This is what you guys dont get. HALs “good work” is directly dependent on Dassault
Yes. But HAL’s good work is also dependent on HAL.
That is the bit Dassault does not want to be liable for!
The escalation of award to IOC times is not unique to US fighters.
Not trying to say it is – its just the best like-for-like comparisons – and info is easily available.
Another idea could be to tackle advanced development programs “backwards” in that you make the bulk of your investments on an annual basis over the years and mature concepts, capability and systems. You could then simply put those systems in a vehicle of choice that is the need of the hour.
And have an overarching interface definition so plug n play is simplified (and retro-fit is at least possible using pods if not internal volume).
Of course, while this might improve the lot of the average pilot/seaman/solider, it isn’t going to improve the share price of your AD company… [/cynical]
I wonder, couldn’t they reuse old APG-68s from the retired F-16s for basic air defense roles. Maybe the FA-50 could be equipped with it with minor modifications. It would be great if the trainer had an air to air capability for air policing at minimum cost.
Same for the proposal From Boab (pronounced Bob ;)) – forget about the RWR etc. Just add a PS-05/A to the nose…
Discorde for you.
I have to admit, I’m somewhat surprised it was never designed with both passengers and stand-off missiles in mind.
Ah, OK, this would suggest its def not based off Gripen:
When Boeing and Saab unveil their co-design of a new trainer for the US Air Force, it will look different from the Swedish firm’s Gripen fighter, the head of Boeing’s defense arm said Sunday.
“I can unequivocally tell you it’s not Gripen, or son of Gripen,” Chris Chadwick said during a media briefing held at Boeing’s London office ahead of this week’s Farnborough International Airshow.
Not sure I agree with their decision, but there you go.
I think SAAB has categorically denied that this would be a dumbed down Gripen.
This?
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-and-saab-propose-gripen-t-x
Update: On Sept. 12, Lennart Sindahl, Saab´s execuctive vice president and head of Saab’s Business Area Aeronautics, sought to clarify the company’s position regarding a potential teaming arrangement with Boeing on the T-X program using a Gripen derivative.
“With the new development of the Gripen E version we expect it to remain in that position for many years to come. But a great fighter aircraft does not necessarily make a good trainer. We remain focused on the continued development of the Gripen E and the fighter will never be a trainer,” Sindahl says. “As we stated previously, Saab always keeps its doors open to new business opportunities and if any of those should be further realized, they would be announced at the appropriate time.”
If costs are going to be such a big factor then the Boeing-Saab consortium may not be in too good a position with a clean-sheet design offering…
I was under the impression it wasn’t quite a full clean-sheet…?
Certainly, if it was me in charge – I’d be doing an investigation into how much cheaper a non-Afterburning Gripen C/D without full mission avionics would be in both build and maintenance costs.
I would also then investigate how quick and expensive it would be to refit an afterburning engine and mission avionics as a means to augment front line strength if required.
That is two threads within 2 mins of each other.
Could you not just put them both under “Airbus news”?
Or better yet – “Industry News” so yourself and posters can add links to noteworthy news in future…
It seems to be a dangerous proposition to depend on airborne lasers to defeat incoming missiles. What would you do if the enemy fires multiple AIM-9X or R-74M2 class missiles at close range?
Well, if they fire multiple WVR missiles at you in the present day, your f___ed.
Obviously in the future, the power of the laser will go a long way to determining whether you could kill all such WVR AAMs or not. But then, in the future, your not likely to be facing such weapons.
I guess you are dealing with specifically a scenario where the stealth jet itself is not armed with a DEW, and that DEW’s in general (or at least the first generation ones) won’t be effective WVR weapons by themselves, so as to dictate tactics.
Kinda. Whether the stealth jet has a DEW is kinda irrelevant, since I don’t see 1st generation DEW having (1) the range to operate from outside the detectability envelope of the target and (2) the power to direct kill the opposing fighter.
But, considering the medium term and a wider scope to the question. Its not unreasonable to expect the following trends to develop:
(1) Fighters to get bigger. The power for the lasers has to come from somewhere.
(2) The (if it exists) cockpit to be buried within the airframe, and HMS (think F-35 crossed with VR) to replace a transparent canopy.
(3) Range to not increase markedly despite the bigger airframe. The fuel tanks will require more protection.
(4) Missiles to become obsolete.
Longer term, SAMs are also going to become obsolete, replaced with ground based lasers firing off dirigible or aircraft mounted mirrors to augment power and increase range. It will render the bomb and cruise missile obsolete. Its also highly unlikely that any airborne based system will be able to penetrate airspace protected by such a system.
The principle way of penetrating such an IADS and successfully engaging a target within it will be through kinetic energy weaponry, such as rail gun rounds, ballistically lofted artillery/missile rounds, or satellite released “rods from god”. I suppose these could target the aircraft/airships as a means to blow holes in the IADS or the ground targets to remove the emitters as a form of DEAD.
These things come down to requirements as well. If Canada wants a 5th generation fighter then only the F-35 is available.
Get away with that pish.
In one line you mention requirements (which are objective quantifiable things, the next you mention 5th generation which is a wishy, washy definition that LM changes to suit itself).
Q: Do “5th generation” aircraft supercruise?
A: Depends if the Lockheed executive is talking about the F-22 or the F-35.
All under war conditions, not test or development.
Keep in mind that due to concurrency, operational units and OT&E units are stood up at the same time. LRIP 9 jets will be the first batch that are delivered with Block 3F and they start to get delivered in Jan of 2017. More details will be known as the FY2016 budget comes out in Feb.
Is it likely that they would take fresh F-35s and go to war with them? No, but this is the earliest date that they “could” take operational F-35s to combat at these Blocks.
OT&E =/= Cleared for operational use.
As regards real IOC, could anyone please tell me when will the F-35 be able to:
– fire its gun
– fire an AIM-9
– fire an AIM-120
– fire a Meteor
– fire a HARM
– drop a JDAM
– drop a LGB
– drop a SDBAll under war conditions, not test or development.
Thanks.
AMRAAM, JDAM and GBU-12 are the basic weapons the Marines require for IOC. Block 3F will see most of the SDD weapons cleared. SDB would come later around block 4 (I assume here that it is a UAI thing). Meteor is dependent on the customer, testing schedule and how much money is put in to develop the version for internal carriage and integrate it into the platform. I do not think that the HARM is even included in the block 4 but i could be wrong. Haven’t been following the developments over the last few months closely, but from what i remember the plan still is to start rolling out LRIP9 jets with block 3F software around the end of 2017 early 2018.
My interpretation:
– fire its gun ———– 2019
– fire an AIM-9 ——— 2019
– fire an AIM-120 —— 2015
– fire a Meteor ——— ?
– fire a HARM ———- ? [how is F-35 going to perform DEAD/SEAD? SDBs only?]
– drop a JDAM ——— 2015
– drop a LGB ———- 2015
– drop a SDB ———- 2019
That correct?
Speculation on the J-31 looks an awful like a twin-engine F-35A
Erm? How?
Completely different wing planform.
Much flatter and blended fuselage (obviously somewhat of a prerequisite given the 2 engines).
Different intakes.
Different vertical fins.
Different elevators.
Different nose.
Apart from maybe the cockpit being superficially somewhat similar to the F-35, I don’t see one feature that resembles the F-35!!