Most likely the F-35 will be cheaper than Rafale and Typhoon, but much more capable.

Well, both parts of that claim are doubtful.

1) Costs
F35 has more avionics, more expensive materials (like the strengthened bulkheads, the fiber mat etc) and a much greater weight (13’300 kg vs 9’500kg). It is 40% heavier! Even the F15C is lighter than the F35! When looking at recent purchases we get a unit price for the F-15K (slightly heavier than the F35) of $100m. Rafale: $67m. Almost exactly proportional to the difference in weight!

This is from FY2014
Procurement
2012 — 2013 — 2013 — 2014
USN $2,815.3M 13pcs — $2,583.7M 10pcs — $2,583.7M 10pcs — $2,778.9M 10pcs
USAF $3,518.6M 18pcs — $3,565.7M 19pcs — $3,565.7M 19pcs — $3,582.3M 19pcs

R&D excluded, see 1-7 http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Weapons.pdf

I do doubt that they will ever reach Rafale levels. Maybe it will get really close to the Eurofighter as the EF2000 is notoriously expensive. It cant even compete with the F-15 in terms of cost as ROK demonstrated.

2) Capabilities
If you need a stealthy all rounder then the F35 is currently without competition. If performance is measured in availiability, time to reach a target, range or any other raw performance metric it simply offers nothing. Sure, its the most high end machine you can get and if thats the metric for capability then it is the winner, if you start counting other metrics then you may get another result. For instance it will be a horrible interceptor.

In order to get rid of the “I can count to Potato-logic” or LM-marketing I think we should actually look at what capability means..

GWAP said is best:

Older, less costly, and less technologically advanced aircraft and
weapon systems made substantial contributions to the air campaign as
did the newer, more technologically advanced systems.27 No
particular weapon system–whether of low or high technology, new or
old, single or multirole, high or low cost (or in between on any of
these criteria)–clearly proved more effective than another or
demonstrated a disproportionate contribution to the objectives of the
campaign. For example, while the F-117 carried more tonnage per day
than the F-111F, the latter reported a higher rate of success hitting
the same targets using the same munitions; the F-16 had only a
slightly higher success rate than the F/A-18 when using the unguided
MK-84 against similar types of targets. The B-52 and F-16 dropped
the largest known bomb tonnages, the F-16 and A-10 had the highest
sortie rates, and the B-52 and A-10 were cited by Iraqi prisoners of
war as the most feared of the coalition aircraft. (The weight of
effort (WOE) and type of effort (TOE) that proved successful in the
air campaign are in apps. II and VIII; specific weapon system
comparisons are in apps. III and IV.)

We can debate capabilities forever or we can just agree that in some areas the F35 is more capable than pretty much anything else and in others it is probably the worst contender in a long long time.

a) Gripen NG will be a Brazilian air fighter;

If Brazil has 100% rights to the IP, will be lead developers of the Gripen F as well as Sea Gripen I’d say that is enough to call it a Brazilian fighter. But wait. Brazil will get 100% ownership of the south american market, 40% of all global production (while they currently only have ordered 36 out of 128 jets that are in the pipeline (36 in Brazil, 60 + 10 in Sweden), 22 in Switzerland.

This means they, proportionally, will produce 142% of what they are buying assuming they sign the contract in time and can get a piece of the Swiss order.

In other words, the Gripen E/F will be proportionally more Brazilian than Swedish.

b) Brazil will be the owner of 100% of Gripen NG IP;

Well, they will get all IP that SAAB has. Would you say that SAAB has 100% ownership of Gripen IP? No? Well, in that case no company that uses sub contractors has it meaning that SNECMA/Dassault/Thales in reality all have to sign the contract to offer IP transfer in the case of Rafale and so on. SAAB has IP rights and can, if they wish, build as many F414 as they please and redesign it (as they did with the F404/RM12). If that is a dealbreaker it can be offered… but the price will go up.

c) Brazil will manufacture 40% of Gripen NG, even if the engine, radar, IRST, EW, etc will be imported;

Correct, as is the case for SAAB and Sweden even though Selex/SAAB have a joint program for the radar with… yes, 100% IP transfer. The same IP that Brasil will get.[/QUOTE]

d) Gripen NG range is the same of Rafale and Super Hornet;

Actually the range is better than Super Hornet and on par with Rafale (count the drop tanks in the Dassault graphic 😉 )

e) GE F414G engine is “a commodity” and only a “mechanical part” (well, forget that there are embedded computers and software running on them) of Gripen NG, so there is no need to receive ToT (Transfer of Technology) in hardware and software (FADEC) about GE F414G, the ToT will be implemented by means of depot level with spare engines;
– Saab saying that :

If Brazil wants to manufacture the engines they are free to do so,but they wont get anything for it.

f) Gripen costs < US$ 4k/hour to operate, while the Swiss report shows approx. US$ 6k/hour only with fuel;

