Well, this has been in the workings for a long time.

SAAB wants partners for a potential “Gripen stealth” or FS-2020 because the Swedish government might not want to pay for a new fighter jet. But if Sweden has a cooperation with another country, like Turkey, South Korea, Finland etc the production of FS2020 might be guaranteed.

One of the options previously mentioned was the KF-X.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220882[/ATTACH]

So when they have found a partner that, together with Swedens gvt, can guarantee the survival of the project the actual work will begin. But as i understand it the FS2020 currently is just tech demonstrator project.

A twin engined stealthy fighter?

…but that would cost more than a Gripen!

And we all know that stealth will be made obsolete the next time the bad guys update their radar software, so why bother, right?

Real fighters dodge missiles until they can get to WVR and then win in a knife fight!

I would say it fares maybe 10% better there… but at double procurement and triple operating cost (est.)

:very_drunk:

Ok, so stealth, sensor fusion, an entire new generation of avionics, DAS, HMD, etc is worth 10% to you huh?

Do you have any idea the extent to which your opinion differs from that of the experts?

…and really what would you prefer?

New build F-16s? They are available and cheap, though I doubt cheap enough to replace the old ones on anything close to a 1:1 basis.

Maybe you want Typhoons? That would check the speed box you are obsessed with, though I don’t think it would meaningfully improve on the F-35’s real world capabilities.

Maybe you want an aircraft that doesn’t even exist? Some imaginary fighter built to fit your own special requirements… good luck with that.

And before people view MSphere’s post as “anti-F-35” this kind of pseudo-corruption (i.e. political donation) is conducted by many different corporations in a massive range of industries.

Political donations are in essence legalisation and institutionalisation of corruption.

They do it in Australia as well.

Imagine making political donations illegal!

The problem with MSphere’s approach here is that it amounts to little more than conspiracy theories. Allegations of widespread corruption anywhere and everywhere. Anyone that supports the F-35 must be on LM’s payroll. Anyone that criticizes it must be telling the truth… :rolleyes:

Where are the allegations of corruption against BS for example? He has attacked the F-35 like it was his job for years, even taking his little crusade onto internet messageboards…

If on the other hand a group of retired senior officers express their views in a joint letter, and those views support he F-35… suddenly there are baseless allegations of corruption.

There are real cases of corruption of course, but this reflexive attribution of any positive statement about the F-35 to corruption/pay-offs is just childish.

First you say this.

The fact is that there is no data on actual Pk against modern fighters engaging in active jamming, maneuvering etc.

Then you say this…

Thats your interpretation. Im just saying that it will be a pretty survivable ac and that it is demonstrated, in actual war, that situational awereness, EWS and maneuvering is pretty darn effective if used properly.

So there is no data but you believe that EW and maneuvering will be pretty effective. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately we dont have any numbers for it other than that without EWS and with limited maneuvering the pk of the Aim120A is ~45%.
am I saying it doesnt work?

Now you think 45% is somehow poor… (even if we accepted the 45% number, imagine killing an enemy every other time you pull the trigger…)

I think Dane Zelko and Zoltan Dani would testify to my point of view. The only guaranteed stealth is to be where the enemy can’t even see you.

Now you think one successful shot in hundreds of missions (<.1%) in high threat environments is successful…

Rafale has an attractive TCO that lends itself to greater numbers compared to the F35 as well as more upgrades over the lifetime. The TCO of the F35 increases the risk of it ending up being upgraded just as frequently as the F22 with functions and features it is missing.

There is no reason to believe the Rafale is any cheaper than the F-35, and there is no comparison between the F-22 and F-35 when it comes to lifetime support. There will be more F-35s flying by 2015 than there are F-22s…

Ok, so LM doesnt know what their own product can deliver. But touting that they do anyway is no problem. And what LM says is true.

Lockheed knows an awful lot about what they can deliver, far more than you do, and so far the air forces buying the F-35 seem convinced.

You do know of the radar horizon, right? Radars have big troubles looking through the earth to see flying aircrafts.

Brilliant new tactic you have there… just fly low… what is this 1975? Do you somehow think this is something the Rafale just invented? Flying low imposes a lot of risks and tradeoffs.

Because your argument is the equivalent of saying that just because recon soldiers carry a large backpack they will have to carry it when they fight as well. The fact is no, they don’t. Just because you carry this to the potential combat area doesnt mean you have to fight with it strapped to your back.

Modus operandi is that you drop the rucksack and win because you are better trained, stronger and more aggressive than your adversary.

The problem with this comparison is that the soldier couldn’t pick his pack back up after he had dropped it. The first minor exchange of fire he got into he would drop the pack… and then turn around and start walking home.

Come on… are you actually insinuating that the official numbers from Dassault (also verified) would be buffed while the blown up F35 numbers are modest?

What people are saying is that the “official” numbers from Dassault are every bit as much marketing as anything released by Lockheed, and they are based around an aircraft heavily laden with drop tanks. The F-35 numbers meanwhile are on internal fuel only. The F-35 is built to use drop tanks as well, but none of the range figures released so far include the use of tanks.

Demonstrated Pk for Aim120 A is ~0,45 against enemies not using any form of EWS, countermeasures etc with only one recorded incident (AFAIK) of someone actually maneuvering. For that maneuvering target they sent off 3 missiles before he turned back for maintenance.

One recorded incident of a target maneuvering? What were the others doing?

…and again, killing someone every other time you pull the trigger is a pretty darn good track record.

