SintraIt would require: embedding all antennas, sensors, complete rewiring, entirely new mission computers, entirely new airframe, engine, design and placement of intake, canopy, twin tails, enlarged nosecone.
In other words, you can’t “stealthify” an exsisting design. You can marginally improve RCS (as the US already did with the Have Glass programs). Even equipping an F-16 with sensors and systems equivalent to an F-35 would lead to a substantially inferior aircraft functionally and kinematically.
Quite so but it didnt had tail(s), the improvements in RCS were not marginal (by comparison with a loaded Viper, not with a JSF) and the kinematics were the kind that would make a Typhoon or Raptor to take notice. “Jointness” and the Berlin Wall killed any idea of evolved variants of Vipers or Eagles for the USAF. Its an interesting “what if”, but only that.
Cheers
SintraIt makes me wonder why they didn’t just take the F 16 and do what it took to stealth it, internalize fuel and weapons and put the fancy computers in it.
General Dynamics called it the Falcon 21 ++, think of the “big wing” F-16U (AKA Falcon 21), then stuck an F119 in it, a new fuselage with internal carriage of AIM-120´s, some stealth signature management (think of a clean Super Hornet) plus (something like) the avionics of the Desert Falcon. Later LM picked that work changed it a bit and called it the “F-16X”.
SintraYour right of course! Saab’s brochure range of a paper plane that hasn’t flown yet is inaccurate!
The range numbers for the Gripen NG seem pretty comparable with the ones for the good old Mirage 2000, 800 NM with two externals and four 250 kg bombs, and that M53P has a lousy SFC…
SintraThat’s an awful lot of drag induced by all those external tanks – and that’s before we even mention the drag created by the weapons load. Does the Gripen NG still have the combat radius of the F-35 when both are carrying a pair of 2000 Ib bombs and 2 AMRAAMs?
Levsha
Page 7
Cheers
SintraThis same logic might also apply to our debate vis a vis the Indian MoD’s motivations and the F-16/Gripen.
Thats entirely true, albeit i do have a (very) slight advantage, i do read and write (hideously) in English, i imagine that most of the Indian defence media also uses English, am i correct?
In the FAB FX2 the information in English was always a translation of the original texts or interviews in Portuguese and there was quite a lot more “data” in the Brasilian press (so much in fact that most of it was “rumour/gossip/whatever”), and thats my native tongue.
And while i might disagree with you on this MMRCA 2/single engine/whatever competition, i certainly respect your views and accept that what you write might be entirely correct.
To be honest i am entirely bafled by it, wouldnt it be better in every aspect to order another batch of 36 Rafales and ramp the LCA production?
Another fighter? With an entirely new logistical chain?!
If it was your favorite, good old “Dave”, well, that i could (more or less) understand, but Vipers or Gripens? Plus the LCA, the Rafale, the Flanker and the T-50?!
Its quite a slap on HAL´s face…
SintraIt was a widely reported story.
The FAB may have preferred the Gripen (the cost would make follow-on orders more likely), but Roussef was not legally or ethically bound by the FAB’s preferences. That’s where the political aspect comes in.
It was a widely reported (almost certainly) wrong story. 🙂
The FX and FX2 had so much of that (rumours written in an ungodly number of outlets) that every one of the three final contenders plus the Flanker were widely given has “sure winners” at a certain timeframe.
My comments were based on what the FAB testified after the final selection.
Cheers
SintraThe Belgians want an ABM capability into their new Frigates. Interesting.
On another note, the good old Europeans are at it again, right now there are FIVE clean sheet designs for what amounts to be GP Frigates in the 3500/5000 tons department across Europe! And i am not even counting the likes of T26´s, FREEM´s, etc, that are a mit bigger…
SintraThe F-16 Block 60 was ~$ 80 million each, and new build F-16 Block 52s also seem to be expensive, going by the $2.4 billion that Morocco (one of the last customers) paid for their 24 F-16 Block 52s, or the $700 million deal for 8 F-16 Block 52s that Pakistan couldn’t finance. Now PAF already had 18 F-16 Block 52s, so some infrastructure setup already exists to support this type.