Again, depends on how you calculate the numbers. At what fuel prices, is it marginal costs? Is it in “then year dollars”? SAAB has provided the same data everywhere, but what the media picks up on is up to them. Same goes for the context. We should forget that Dassault made a fantastic comparison of range where Rafale was best with an impressive range of 1700km and the Gripen E only got 1230km… But Rafale and Super Hornet had three drop tanks, Gripen only 2. Later FAB released their own numbers which put Gripen at over 1700km

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=223986

g) Gripen NG carries more weapons than Rafale;

Maxed out Gripen E can carry 12AAM, Rafale… 10-11? One sided comparisons always play to the strengths of the promoted product, this is no exception. Sometimes these claims are more fraudulent like the range example.[/QUOTE]

h) the rear fuselage of Gripen NG will be developed, built and assembled in Brazil… but the same promise is made for Switzerland.

The Swiss deal isnt finalised. They where offered a lot but they havent signed it yet. Once the contract is signed we will know for sure.

If Brazil wanted a fighter that currently is carrier compatible (and skip developing it) and that is superior in dogfights while heavily loaded, then by all means Rafale is the way forward.
But lets face it, Gripen E is surprisingly capable for its size and cost. It has a larger radar than Rafale (potentially giving better range), it is faster, it carries more or equal amount of AA weaponry and still costs about 40% less to produce (about $40m per pop vs ~$68m) and even less to support.. Oh, and there are currently contracts, either signed or won, for 7 airforces and a win/lose ratio of 50% in all tenders vs… 1 victory for Rafale (India) and 1 victory for Super Hornet (Australia).

So considering the prospects for actually making money of the tech transfer the Gripen is without competition.

Gripen cost: http://gripennewsthread.blogspot.se/2013/12/mer-om-brasilien.html

No, only comparatively cheap (to operate) a/c keep soldier on for that long

No rules without exception? Like the F15, going on since 1976.

maciejmarosz, before denouncing Einstein you should try reading his theory (both general and special relativity). In the book of general relativity you will read about the train example where you will be presented to the concept of time dilation.

More on that concept here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

But if we just play with the though that Einstein was wrong, how do you explain that he was right? For instance, a GPS wouldnt work if his formulas where off (and a lot of other wierd stuff would happen in the universe if we wasnt at least very close to reality with his theory of relativity.)

What you are tying to do is to create a forward motion by spinning 4 circular objects trying to control the centripetal force. V1 and V2 in your Dragoncalculation should have equal forces in the oposite side och their resp circular cylinders.

So your theory, while prossibly revolutionary, is based on sloppy ground work.

And about your comment on LIGO… Its still a work in progress. Until they get the results they are looking for we will just have to rely on findings like this http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112816950/kepler-witnesses-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-in-action-040513/

Question for those far more knowledgeable than me:

What do you think of the T-50s rate of climb performance compared to the MiG-29 (let us say 9-13), assuming same TWR?

Better because of lower cross section and better due to lower wing loading.

But that is assuming similar TW ratio when in reality Pak FA will have superior TW ratio to… [insert any fighter out there]

Sorry, missed a word.. “help maintain energy”.

It’s not an “end all be all” but something is better than nothing.

Agreed.

according to Obligatory and many critic of f-35 then the most important thing for fighter is kinematic ( fly high , fast , agile ) right
so let assume the EF-2000 supercruise at mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft and a f-35 flying head on fire a AIM-120D at the EF-2000 ( advantage of stealth ) ,now since F-35 is very slow let assume it can only accelerate to mach 1 before launching the missiles , so with launching speed of mach 1 (from f-35 ) and when firing from stand still aim-120 reach top speed of mach 4 , so top speed of the aim-120 when it fired from a mach 1 aircraft is about mach 5 . Since it take ~70 seconds at 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft ) for missiles to lose 25 percent of it’s speed ( assume it fly without thrust ) , the aim-120 will have to fly for 70 sec ( about 100 km ) before speed reduced to mach 4 ) , if the EF-2000 was supercruise at mach 1.5 then the closing rate between it and the aim-120 will be mach 5.5 , assume the IRST on EF-2000 detect the missile from 20 km then the pilot will have : [20/( 1234*5.5 )]*60*60 = only about ten second to maneuver or eject or what ever
the situation will be even worst if the missiles was Meteor (higher sustain speed due to ramjet engine ) or a CUDA ( the design make it turn better at high altitude )
if you want the EF-2000 to fly at lower altitude ( dive down when he detect the missile ) then it will be worse because the f-35 will now have the advantage in potential energy for it’s missiles
and low wing loading is doesnot really mean better agility at low altitude ( and example is f-15 vs f-16 )

Not everything is about kinematic performance. But kinematic performance reduces the NEZ of the kinetically inferior ac weapons and increases the NEZ of the kinematically superior ac weapons. Flying high increases the range of your missile compared to the lower flying ac. Does this mean that this is the most important attribute? No, it is just important.

