LokeF22 does very very well what it does, but’s it only purpose is air dominance.
Originally perhaps yes, but that has already changed:
The Raptor’s unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness make it overwhelmingly effective in its combined air-to-air and air-to-ground mission capability. In its expanding role as an ISR asset, the F-22 is making the entire joint force more effective by collecting timely information about the forward reaches of the battlespace and relaying it to other aircraft and command/control nodes. Ongoing modernization efforts — including integration of the Small Diameter Bomb, electronic attack capability, synthetic aperture radar and the Coordinate Seeking Weapon — will ensure the Raptor’s relevance throughout its 40-year service life.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html
It can already do more than just a2a, and it seems they plan to expand it further.
LokeI mean that if you compare the F-15SE with an F-15E, the tails are different. The SE’s tails are canted, not 90 deg verticle like the E model.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding eachother. From the link I provided:
Alas, Mark Bass, Boeing’s F-15 vice president, told me today the V-tail did not make the cut for the flight test program. The V-tail also won’t be offered initially to South Korea, the F-15SE’s first potential buyer, he says. Of course, he adds, the V-tail could come back …
The way I interpret the above text is that in the original plans for the Silent Eagle (and also in the image) they had the V-tail (or canted tails) however then they changed their plans to exclude the V-tail, for the flight test, but also for the offer to South Korea.
Furthermore my understanding was that they would still offer the Silent Eagle to South Korea. The implication of that would be that they would offer a Silent Eagle without the canted tails. And the implication of that could be that the canted tails may not be as extremely important to the RCS as some seem to imply — because if it was that important why go to all the trouble of making internal weapons bay and not do the canted tails? Then why not just insert radar blockers in the intakes, smack on some RAM and off you go?
Perhaps they are making the non-canted tails in a different material, either RAM (or radar transparent — or are there structures in the tail that needs to be hidden?)
Lokeomnirole = simultaneaous operations.
like :
-TF + air surveillance + engaging SAM sites+ jamming
-sea radar mode while conducting an interception etc
-Firing AASM while intercepting aitcraftsthat mean that you can decouple the front and the back seat tasks.
Today only the rafale and the SH and perhaps the block 60 have demonstrated this capability. The F35 will bring this of course although limited by being a single seater.
What about the latest F15 for Singapore? Don’t they have this capability? And perhaps also the latest F-15 to Korea and Israel? And what about the F-22?
LokeThe tails are canted in that picture.
Do you mean to imply that “canted tails” are not the same as “V shaped tails”? Or do you imply something else? :confused:
LokeGiven the unofficial indications besides the Luftwaffe and EADS I have gathered, I find it highly undoubtedly that the Typhoon failed during the high altitude tests. But I’m certain we’ll soon know more.
Other “unofficial indications” mention other planes — to sum up it seems that Mig-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet and Gripen succeeded in these high altitude tests.
Either the original report that 4/5 failed was wrong or some of these other “unofficial indications” are wrong. Perhaps they got it backwards and 4/5 succeeded?
Lokebrasil may buy spares, but if they don’t know how to prepare the pieces themselves, they’ll rapidly have to import more and keep doing so.
???
How often do the French engines break then?
LokeYes, it will fare much better outside X-band than PAK-FA because F-35 was designed against L, S and C-band acquisition radars as well as X-band missile guidance radars like Flap Lid and Tombstone.
Do you expect F-35 to fare better than PAK-FA also in the X-band?
LokeOK, Sign mate, let’s be serious.
Integrating a new engine ( at least one
which is not a simple evolution of the one
already in place ) is complicated.The redesign of the Gripen into the NG
takes in the newer version of its actual one.
Anything else would be costly both in time
and money.I do agree that IF it happened, it would be
very interesting but EJ2000 or ruski?‘Cause that’s pretty much it , you know!
The Eurojet engine seems the obvious choice; a feasibility study was already done, and it should be quite straightforward (although still more complicated than with the F414 which was slotted in in “no time”).
Several options exist:
1. Get the first 36 Gripen NG with F414. The following Gripen NG would be with the EJ200. The first 36 can be retrofitted later or kept as is.
2. Get 36 Gripen C/D from Sweden; use those while the Gripen NG with EJ200 gets ready.
3. Get Gripen NG with F414 and a large number of spares. If you have the complete specs and tools and know-how to repair the engine, it is not really that critical. Look at Iran they are still flying F-14!!! A US boycott will not hurt Brazil. Keep in mind we’re talking engine here, not avionics (which needs a lot of updates to stay current). Brazil can develop a Gripen NG using the EJ200 for export only.