Add the AESA radar and other avionics modernisation which may piggy back on the US CAPES program and customization that the IAF will invariably ask for and the cost will only increase. The fighters may be built in different batches and will cost less as one goes from earlier to later batches, but I doubt we’ll get
close to the $45 million figure.As for the KAI FA-50, it doesn’t even have the capability level of the Tejas Mk1A, so the IAF wouldn’t even bother to look at it.
If the $45 million is the money for the aircrafts, the assembly line, etc, well then Aero Vodochody has already won…
SintraOne did say that about the Brazilian competition and one was right. Boeing had that one in the bag until the NSA spying scandal soured matters.
Insight: How U.S. spying cost Boeing multibillion-dollar jet contract
Boeing never “had that one in the bag” and that particular Reuter article is …
The aircraft was chosen by the FAB, not by Dilma Roussef, there were two main reasons it went into SAAB, industrial partnership and the other had a lot to do why it won in Switzerland, costs.
During the Brazilian Senate earing on the FX2 final choice (27/02/2014), Juniti Saito presented a ppt in wich were described the reasons (“strong points”) for the Gripen choice, one of those was operational, four of them were industrial and full five of them were logistics/costs.
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2014/02/27/em-detalhes-a-audiencia-na-cre-sobre-f-x2-e-aescolha-do-gripen/
Thing is FAB operates AMX and F-5E´s, they have problems with their operational budget in order to maintain proeficiency, now imagine what would happen if they ordered a 15 ton twin engined, twenty tons of thrust thingy.
SintraThis isn’t an MMRCA-style ‘competition’. The RFP is an informal one, not a highly formal one. The ‘winner’ will be decided by a discretionary decision made at the MoD, not determined by a lowest bidder process. The contract will be made through the govt, not solely with the company. The MMRCA had several possible winners, the winner in this one is already all but certain. And the strategic angle is a crucial factor in this one, not just the technical equation as was with the MMRCA.
The ‘decision’, if you can call it that, is to be made this year, not in 8-9 years. The F-16 line has enough orders to run to the end of the year. Even with delays, its completely feasible.
Is that whisfull thinking or do you have tangible proof?
SintraHi All,
FBW & Sintra,
While I know next to nothing about how far the programme has advanced in the as you say 16 years since the competition was won all I can se and comment on was the documentary and if I am not mistaken the F-35 has suffered just as the Harriers have with in-gestation of hot gas. I am certain had the Boeing team been given adequate time they would have solved the problem.Am wrong saying that the F-35 has been proven an easy target to other apposing aircraft ? Has it not already been out manoeuvred by current
generation fighter on exercise ? As far as I am aware the Delta wing shape means it can manoeuvre better than other wing layouts
(Please correct if wrong) so it would have been able to in my eyes been in abetter position to defend itself.While the looks are reminiscent of Jimmy Hills chin did that not help with wing being thick for a better fuel capacity as well as weapons storage ? I appreciate that while I have nowhere near the knowledge of many on here concerning the F-35 project such as both yourself it appears to me that if you design an aircraft on a set budget and do not meet that budget then you incur he penalties or get turfed off the project which has not been done.
The project in my and many others is simply too costly and still the aircraft is plagued by problems, the one I mentioned above being able to defend itself I would have thought a must if it is a multirole and one of those roles is as a fighter then it has failed hasn’t it ? I understand that development costs can make aircraft lag behind projected figures across the board but to me it feels like your trying to fill a bucket with water when the bucket has no bottom.
I agree that the single piece wing for the Delta version was a pain and by the end of the documentary they had revised the design to include horizontal stabilisers I suppose at the end of the day both teams running before they could walk but like I said I am sure these flaws would have been solved but I don’t agree they would have cost as much that has been pumped into the F-35 programme.
While you say that there are 200 aircraft already completed how many of them will be recalled for faults ? add to that that some are now cancelling or downgrading their requirement because the increase in cost of each unit. Just look at the state the RN is in now concerning the programme not getting as many as they wanted on top of that having US aircraft and personnel on board what a complete shambles and I fear rather than getting better it will only get worse.
