Vnomad…..and F-35 isnt going up against PAK-FA with the odds stacked against it, -unlike ‘any eurocanard’ sic*
is that the sum of your wisdom ?
Its stealthier than the PAK FA and arguably fields better avionics, while being inferior in terms of agility and maneuverability. Whatever its odds against the PAK FA they’re nowhere near as bad as the Gripen’s in the same scenario.
At this stage personally I am more concerned with the enormous cost of this programme. Not its performance. I am willing to wait and see how the F-35 performs as a flying machine. Fair enough.
It IOCes next year (or year after for the USAF). The flight envelope’s been opened up and most sub-systems verified. In terms of performance, waiting and seeing is unlikely to bring any facts to the fore, that are unknown today. The only thing left to see is if can meet its reliability benchmarks.
I don’t have to wait to discuss how enormously expensive this programme has been though and how it affects more than the US forces.
Non-US customers are not affected by the costs of the program as a whole (with most contributions being under $200M). The critical factor for them is the cost of acquisition and the cost of operation, and on both counts you’ll have to wait-and-see, at least until the end of the SDD. All the same, most recent developments on the cost front are in the program’s favour.
VnomadPerhaps the answer lie NOT in your assumption that “going to war against a VLO equipped adversary” is nessessarily going to relate to a VLO vs. VLO combat in many cases…..
One can always hope that the Russians induct very few PAK FAs.
I see it as this, the US ( LM ) is essentially putting the entire Western World’s safety into the F35 basket….
‘Entire Western World’ is free to buy from Boeing if not BAE/EADS, Dassault and Saab.
for MOST of the F35 “customers” the F35 is expected ( because they have been told so) to replace every other type of fighter they fly….
Most are replacing only a single type with the F-35.
SO, with FEWER F35’s in the air for NORAD and NATO, tec. even capable ones like the F35, NO ability to withstand attrition exists…
The ability to withstand attrition lies in the ability to inflict attrition.
case in point….say Norway, has 35 F35’s….IF half of that force is lost, then Norway ceases to function as an “effective”….
Say Norway has 85 Gripens. If 3/4ths of that force is lost, then the Norwegian air force ceases to function as effective as well.
The Russians and Chinese have specifically NOT done this…yes they do and will have VERY capable VLO fighters, likely on the equal status to the F35…BUT have managed to continue to have numerous VERY Capable Gen 4.5 fighters to COMPLIMENT their VLO’s, both in some missions where VLO is less important as well as Numerical superiority.
They have zero capable (or incapable) VLO fighters at the moment. And the drawing down of 4.5G production will be meshed with the ramping up of 5G aircraft production. And they’ll acquire the latter types in strength.
Lets say that “Bad guys X” send a MIXED force of Gen 5 VLO’s WITH other Gen 4.5’s……
.
.
.
…the combined effect will prove hard to beat, especially if the “Bad Guys” are willing to accept losses higher than NATO / NORAD can.
Replace the F-35 with the Rafale/EF/Gripen/SH in that scenario and compute your odds of success.
I think to much is taken away from the Russians and Chinese….especially the Russians….their doctrines are NOT the same as the west…
The days of the Russians or Chinese fielding expendable fleets of fighter aircraft are long past. They’re both focusing on developing capable aircraft supported by substantial fleets of force multipliers.
VnomadIf the LR fighter challenging you in your airspace is the one that has been most recently associated with such probes, good luck with a slow-accelerating interceptor and AIM-120s.
Would you have better luck against a MiG-31(?) with a Gripen E hanging EFTs and a dirty payload?
As Oblig says (and as fans miss) the point of contention is nearly always that F-35 fans (and indeed LM marketing) insist that the F-35 does better than everything else in every mission, while costing less.
Costing the same or less than the larger Eurocanards. Costing maybe 50% more than the Gripen E, with that difference shrinking post 2020.
At best, this assertion involves giving promises equal credit to performance.
