the americans did and redesigned the sail and topdeck
- This is beside the swedes providing a propellor that failed a materials test (cracked due to inaccurate content mix) and was replaced with a US nuke derived prop)
Now even though we've spent money to fix the design faults and problems, they still have a bad reputation - is that fair?
BTW I deal with Swedish military companies every day for work - and they get just as excited about govt and public perception.
Grow up indeed....
Or shall I point out the impact of the press in australia who get excited about a group of disaffected individuals who have conflicts of interest and yet happily promote the drivel they say about JSF even though combat pilots with over 6000hrs of strike and aggressor training experience have challenged and eroded their infantile view of the world.
There are some kids in here who need to grow up before they start pontificating about things that they only scrape together from the public domain and have regularly demonstrated a failure to understand basic concepts.
I'm losing patience with kids who think that they know about military technology and this industry in particular.
Show me anything comprehensive about PAK-FA apart from the continuing drivel that it will be here next year, in two years , in five years, in 10 years etc...
One credible persistent and verifiable resource (not some idiot kids fan club site either)
The Gripen is a glorified legacied F-16.
Count the number of american components in it (or more to the point, the number of technologies that aren't swedish.)
I dont know if you folllow the daily debate that is going on in Norway atm??
i was talking about recent events where LM interfere becuase of armchair generals debates, like F-35 is not a multifole just a bombtuck or have black boxes, the same myth goes around Gripen.
the difference is LM goes out more than once and say they are afraid of this? i say. calm down. the platform will speak for itself, why go down to that level?? SAAB just ignore it.
why make up such huge thing about a comment i made about norwegian media and how LM handling it?
Haavarla
Active Member
Dude, i agree with you on various points, but still not anyone on this forum is able to procure any info about the PAK-FA project.
So what's with the sudden rush of time/knowledge in this forum?
Remind me again how long it took the F-117 and F-22 to complete the program?
- Status