SignYou still have to design and qualify the upgraded items to assure they are form, fit and function compatible with rest of the system. Then you have to manufacture the new daughter boards. Even with 100% software reuse, that cost is not trivial and is one of the reasons politicians shunned a technology refresh for F-22.
Well look att the flyaway prices of any modern jet.
Gripen has it´s 20:th upgrade in the loop. and its still cheap..
SignProcessor fitted into fighter have nothing to do with the home-pc for several reasons. It does take several years of testing and the related costs to get the certification of something new. Related to that the built-in architecture is always several years late. A second problem is that the software is built to that to get the most performance from that already. So new hardware does mean new software too. In a present fighter you have over a million lines of code already. 😉
In Gripen (and i assume others) they taken a cheaper aproach. Just involve cots more often and you dont need develop a hole new systems every time. Use common civilian(and mil) standards, buy cots. Than the hardware more often is up do date, and easier to replace, with just som soft tweaks.
SignRemeber that F-35 is too noisy? Here is the possible consequence of this situation:
Combination of CelRADAR and aqustic devices can track stealth targets.
That can make todays stealth obsolete…800mhz to 3ghz isnt stealthed?
SignAs demonstrated by the Gripen NG, which has enlarged intakes.
The gripen F414G is no standard F414, its a “22000lb+” thustclass(official) F414. A roomer is saying(yes a roomer, not fact), 22000-29000lb depending on customer requirements. So the flowfigures is more than 17% higher over a standard F404..
SignThe time-proven way to assure air dominance is to destroy your adversary’s airplanes while they are on the ground. You know where they will be because it’s difficult to hide a 10,000 foot runway.
Disperst roadbases al´a sweden isnt bad at all…
SignI like the Gripen demo, I like it alot. but the big problemo of some of the statements being made is that the Gripen is cheaper than the F-35. And sure it is.. the Gripen.. not the Gripen demo and whatever production model that becomes the NG. Norway might well become the launch customer of this new variant that will most likely be in low production numbers, and will require further funding to develop.
This is a new radar, new avionics, new undercarrige, new internaltanks, engine uppgrade(cheaper than RM12?), MAWS, Satcom. Most of it is already paid by the norweigian gov. And some by the swedish(upgrades for C/Ds)
so its a upgrade that mostly paid for, and the LCC is stated to go down not up. eg. Engine and AESA needs less service.
SignI am sorry but the Tejas has just turned into a “big black hole”. With India spending billions and wasting decades on it developement. At the rate its going in will reach obsolescences way before it ever enters wide scale service. Know disrespect but India needs to move on.:o
Respectfully
Say that to the nasa testprograms…or all skunkworks that havent seen the daylight.. thats black holes alright..
SignI disagree with the nay-sayers. The LCA is a great success, and its being kept hushed-up from a Sun-Tzu strategy. I think it is only a matter of time before the world gets to know about it. 🙂
My sources tell me there are even stealth features being incorporated in this baby! 😮
Yes! and CRT TV screens! All plastic, composite planes has some stealth incorp.
SignSorry, General Jumpers was hardly making a technical evaluation………As he is not a test pilot putting a aircraft through its paces. (i.e. more of a political move) Regardless, he makes no claim of Typhoon vs Lightining. Which, would be much more valuble to this debate. Also, the Singapore 05 meet doesn’t provide any details. Like the RSAF operate both F-16 Blk 15’s and 52’s! So, which model and were any clean during the engagement??? Remember, the Typhoon has to be dirty (i.e. 6-AAM’s & Fuel Tank) and the F-16’s clean. (with the correct model) Also, that of course doesn’t take into account the level of the skill between the pilots or even the ROE (it could have been a BVR fight?)……Clearly, we need more information to draw conclusions. On the otherhand Jon Beesley’s comments about the F-35 performance compared to the Blk 50 F-16’s and Raptor. Has much more significance as he is intimate with all three types. Further, his professional flying skills are the same regardless which model he flys. Which, gives him a much more balanced and fair accessment of each aircrafts flying qualities. That said, the point isn’t that the Typhoon in not a exceptional fighter. More to the point we are talk about a specific part of the flight envelope compared to the F-35. If, we broaden the scope to include BVR. I believe the Typhoon wouldn’t even be close………..of course that’s another debate.;)
The F-16 should not have a chance in turning in dogfight against the hipower canarded EF, if its up to the hardware(not the pilot). thats just it.. The F-35 has probably good turns in medium speeds, because of the engine. But the bad aero will make it bleed, especially in hispeeds. And there is where the EF excels.
BVR? Meteor seems to me, to be the best around. Thou stealth will compensate alot.
SignIndia has this customary practice where people say “yes” to answers when the true answer is “no”. Its called lying in most circles, but its tolerable and customary for the people in India. Kind of like how time in many south American cultures is loosely interpreted when they say what time they will do something. Different strokes for different folks.
think its commonly known for japanese culture? the allways “yes” thing..
SignGood for gripen?
This desision is should be good for Gripen in MMRCA contest..
