Tu22m4 years to IOC from the time deliveries start? What’s the point of receiving aircraft that long before being able to use them operationally? And why will it take another 8 years from now to reach IOC?
It takes time to get sufficient numbers and pilots trained. Having airplanes without pilots or pilots without airplanes is not having an operational system. And I think in this case one reason for the delay is that it is an estimation as well as the fact that two large operators will get their deliveries at roughly the same time.
Tu22mI thought it was going to be fully operational from the start. At least that was what I was told here 😉
Thats how it usually is going.
FOC is stated to be in 2023.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-koper-nya-super-jas_7448458.svd
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/sverige-koper-40-60-jas-gripen_7448512.svd
After delivery there is a verification period (not IOC) and depending on how fast that goes and how fast deliveries can be made it goes to FOC after that.
In Sweden the concept is to get verify that the systems are what they where promised to be and once sufficient numbers are delivered with trained pilots the system is operational. IOC does not exist.
EDIT: FOC could be defined that final deliveries are made or that the first operational fleet is up and running. Since the deliveries rarely come in chunks of 60 at once that could also be a reason for the delay.
Tu22mMICA also retains the aerodynamic configuration of the Super 530 with long fuselage fins, providing lift and allowing the missile to maneuver well after the burn phase ends.
Maneuvering still bleeds energy though. Without propulsion it is a difficult task to maintain agility or longer turning.
IIRC… MICA NG is adressing this by adding an “endgame” booster.
Tu22mHas that particular F-35 been written off?
It depends on how stubborn the owner is… but so far it is just “out of service” with substantial fire damage and no engine. We will see I guess.
Tu22mTrue. History shows that promises have a tendency to not materialize as expected.
History shows that the winner usually has superior numbers, tactics and/or technologies.
The F35 does add some capabilities that the Rafale lacks, but at the same time the Rafale also brings stuff to the table that the F35 doesnt have. One example is that the Rafale has 40% longer range while armed, that it carries IR-BVR missiles (MICA IR) and so on.
But to simply say that a lowered RCS doesnt matter at all is false. It makes the target more difficult to hit for missiles and more difficult for the fire control radar to lock on to, it also shortens the detection range meaning a tactical advantage.
Tu22mThat is one crash attributed to the plane, not five.
Same can be said for the Gripen… Low alt in mountains is not safe either. Neither is it safe to let rookies play with expensive hardware.
IIRC correctly though the crashes are as follows.
1 FCS(?), Pilot induced oscillation (PIO) during landing, crashed during factory flight tests
2 FCS(?), PIO for first delivered test aircraft during an airshow
3 Pilot error/FCS, incorrect handling from new pilot with premature ejection (during a superstall he engaged afterburners making the spin less controllable despite the flight system trying to counteract his previous actions)
4 Pilot error? Pilots legs pushed the ejection seat handle after pulling a 9G turn before landing.
5 Maintenance crew misshap. A technician wanted to do a function check on the engine but accidentally launched it out of the hangar and in to the forrest where it crashed.
FCS = Flight control system. But one should also remember that all of these are in Sweden, a country that had 600 dead pilots during peace time training in the cold war. All in all 720 people where killed during peace time training between 1940 and 1970 (ground crew included).
Viggen had ~20 deaths and 46 hull losses (out of 329 aircraft)
Tunnan (Flying barrel) had 99 deaths during excercises
The rest is Draken and Lansen.
EDIT: This means that in the list we could add one hull loss to the F35 as well 😉
Regarding the topic, Gripen already won. How credible is the buyer if they restart the entire process every time?
Tu22mas far as medium categorizations, mines still seems to be the most fitting
around 9,000kg -13,000kg
and 15-18 meters in lengthweight tends to be synonymous with operating costs.
i’ll also add in that this metric applies to 4th and 5th gen aircraft.
like all categorizations, its not always a perfect cut.f-35A falls within this standard but not the C.