So we know that the weak link is the missile. My personal belief is that the Rafale is very survivable thanks to good countermeasures and good EWS. Im am not presenting any numbers for the future, yet you seem to know that my belief is that the the SPECTRA suite will take care of all incoming missiles. I wonder who actually is a religious believer…

So we see you have no data at all to support your assertions and you are just making things up again…

This has absolutely nothing to do with military aviation and everything to do about procurement processes, budget management, transparency and accountability.

Basically the issue is an accounting one, not a military one.

South Korean government has rules on how things are brought (and I assume this applies to everything from office stationary to planes to building roads).

The issue is:

1. Korean generals are advising that the government violates it’s own budget processes by increasing the budget but not restarting the project as required.

2. They want the project funding to be increased to favour one competitor (the F-35). This kind of thing is viewed as bad – in Australia it could result in court cases and corruption investigation and I’m sure something similar would happen in South Korea.

3. Making an exception for F-X III also opens a precedent for other procurement processes to be violated in the same way. This would result in less transparent procurement processes thus making corruption more likely and would tarnish government reputation.

I work in this area and we have to tread on egg shells everytime we go to tender. The government has to respect it’s own laws – it’s a key principle of successful democracies.

The generals clearly believe the F-35 is the superior aircraft by a substantial margin, but that the competition is structured in such a way that price has become the sole consideration.

The problem seems to be that the competition was structured poorly. Rather than being a comparison between multiple aircraft based on a range of considerations, the price ceiling was drawn just barely above Boeing’s bid, eliminating the two competitors with no consideration of the relative merits of the aircraft at all.

It is plausible that the F-35 is only marginally more expensive than the F-15, but a far better aircraft for South Korea’s needs. If the budget ceiling were raised sufficiently for the two to be compared on their merits then the generals clearly believe the F-35 would win.

They don’t want to see the entire contest re-run because that would set the process back years. They just want the price ceiling raised sufficiently to allow the aircraft to be compared on their merits. Price would remain a factor in the evaluation, but it wouldn’t be the sole determinant as in the current process.

Doesnt really matter, the F35 with EFTs can’t match it anyway and it’s unlikely that it is less than 2 AAM + 2AG munition.

That is far from certain. Much remains to be seen about the F-35’s range in general, especially with external tanks. Israel is already talking about integrating 600 gallon tanks with their F-35s for example.

I think this excercise showed that the Rafale had no problems keeping up with the F22 in WVR/BFM.

Sure, as usual some tool happened to leak a video. Where are all the videos where the F-22 wins? We know from countless reports they exist in large quantities and yet nobody feels a need to leak them onto the internet… WVR is highly skill dependent, and to some extent luck dependent… nobody has ever said the F-22 is completely unbeatable. The fact that it is so noteworthy that one may have lost that the opposition would feel compelled to leak a video just to prove that it happened at all… what does that tell you?

Jammers, chaffs and maneuvering does work you know. It has been demonstrated not only in EWS testing but in wars as well where the targets where lagging over a decade in technology.

If you can jam the missile seeker well enough it will miss. If you get targeted by an enemy radar your EWS will pick those signals up and point to where the transmitter is, (if im not mistaken SPECTRA + MICA can use that for BVR engagements). All of this has been demonstrated to work. The willingness to assume an unrealistic Pk during excercises does not change the fact that it is up to the missiles to hit the hardest possible target in the sky. And we are also in an era where missiles can be used as “counter missiles”.

Of course, but none of these things remove or even reduce the advantage of stealth. Jammers and chaff for example will be much more effective when protecting a stealth airframe than a 4th generation aircraft.

This is dodging 6 Fakel missiles capable of 60G by using maneuvering and onboard jammers in a real war with a loaded aircraft.

Now, if we compare it to air 2 air missiles
1 The tracker on the aircraft is smaller and weaker than on ground based systems
2 The AA missile pulls fewer Gs than the ones in this example (~40G vs 60G)
3 The onboard missile on the AAM is smaller and weaker than on the ground based ones

Incredibly simplistic reasoning on all levels. Yes it is possible to dodge missiles under some circumstances, nobody has ever disputed that. That doesn’t mean you can just pluck numbers off of a spec sheet and try to compare them. One missile is bigger, therefor its “tracker” is bigger and stronger? Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way, especially given that there are different types of seekers.

Same thing for max G specs…. how many Gs at what range? What altitude? For how long? Using what type of guidance?

Finally, even in the example you showed of the F-16 dodging the SAMs… did it look like he was in any position to do anything else? He was putting 100% of his effort and attention into staying alive. If those missiles had been fired by an adversary that had been free to follow up each shot with an even more lethal shot it would have been game over. One pilot would have been flying for his life, bleeding speed and altitude, focusing on staying alive…. while the other would be free to maintain his situational awareness, and put his plane in a position of advantage relative to his opponent.

Riskier than the A-10? No way.

You aren’t thinking. What would have happened if A-10s had been sent to attack targets in downtown Baghdad on the first night of the war? It would have been a catastrophe. Certainly A-10s undertook risky missions during the fighting, but nobody would have dreamed of sending them straight into Iraq’s most heavily defended airspace and expected them to return.

Rytheon working with Mitsubishi, Saab or AIDC to integrate AMRAAM in F-2, JAS-39 or F-CK-1 it’s not exactly the same as KTRV working it’s way to pair Kh series with Thales radars.

So basically no foreign radar guided missile has ever been integrated with a radar as long as you ignore all the cases where they have…