SignI will be happy to concede the Mach 1.3 to the Typhoon with 4-AMRAAM’s. Yet, for how long and what altitude? As for the F-35 we just don’t know if it will Super Cruise. While, it had no requirement many still believe it will. Especially, clean with the power available and all weapons and stores internal. You yourself claimed you believed it would do over Mach 1. So, it a point we will likely have to wait on to draw a definate conclusions.
On the otherhand as long as we are on the subject of Super Cruise. What if your Typhoon can maintain Mach 1.3 for a very short period. Yet, the F-35 could maintain Mach 1.1 for a longer period…………See its all in the details. Remember, the F-35 has a large internal fuel faction and operates clean……….another point I take issue with is the small penalty you believe the Typhoon suffers from carry external AAM’s and especially external fuel Tanks. The latter of course has a big impact on performance………:eek:
F-35 is not known for being aerodynamic….at all. Too big bulky wide crosssection, with no aero opts(not stealthy). That big engine and the topspeed of 1,6 mach and a high landing speed tell tales of that….
Dont think its optimised for high exaust velocity either. More optimised for lots of airmass for the lift.
That makes the engine less suitable for the hispeeds. The day you have a high torque diesel engine(not turboed) in formula 1, is the day i believe you can combine the both worlds.
But than again, it is designed to mix well with the F-22….and that mix is really state of the very art.
Not that it makes the norway, nederlands, danmark, australia etc. less interested…:confused:
SignI just don’t see the LCA suffering another long delay. Remember, India is co-funding the development of the PAK-FA with Russia. Clearly, by that time as the PAK-FA enters service. The LCA would for all practical purposes be obsolete………:(
LCA and PAK-FA is not intended for the same job…LCA is cheap, trainer and light fighter, something that PAK-FA never kan replace…
PAK-FA could be more likely a replacer of the MKI or the MIGs or, just a add of the deep penetration capability of the stealth to the IAF.
By the time PAK-FA enters service, UCAV is the way of a modern AF 😎
SignAlthough your comment may be relevant for some posts it completely misses the point for other posts in this thread.
As a Norwegian I am not proud the way this “competition” was arranged. I find it unethical, and I would not be surprised if the Swedes decides to take this to court. However the reason is not what you state above. The point is this:
Norway stated early in the process (and repeated it several times in the media) that both a/c met the requirements (a list of approx. 1000 requirements in total). Specifically, “stealth” was not a requirement. The Swedes took this at face value and believed they had a chance of winning. This does of course not imply that they would win(!) but that they had a possibility of winning.
Enter the press conference. One mentions the 1000 requirements only in passing. Then one presents the scenarios that decided who will win the tender. In 2 of the 3 national scenarios, Gripen did not pass, F-35 did. Why? Once scenario required to bomb targets within the “kill zone” of double-digit SAMs — and make it back home. Another scenario was on BVR a2a fights with a stealthy PAK FA — with ESW disabled.
In the press conference the leader of the evaluation committe said (my rough translation) “Stealth was not a requirement. If it had been a requirement then it would not have been a competition. And that would not have been very smart”. Indeed, it would not have been very smart — Saab would not have submitted a tender if they knew about this. The point is this: stealth was not an explicit requirement, but everybody who knows this field would realize that since those scenarios were pivotal in choosing the winner stealth was very much an implicit requirement. I.e., this looks very much like a fake competition. We all know that a non-stealthy a/c would have a low probability of surviving very close to a double-digit SAM, and we all know that a non-stealthy jet with no ESW could have a hard time in a BVR encounter with a stealthy jet. If you make it a requirement that the a/c must survive in those environments then you basically say that you require a stealth jet. Which is fine, apart from the fact that the Norwegian government did not mention anything about this initially because “then it would not be a competition.”
In non-military tenders it is not allowed to arrange fake competions, it is not allowed to “change the rules” during the competion to favor one offer over another one. I do not know if this is also the case for military tenders. If it is, then I would not be surprised if the Swedes take this to court.
As others have mentioned there are also some question marks around the price calculations — however for this I think we need to await further information.
Note that in the above I do not say anything about which a/c is “better” or which is “better suited for Norway”. This is about the process.
L
The way i see it, is that knowone know how the PAK-FA will compete, what upgrades are availible for NG or f-35 to counter PAK-FA in the future.
So it is a lot of speculations from norwegian side. According to red flag exersices the gripen C/D EW suit, is really worldclass and countered SAMs very well, so the NG have all the chances in the world to be worldclass even in the future…and ofcourse in PAK-FA times.
I would not be surpriced if stealth as we know it to day is the way of the past in the future. Just look at the short lifespan of the F-117, and you know what im talking about..
Maybe F-35:s advantage will be short..knowone knows.
SignExtras
The norweigians talks of 4 billion $ for extras to make it NG nato compatible. C/D export gripens are already NATO compatible, so whats not in the NG ground offer?
Extra weaponintegration, that seems as nato standard?? or what? IFF?
Sign In