Promises and recent history. The LRIP 8 brings down costs by 4%. If each successive contract were to increase production by the same amount and cut costs by the same margin, the flyaway cost of the first FRP would be about $90 million in TY dollars, or $80 million in current day dollars (@110 units/yr).
As for Gripen costs in Brazil – the upfront cost is there, but I don’t think anyone expects Brazil to buy only 36 Gripens, and it positions Embraer for high-margin work on future aircraft for Brazil and worldwide. Unlike F-35 business, which is high-volume but moderate-margin (since much of it is build-to-print or close to that) and subject to re-competition at any time.
Same could be said about Japan as well; production isn’t going to cease after the 42nd example. And it remains to be seen what sort of volumes the Brazilian line is able to generate – domestic orders depend on the state of the economy, while the demand within South America is limited (Venezuela flies Russian, Chile flies American and the Argentinians won’t fly Swedish if the British have anything to say about it).
VnomadPerhaps it has a point, to discuss as not everyone is a F35 fanboy.. and other aircraft exist and are flown….
Seeing as you’re puzzled about why customers are lining up to buy the Advance SH (‘why no takers’), its worthwhile pointing out that the sole export order for the SH was on account of delays in the F-35 program, without it wouldn’t have gotten even that one.
and I would assume that the Super Hornet is here for some time to come…
The Super Hornet will be out of production by 2017.
and the fact that Australia didn;t drop the F35 totally was rather a close call as I had heard…
You heard wrongly. The RAAF’s F-35A plans were never in any real danger of being scrapped.
regardless, it is in Australia’s plans to now field MULTI TYPE capabilities with Super Hornets STAYING, not like they are being sold or moth balled when the F35’s get there.
Australia has been fielding ‘multi-type’ capabilities since the legacy Hornet. And its SH fleet is almost brand new, they’re not going to be upgrading it anytime soon (let alone reengining it).
Vnomadi’m suggesting that your rants that F-35 is da best in every sort of mission,
and every other a/c is only good enuff for peace, is complete nonsense, and/or feverish fanboyism in extreme.
I had hoped this worshiping went with scooter, but here it comes yet again
Ranting? I hope not.
As for fanboyism – I’ve stated a couple of times that any Eurocanard (or SH/F-15E for that matter) going up against the PAK FA, does so with the odds stacked against it. One could reasonably allege ‘fanboyism’ vis a vis the PAK FA from that.
Vnomadi’d like to insist on a point. YES, LO IS an advantage. However, the important part is to “break the kill chain”, which can be achieved by several means distinct from LO.
Agreed. The F-35 also fields a radar second only to the F-22 (possibly better EW functionality), ESM systems and sensor fusion that’s supposedly a generation ahead of the F-22’s, driven by a massive amount of processing power. So how is the playing field leveled for competing aircraft?
VnomadI never said they would nor was it my intention. My logic has issues with the F-35 project and its development. I do not consider any of these planes you mentioned as an alternative nor have I made any indication that I do. It was not even part of my starting point. If your contributions to the thread were solely (or partially) concerned with that then sorry, I probably missed that bit.
furthermore I thought this thread was F-35 generic, not if any of the other western planes is a valid alternative.
Even if we agree that the F-35’s design is sub-optimal and its development path torturous, the fact still remains that its the best option for an operator that foresees the possibility of conflict against an adversary fielding a high-end fleet.
As for the topic on hand, its mostly a follow-up to statements similar to your own – ‘LM (and fanboys) have consistently mocked the value of the EF2000 and the Rafale (and Grippen) as any sort of valuable alternatives for any sane person deciding on the structure of their air force‘.
I’m approaching this with a completely open mind but I’m yet to have explained to me how any of the three aircraft are valuable alternatives to an AF going to war against a VLO equipped adversary. The Gripen’s the most viable alternative, but even fielded in larger numbers than the F-35 (and not that much larger), it’ll still be in trouble when pitted against the aircraft like the PAK FA.
VnomadOk, I see where you are coming from. My working assumption was to focus on the F-35 marketed selling points and take it from there..
