Really?? Which systems can do any of those functions I listed?

Really?? You’re going to compare a RECCE pod that is not used on combat equipped fighters to systems on EVERY f-35?

Really?? Let’s try this again. No beamed datalinks, no 360 IIR WVR tracking, no AESA radar, no internal IRST/FLIR, etc.

Really?? The Rafale is not 360 and no other 360 system (save maybe Pak-Fa) exists.
Really?? The Mig-35 has one IRST and one FLIR and is NOT operational or on order.

There are two pretty importand words you should consider.
One is the word ‘similar’ and the other is ‘function’.

This means that the F35 offers the functionality to passively track pretty much every target that is nearby via TV/UV/IR tracking. The exact same functionality is already fielded and has been for a very long time.

Another “F35 unique” function is the ability to track land based targets passively, but this has been solved for a very long time in other jets, mostly with pods. The same goes for tracking targets behind cockpit.

LPI datalink is a tricky one since you need to define LPI (and that definition gets renewed from time to time). For instance LPI communications in the beginning where simply dynamic power output, then it lead to burst tansmisions and later to broad band bursts and now it also includes beamed datalinks. Time will tell who gets beamed datalinks first, Gripen or F35.

Datafusion and sensor fusion over the datalinks in general is far from new though. That has been around since the 90s and they have been pretty LPI.

What you are doing is arguing about details when my claim is that the functions aren’t new. It’s the same marketing jargon everywhere. “We solved XXX by doing YYY, you can’t do YYY!!!%!”. Sure, the statement is true but the same functionality can be delivered with other systems.

EDIT: The FLIR system IS infra red search & track as well. The acronym works well in this case too.

1. For the most part the Gripen E is a paper airplane. While parts of it are flying, the airframe is not. The F-35 is flying, is in production, and will be IOC within two years (F-35B).

Gripen E is expected to be in service 2018, the F35 in 2016-2018 if all goes well?

2. Multiple IRST cameras?? Try to stick to real world systems.

Does not exist?

3. Those systems do not exist. We are discussing real world stuff, not make believe.

Neither does the F35. So please spare me those remarks.

4. No an IRST cannot tell you all of that because it cannot look at alldirections at once.

Ah, so the Pirate for instance cant track targets at different locations in the sky? I knever knew.

5. Name a fighter that does night ops with something besides nvgs?

IIRC the Gripen C used the onboard systems for it up to 2009 and the pilot does not need any nvg even though it does help.

“No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/

I think Spudman will disagree with that…

Please show me where :

EDIT: Wtf did this have to do with my claims btw? I said sensor fusion (real sensor fusion) has been around for 20 years, that is the mid 90s.

I will remove OT to save space in the thread. Sensor fusion is not limited to what sensor data is shared but how any sensor data is shared.

F-35 is designed to fly through an IADS, then locate, identify and kill CCD’d mobile targets. This is something no Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen nor F-15/16/18 or F-22 can do.

Well. To be frank the F35 wont either, at least not at altitude.

Unless you are talking about single digit systems and not integrated platforms.

the Swiss will probably pay for the each aircraft of the version E less than the Sweds will, since the deal is on a fixed cost basis, with the Sweden going to pay for any increase of the costs in R&D of the program.

I sort of disagree on that. The Swedes will pay up to a total of 216m$ (including R&D, weapons and fuel!) while the Swiss will pay SAAB and SwAF ~153m$ per jet.

I thinks its a close call to say who will pay most.

You have just described the JF-17.

It comes in at around the $20 million mark.

I think you are pretty dead on. Sorry for getting confused and using western aircrafts in the comparison 😉

Talking about stealth drones btw:

This one lives 😛

Why not simply opt for a dumbed down Gripen E?

I think it would deliver better performance at a low cost. But sure, if we compare it to the 4,5 tonne subsonic trainers then sure, its more expensive. But if we compare it to the lighter fighter jets of today, like the 9 tonne F16, its a very light weight alternative at 7 tonnes.

The Mirage 2000 and the dumbed down Gripens should be able to get pretty close to the target price and deliver high flexibility.

I believe F-22 was designed to be an AWAC killer the first critical hours,
this is where it shine the most, as will J-20

And the russkies opt for the K100 or R37. Combined with the MiG 31 and Pak FA it looks like awacs might have some harsh times in a larger air battle.

:p Bill Sweetman is your source? Only Bill could say that a surveillance mission consist in “a drop below the cloudbase to ID a maritime target”, when the presentation clarly says that “Unlike legacy fighters, weapons may be carried internally to greatly reduce observability and drag for increased range and persistence, leading to longer loiter time without detection – ideal for surveillance in the High North area.”

Or, if you actually read what Lockheed says themselves in the presentation he is referring to you will see the quoted part. This is an LM quote.

The resulting radius is 728 nm (or a total distance of 1’456nm)

Do you understand what “or total distance” means?

I gave you their presentation and the source of my images (where Bill agrees on the interpretation).

Again, you don’t understsand the difference between various mission profiles. First of all, you don’t double the combat radius to obtain the ferry range.

Depends on who you are asking. If you ask LM they say that a recce mission is total range with config/2.

If you ask them about the 610nm figure they say it includes ~15 min of maneuvering.

Second, the 673 Nm combat radius includes “long loiter time”. For a simple A-A mission (fly in , 1 min. to fire the missiles, fly out) the radius is 750 Nmiles.

No, the 673 nm IS long “loiter time”. Look at the executive summary. But be warned, it includes text and stuff and as a consequence I highly doubt you will understand it.

Also, do you have a source for the number of EFTs on gripen? You keep saying 2. In all the SAAB presentation (Norway, Netherlands) they don’t mention the number of EFT. Ex: “combat radius 4 RR +2IR with ext. fuel =1300 km (712 nm)”. If you have a source that this is achieved with just 2 tanks, please show us. BTW, I wonder what would be the impact of the huge 480 gal tanks on a midget plane like the gripen…

This is the air patrol configuration: http://www.saabgroup.com/PageFiles/29517/Saab_Gripen_INDIA%202008%20%20feb%20page%2007C%20left.jpg

Range and Radius

Thanks to its increased fuel capacity, the Gripen NG in the Combat Air Patrol configuration achieves a combat radius of 700 nm (nautical miles), or 1.300 km, from the base of operations, with more than 30 minutes “on station”. It has a ferry range of 2200 nm (4.000 km).

In the picture it show a very similar loadout (only difference is the use of 2x twin pylons).

That would be 39 Nm added to the 584. Or a total of 623 nm. And this mission profile is with 2 x2000lbs + 2 AIM 120, and includes 15 min. of air combat (before dropping tha bombs!) including “AB usage”

or… you get (900km/h *0,25hrs) * (1,852*2) and get 61 nm.

610 + 61 (with 2 x 900lbs NSM missiles and 2 x 340lbs AA missiles) gives 671nm (very close to the stated 673nm) while in recce mode (1120lbs less weapon load) you get pretty much the same range.

Both numbers are congruent with eachother, even more so if we assume a cruise speed slightly below 900km/h or slightly less than 15 min “air combat”.

Out of all the trolls on this forum i rate you lower than Tigershark with the scientific score of 2/5.

Just to make the number nice and tidy.

Without drop tanks, total range x2.
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x2000lbs bombs – 623 nm (the 590/584 nm figure + maneuvering)
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x900lbs bombs – ~670 nm (the 610 nm figure + ~15 min maneuvering)
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x500lbs bombs – ~673 nm (the 673 nm figure)