I would like nothing more than the programme to be a complete success but in all honesty it is the opposite again it all comes down to the money IMHO.
Geoff.
1batfastard
FBW has already covered the topic, i´ll simply had two points:
a) the X-32 died sixteen years ago, the team behind it was disbanded, a great big chunk will have already retired, some major systems that would have been in that aircraft are out of production, namely the engine (the F119), others have found their way into the SH (namely a great big chunk of what would be the Radar ended in today´s AN/APG-79), but the entire program is dead, entirely, terminaly and for a very, very, very long time, if its a Boeing fighter its either a SH, Eagle or an entirely new design
b) the JSF program has had a very troubled life and yes, its not cheap, yes, its bloody late, yes, its flight performance is not the equivalent of a Raptor, it seems that the program team learned the wrong lessons with the EFA and ATF programs… but hell, in 1998 most neutral observers were stating the obvious, a STVOL, Stealth, Supersonic, mach 1.6/1.8 strike fighter with the weight of a Phantom would not be cheap and it would be hellish to develop, they were right, but, and this is the main point, its finaly here, the costs are (more or less) finaly controled, its starting to deliver, at this point might has well ramp the production, lower the production costs and deliver two thousand of the ******s… Unless the Pentagon orders two or three hundred of new build Raptors with an ungodly number of extra SH´s, and this is not gonna happen.
And if someone starts with “Chinese Flankers are gonna club it like baby seals”, yeah, off course they will… mach 1.6, 9g, LO airframe, cutting edge avionics and hundreds of them… some “baby seal´s” there…
The alternatives for the RAF/RN (you are British, right?) right now are “Zero/nada/nyet” if they want to use those two big 65000 tons floating devices that are being built.
Cheers
SintraHi All,
Sorry to put the cat amongst the pigeons with this thread post, but I recently re-watched the battle of the x-planes documentary on the PBS channel. The reason why the X-35 was chosen ahead of the Boeing X-32 was down to better value. Can this aircraft still be considered best value considering the overrun in budget,development and the escalating cost per aircraft the partners are now it seems more often to stump up ?
By comparison with what you are proposing, restarting from zero the entire JSF saga, today´s F-35A/B/C are “peanuts” in acquisition costs.
Surely it would have been more cost effective to have Boeing iron out it’s teething troubles ?
What you are actually proposing is picking a program that lost a competition SIXTEEN years ago, drop the entire JSF program, the one who costed around sixty billions in the SDD phase and start all over again, this time by Boeing… Lets just burn another sixty billion dollars and wait another decade to a decade and a half for the delivery of the first airframes…
In the documentary they appeared minor compared to what has been happening with the F-35, which is looking increasingly like a white elephant with the continued costs just spiralling out of control. Also rather than an alternative F-18 that Mr Trump has asked for why not offer the restart of the X-32 programme ?
Geoff.
Chances are that the Pentagon doesnt have the money to develop an entire new aircraft while re building their entire Fast Jet TAC Air in order to have their Vipers and Hornets flying for the next five decades.
Sintra?!
Attack AW149
Italy’s defense ministry in October gave the green light to development of a new attack helicopter based on Leonardo Helicopters’ AW149. To be funded by Italy’s economic development ministry, the Future Surveillance and Escort Helicopter to replace the AW129 Mangusta would ready by 2025.
http://aviationweek.com/Rotorcraft2016#slide-11-field_images-1550671
The Italian MOD gives the green light for the replacement of the Mangusta with a new attack Heli and no one notices?!
SintraThe chart may be old, but he was correct that high AoA testing was completed a while back:
Yes, he was.
SintraNonsense, using that logic then aircraft with TVC will be slaughtered without them ?
Testing already finished 2016 at most 2017
How old is that chart?
154 airframes in LRIP 9? The actual number was 57 airframes.
The JPO says that the SDD will be finished in 2018.
Cheers
Sign In