.
.
.
Couple of things –
1. The assertion that Lockheed Martin controls the F-35’s avionics and is unwilling to share is wrong. Most of the avionics are built by Northrop Grumman and BAE with bits and pieces from RC, IAI, Raytheon, all of which is controlled by the US govt.
2. I couldn’t really follow a lot of that, but let me try and respond anyway –
CASE I: If the enemy has avionics package comparable to the F-35, comparable VLO features and superior kinematic performance, the F-35 is in trouble. Assuming comparable pilot training and comparable numerical strength, the loss-exchange ratio for a generic engagement will be 1:1 or lower for the F-35.
CASE II: If the enemy aircraft field strong avionics packages but no VLO capability, the F-35 dominates. It’ll see first and shoot first almost every time.
CASE III: Enemy fields a judicious mix of high-end VLO fighters and lower-end air dominance fighters. Good for them. They can keep the conventional aircraft at long ranges while the stealthy aircraft move up closer. The former carry out active searches, the latter passive searches, and both sets can function as missile platforms depending on the situation. This is how the USAF uses the F-22s in conjunction with legacy aircraft in exercises, and how the F-35 will function along with older aircraft in the USAF & USN.
3. None of this has any bearing on the debate on this thread, because you have offered no explanation on how any alternative to the F-35 (Rafale, EF, SH, Gripen, F-15) would fare better in same situation.
Now lets use the scenario in favor and assume your weapons are effective at 2X range. You take shots and you immediately do two things :
1. Become known to the 5th gen fighters that detect your missile launches
2. Reduce your available ammo significantly
When the F-35 fires first, it potentially gets in a few kills, forces the targets to take evasive action, and retains the initiative for the remainder of the engagement. If numerical odds are anywhere near parity, the other side loses.
‘Detects missile launches’ does not equal ‘tracks your F-35s’.
As for the reason they are doing it? Quite honestly the reasons are different for each one of them. But I think this is for another discussion.
No. The reasons of adopting a VLO design are at the crux of this debate. And those reasons are the same for them as they are for every F-35 customer.
VnomadCurious, as it has come up in another thread as having potential, perhaps on the upper end of the Gen4.5’s?…could it be that good? If so, why no takers?…
What would be the point? Take a look at the 2013 DSCA release relating to a potential sale of 24 aircraft to Australia (12 SH + 12 Growlers). Priced at upto $3.7bn. That’s a thin cost margin against the F-35A. It was ordered by the RAAF in the first place only on account of delays in the F-35 program.
Vnomadlicensing, ToT and building an assembly line is extremely costly…
In the F-35 case the costs are to be spread over an annual build order well in excess of 100 units.
Japan is also setting up their own F-35 assembly line and their 42 aircraft order is valued at a hefty $10bn. If one were make a (crude) extrapolation from that – a Brazilian Gripen E would cost 2/3rds as much as a Japanese F-35A. Contradicts the ‘one F-35 buys many Gripens’ hypothesis.
In any case, what would you suggest would be fair estimate for the unit flyaway cost and unit acquisition cost for a Gripen E ordered in 2019 and delivered off-the-shelf by SAAB?
VnomadConsidering a limited budget of most, between having barely a few F-35 eventually ready, and having a squadron of Gripens ready for the same price, methinks they’d prefer the Gripen, indeed
Brazil just signed a contract for 36 Gripens valued at $5.4 billion. Less than the $6 billion that the Dutch are paying for their 37 F-35As but the differential is far smaller than expected, even accounting for the interim lease of Cs and licensed assembly of 15 odd fighters.
By decade end the F-35’s cost will have fallen by at least a quarter (likely much more). The Gripen E will continue to be cheaper but the ‘full squadron for a few F-35As’ claim doesn’t hold water.
Vnomadok, so your F-35 was too late to intercept the nuke launch…
speed is essential in wartime
I though we were restricting the conversation to tactical scenarios. Are you suggesting that the Gripen can protect the countries in question from nuclear attack?