F35A weighs 13’300kg, thats why there is such a fuzz. But I agree that a standard should be consistent.
What we have seen though is that its only when we get to the very heavy ones that we get any real difference (the difference between a Typhoon and F15 is not very big, but compared to a Flanker…).
Tu22mBetter reply is your own motto: Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfightsâ„¢
Weight difference between F-35 (and F-22) and F-15 depends by the way larger fuel tank size (+provisions for stealth): put F-15E conformal tanks on a C and its empty weight would rise up and surpass the Lighting again.
Thats a choice for the operators to make. With the F15, especially the F15 Silent Eagle, the choice is up to the operator.
And no matter how you twist it, an F15 with EFTs can easily outrun and fly further than an F35. Thats why modularity is popular. If you want range, add drop tanks. If you want payload, load it up.
So it is design choices, similarily one could say “remove the ballistic protection from F15 fuel tanks and you get F35 protection level”. The only fair comparison is “as is” for both sides.
If we are talking about weights, comparing different generations in terms of weight is pure nonsense.
On century series (2nd gen) F-104 was the light class, and F-101 and F-106 belonged to the heavy class. Now at 11 tons, heaviest interceptor of its time, the F-106 weigh less than MiG-29S. We call it what? Lightweight because we define standards by looking at current aircraft? With some 21,55m length F106 is similar in dimensions to F-15, and clearly heavy class.
On extreme case, the “fighter” Su-27SM is heavier than “heavy bomber” B-17.
So F-35 is not, and never will be in same class of F-15A/C/E, irrelevant of its weight.
Ok, but will the F35 be in the same class as the F15SE? It is a lighter fighter than the F35C…
And about the F-106… a few years later they got the F-111 at almost twice the weight. And since then 21 tonnes have been some sort of limit. Very few have gotten close (F-14, F-22, Flankers and MiG 31 are the others for the past 50 or so years). This upper bound has not changed so I feel prtty good about keeping it.
Next up is the light category where the bottom has been MiG 21 style supersonic fighters. That weight class doesnt exist anymore. The lightest is the JF17 at some 6’500kg. Similar to Tejas and Gripen A. So that is the natural bottom line for current aircraft. If you would make a diagram of fighter aircraft weights you would see that there are distinctive groups around 7300kg (+/- 1000kg), 10500kg (+/-1000kg), 14000kg (+/-1500kg) and 19’000 (+/-2000kg)
Ie, a weight class system should revolve around a current norm and the numbers above are the norm. You dont have to like it.
You could however say that because the F35 is a 5th gen it can’t be compared to anything else but the F22 (despite not living up to Lockheeds own standard when they sold the F22). But then one could also say that 4,5th gen is so much better than 4th gen so you cant compare them either…
Tu22mBy my definition;
F-15/F-18E/Su-27/MiG-31 and fifth gen F-22/T-50 are heavy class for their intented purpose. Grippen, JF-17, Golden Eagle etc are lightweights. Everything else is medium class. MiG-29/Mirage-2000/Rafale/Typhoon/F-16/F-18C/J-10/F-35 all belong to same weight class, irrelevant of their weight and thrust.
I understand your point but weight class actually has to refer to weight.
The F35A weighs 13,3 tonnes. The F15C weighs 12,7 tonnes. If we look at other versions like F35B and C we get to 14,7 and 15,8 tonnes.
In classification of objects consistency is preferred and i think the one below is decent.
Light < 9’000 kg
Medium < 12’000 or 13’000 kg (not sure which is the better, if F15C is a heavy class fighter jet then the limit is 12’000 kg)
Heavy <16’000 or 17’000 kg (F15, F35, Super Hornet,
Heavy heavyclass
And to be frank, weight is the best classification for weight.