Another important aspect is first shoot capability. Taking the lead means you control the pace and maintain the initiative. I dont know if this rings any bells but it is the army doctrine that I learned.

Agera genom att ta och behålla initiativet. Våga ta de risker detta kräver.
Act by taking and keeping the initiative. Dare to take the riscs needed.

If you have the initiative, If you set the pace and if you can control the enemy into a defensive strategy then you are in the lead. Time works for you. Unfortunately stealth only sets this as the starting point. Good kinematics allows you to persue it. And as in pretty much every branch of the military, movement is good. Especially if you are the one attacking.

Now, about your example. IRST can lock on and track subsonic targets at 50km today. Eurofighters PIRATE is said to have even longer range (at high alt). The burn time of the missile will allow it to have a powered flight of <12km. Lets say the Eurofighter, being the target, simply dives while 30km away from the F35. Ofc it responds by sending away a missile as well but now it dives at an average speed of mach 1,7. Where will the missile go? Well, it cant loiter so it has to follow. But unfortunately air density makes it lose speed fast so it wont be able to keep up at low altidute. Neither in speed terms or in turns.

The result? Both aircraft probably survive. The problem here is that the Eurofighter did send a METEOR while receiving an AIM120. This means it is harder for the F35 to dodge the missile, but OTOH the F35 is less likely to be detected by the seeker since the Eurofighter that is diving cant guide the missile.

Lets say the F35 uses METEOR. Well, now we are talking BVR potential 4 real. Powered range in excess of 40km at altitude? The Eurofighter could dive as it would shorten the engagement envelope somewhat. That is pretty much the only option from a kinematic standpoint. But they could still respond with counter fire meaning that they break the initiative for the F35 and the missile is likely to lose the target.

The result? Both aircraft will probably survive.

So in the end I think that all fighters are very survivable. The F35 will continue to be lethal at high altitudes, but at low alt it will get dominated really hard due to the short engagement ranges and the difference in kinematics.

There are just too many parameters to give a good reply but at least this is an effort and it goes back to my original point. Missile performance is the limiting factor.

You consistently confuse a sustained turn with instantaneous turn. The aircraft needs sufficient SEP to SUSTAIN a turn. The aircraft can trade speed and or altitude to achieve a higher rate of turn. I feel this has been explained to you repeatedly.

The typical missile, exempting cruise missiles etc, are balancing lift needed for endgame turn rate with drag robbing the missile of range/energy to turn. The AAM will use the massive amount of total energy available in terms of both altitude and KE to achieve a high degree of turn to intercept target.

As long as you keep the missile at your 3 or 9 o’clock you are forcing it to use maximum lead. This kills enenergy state and after burnout it will lose energy fast.

So if the missile has to pull 20G (still only 9,4 deg/s) @mach 4 you get that it is likely to need a pretty high alpha (because it has no wings to talk about).

Drag forces without turning are pretty substantial, from Cola/Obligatory:

The time it takes for a missile to lose 25% of its velocity after burn out at supersonic speeds.

Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space
~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft)
~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft)
~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft)
~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft)
~5 seconds @ Sea Level

The ability to pull many Gs are directly proportional to the velocity. So for arguments sake, lets assume the target is at 20’000 ft, missile only has to sustain lead and speed and then dives to sea level.

Question 1: What is the actual effective range of the missile?
Question 2: After how long will the missile have lost 75% of its kinetic energy (and is now stalling and is slower than the target) assuming no turning? (Answer in km and seconds work)
Question 3: How much of the turn performance is lost when the missile flies at mach 2? (Remember that it loses about 15-20G when the thrust is gone meaning that turning just eats away speed)

The missiles have to work in a predictable way as illustrated in this fantastic overview.

And the formula for turning…

The formula is where p= air density, v = airspeed, A = lift surface/wing area, CL = lift coefficient.

lol, I suppose that’s one way to avoid having your entire Air Force obliterated by a storm of Russian TBMs on Day 1.

For the Baltic states it’s the only way.

And we see similar ideas getting popular when the F35 users get fewer airfields, in order to increase redundancy some partners are advocating joint logistics and swapping the location of a couple of jets with the partners.

Shared support infrastructure: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-norway-could-share-f-35-support-work-390279/

And there has already been suggestions to get a “combined airforce”. We also see similar ideas for Slovakia who only needs 6 jets and thus seek to have shared logistics with the Czech AF.

For the three baltic countries, sharing only one historic and common enemy (Russia) it would be a pretty good idea to station 8 Gripens on Gotland (ofc with roadbases in resp country and investments in IADS). The only issue here is that Sweden doesnt have an army today and wont have one until 2022 or later. So Äisel/Saaremaa might be a good alternative, and they already have Kuressaare Airport there.