VnomadGripen is the best interceptor of these
That’s fine in peacetime when you have a bomber tootling around near the border – you send up a pair of fighters, do the whole ‘show-the-flag’ thing, have a pleasant photo session, and everyone goes home right as rain. The papers love it (nice little interception story with a photo to go along with it). The air forces love it (opportunity to show off their professionalism). The politicians love it (shows defence isn’t being neglected).
Very different situation when the times are less benign and the AF is tasked with intercepting a flight of hostile high-end fighters who have no intention whatsoever of being politely ushered out. Would any air force still prefer a Gripen for the task?
VnomadI don’t know and that was not my point.
That is the point. The debate on thread was about whether the F-35 should be selected by countries like Canada, Norway, Australia (or even India if we get around to it), instead of mid-rung alternatives like the Eurofighter, Rafale & Super Hornet, or the Gripen E at the lower end.
The premise is simple. It starts with an assumption.
Assume an F-35 can hit another F-35 with a BVR shot (I can explain why I make that assumption if you want)
Please do.
That means it can because of the capabilities of its sensor suite and it’s weapons
Now suppose a similar system is developed by the “other side”
They are being developed by the other side. (The ‘other side’ of course referring to the Russians and Chinese.)
Since the sensor suite and the weapons can be -theoretically- installed in simpler and not so costly non VLO airframes or even legacy fighters that are suitable for carrying them! it now means the other side has more airframes that can kill a VLO platform.
Any fighter can kill a VLO platform right down to the venerable MiG-21. The only variables are ‘when-you-see-it’ and ‘when-it-sees-you’.
It doesn’t matter if the these frames are easier detectable by the F-35, the point is now you have more planes capable of delivering a decent shot to your assets.
And why doesn’t it matter if these frames are easier detectable by the F-35?
Obviously the same would apply in reverse but LM hasn’t ever indicated that the sensor suite of the F-35 would be available for upgrades in other airframes for obvious marketing reasons, whereas the other side has no such issues.
LM doesn’t have a monopoly over the technologies in question and most older platforms are undergoing upgrades (or have them available) – Rafale F3R, EF T3 (with P2E & P3E), ‘Advanced’ SH, Gripen ‘NG’.
Again…follow this train of thought as a working assumption.
Why do you suppose the Russians and Chinese are developing clean-sheet VLO designs (with the Japanese, Korean, Indians, Turkish preparing to follow) instead of merely upgrading their older models with new sensors?
VnomadOne thing I want to point out and then I’ll answer your question. If an F-35 can shoot down another F-35 with a BVR-ish shot, that directly implies that a non VLO airframe can carry the same sensor suite and effectively do the same thing in combined operations with VLO assets that outnumber your f-35 force (think T-50’s with Su-3x together for instance).
How did you figure that ‘an F-35 can shoot down another F-35 with a BVR-ish shot’?
If you’re up against a VLO fighter, yes that’s tough business that may end badly even for the a F-35. How is that in any way a prescription for employing a non-VLO aircraft in the same scenario?
The implication being that since the 35 will not be procured in the same numbers as legacy fighters, you now have a situation where the opponent can fight a war of attrition using other aircraft in their inventory.
How many Rafales/Eurofighters/Gripen Es/Super Hornets can you procure for the cost of one F-35A post-2018? By most accounts, that’ll be 1:1 against the Rafale/EF, may be 1.25:1 for the SH, and 1.5:1 for the Gripen E.
So to answer your question, with the choices you gave me, I’d go with (in descending order) : Rafale, Gripen, F-35 and I would pray to god I won’t be in a super hornet.
Four incoming PAK FAs; three spread out ahead radar silent, low-medium altitude. Flight leader hanging back, high power AESA beaming away, medium-high altitude. Poor atmospheric conditions. How would you get a Rafale or Gripen close enough to get a track on the PAK FAs, without giving away its position?
Keep in mind, neither of them has a exceptionally powerful radar even after an AESA upgrade and the target is operating with an internal payload.
Sign In