That would sort of make this list (that I think most agree with, somewhat sorted in order):
Light: Tejas, Gripen A-C, F16A, Kfir, Gripen E, F16C (F16C is the bridge between light and Medium fighters, most others stay just below 8’000 kg and then its a jump to ~9’000)
Medium/Light mediums(?): Rafale, FA18C, EF2000, MiG 29 (after MiG 29 it is a jump of a few tonnes with almost no fighters)
Heavy/Heavy mediums(?): F15C, F35A, Super Hornet, F15E, F35B, F35C (If a jet is over 2000kg heavier than a EF2000 or MiG 29 then it is a heavy fighter…)
Heavy heavyclass/Heavy(?): Flankers, F22, F14, F111, MiG 31
Maybe that makes more sense?
One could go by size, but then it would make any sense calling them heavy light and medium anymore.
Tu22mDrag index makes it diminished returns situation. Each drop tank will not add the same distance. It will reach a point where adding more nets near zero advantage.
True. But for the sake of the argument i try to simplify.
And then we also have to remember that the F35 only has two wet stations meaning that any mission radius above 900nm (without loitering or “combat”) will be impossible according to LM presentation in Norway. Ie, the F35 can’t do any actual combat missions at ranges above 800 nm.
To get back on topic. Medium fighters are a very good compromise for ‘one aircraft for all’ type airforces. And as shown earlier, so are light fighters.
In many cases modern medium and small fighters deliver similar performance as heavy ones.
Tu22mWhat is the range of F-35A with two wet bags, and six external AASM, and internal bombs?
With one wetbag à 480 gallons it gains 55-110nm in radius. (110 is if you really really manipulate the underlying data and only use best case scenarios, 55 is from their presentation in Norway with 8% range bonus. But that feels like a low number).
Assuming the truth to be in the middle we get ca 82 nm.
Going from 590 to 1000 nm would require 5 wetbags à 480 gallons for the F35A if each bag extends range by 82nm.
Tu22mGuys. If we take a look at the Brazilian range numbers we see that the Rafale in “Mali config” has a combat radius of 1000nm + loiter/time on station. Claiming that “the F35 could do that” is off by more than 40% for the F35A.
To match that range the F35A would need at least 3 droptanks à 1700litre/~1400kg (about 460 gallons). In reality it is probably more. (3*1400 = 4200 kg, F35A carries 8400 normally)
Further more I would like that comparisons for the F35 are with fighters in its actual class. Ie heavy fighters like the F15.
Can the F35 (any version) match the F15 in speed and range with… say 4 AAM and 12 mk82? At least thats a fighter in the same weight class…
Tu22mit might be hard to categorize mediums,
but perhaps something around 9,000kg -13,000kg
and 15-18 meters in lengthwith that definition, some lights might cross into medium territory, especially newer versions F-16, and some heavies into medium, like F-15A
So the F35 versions are heavy fighters? Interesting that they are always compared to light fighters. 😉
I’d say lights are a very good compromise. They offer a very good foundation for the rest of the air force with a jet that can do pretty much everything, is always available and most of all is a cheap option for pretty much any task.
When it comes to medium… why would you want an F15 instead of a Rafale? After all the Rafale has loads of hardpoints and can carry a lot externally. Heck, the Rafale even carries more payload on the pylons than the F35 and the Su35. But that is on bomb truck missions, in other cases like interdiction, AA with long loitering etc the costs of a medium fighter are much lower than for a heavy fighter.
Tu22mTrue if you discount those UAVs with extreme endurances which require 24/7 crew of sensor operators and “pilot”, and ignore the cost of wideband satellite constellation needed to support full motion video.
Thats why you send up two seaters to be a “hands on” C&C that is really hard to jam due to directional/beamed datalinks.
Basically, with a UCAV-swarm constantly loitering you can send up new C&C operators with datafusion to the external sensors (just like fighters have done for decades).
Autonomous flight and threat detection (alarms when IR signatures are found in specific areas etc) is standard so why not?
Tu22mOr does he understand, but choose to post falsely?
Unfortunately, its a recurring theme on this forum.
Sign In