LokeFrance wants a strategic partner in Brazil while the US want a puppet. Which one do you think is worse?
Nic
What’s wrong with being a puppet!?
In Norway we love Uncle Sam 😀
LokeHowever if I were to take two identical aircraft and then hang a barn door off one would you not be able to tell me it’s worse than the one without the barn door? Yes or no?
If somebody showed you a prototype of a plane with a barn door, why would you assume that the production version will retain that barn door?
LokeI don’t need it. what you see is what you have. It may change in the future but let’s not start creating fairytales based on wishes.
Yes, but the funny thing is that you seem to create your own “fairytales”, probably based on your own wishes.
You know well that currently all we got is a prototype. Still you are doing just like the PAK FA fanboys who says “look if they change this and that the RCS will be incredibly low”, but with your own twist; you say “if they don’t change this and that the RCS will be high”.
It’s all speculation.
The only thing we DO know is that the prototype is just that, a prototype.
Production version will be different.
LokeNo you can’t, BUT you can EASILY spot things that hurt the RCS. Can you calculate the aerodynamics of an airplane with your eyes? Of course not. Now if I stick a big flat panel on an aircraft perpendicular to the slipstream are you telling me you wouldn’t be able to understand that it just might affect drag? Same thing here. Those big, bare metal, rounded, engine nacelles on PAK-FA are $hit for stealth.
So you have it in writing from the Russians that the production version will retain all those things from this first flying prototype that increase RCS?
The final version will most likely be quite different from this first prototype.
LokeIt’s pretty clear that since Dassault had bought lula and jobim, saab bought everyone else :dev2:
It seems you take it for granted that both companies pay bribes. I may be wrong of course but as said before I think the situation has improved the last few years, and that bribes are no longer the “standard procedure” of making arms deals, at least in some parts of the world.
Bribing the Brazilian president in particular would seem rather stupid to me — and why would Dassault do that? Dassault had Sarko to work as their sales agent, no need to bribe anybody, in particular not the president.
Also, I would be surprised if a person in his position would accept any bribes.
LokeIn testimony to this column, Fernando Arbache defends the purchase by Brazil of the Swedish Gripen fighter. As you know, President Lula has already pre-announced the choice of the French Rafale, the bid valued at $ 10 billion – preference is being challenged by federal prosecutors. The third option is the Boeing F / A 18 Super Hornet. The American model, does anyone know which is excellent – it comes from a country that leads the space race – but it has against him the fact that Americans do not want to transfer technology. Arbache a doctorate in Information Systems (COPPE / UFRJ) and Market Intelligence (at Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica-ITA). It is also professor of the High Command of the Navy of Brazil, the chairs of Logistics and Information Systems and the Fundacao Getulio Vargas.
Arbache admits that of the three, the Gripen NG is the only aircraft that needs to be designed before entering service. This is the evolution of the Gripen C / D which is in operation in the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, Czech Republic and South Africa, and has also been commissioned by the Royal Thai Air Force. The other two aircraft, even the more advanced versions such as the F/A18 Super Hornet, already in service for some years. The Rafale does not have a version of the new generation.
He says: “Brazil needs to ensure the ability to design your aircraft and Gripen NG is the candidate who meets this requirement, as its next-generation aircraft is being developed.” Cites technological benefit to be achieved in the industrial park in the country and in educational institutions, the development project for the production of fifth generation fighters, “By obtaining such technology, there is the possibility of using them in various industries, military or civilians, benefiting the country long term. A great example is related to the idealization, design and development of the Bandeirante aircraft, when the ITA was active, and benefited not only Embraer and Air Force, but all of Brazilian technological park, because the knowledge developed have been applied even to industries such as Petrobras and Vale. ”
It adds that the production of an aircraft entails the development of a highly qualified supply chain technology and logistics, which enables the country to enter markets for production of durable consumer goods and high technology and value, making the country more competitive in trade world.
Finally, it highlights that Brazil has made partnership with Italy for the production of an aircraft. In the 80s, both countries began to develop a military fighter attack, which involved Italian companies Aeritalia Aermacchi and Embraer and the Brazilian, who learned to design and build the aircraft, getting to know all the requirements and restrictions as a unit this size have. With this, the Company learned to make civilian passenger jets in addition to the newest executive aircraft, the Phenom. Such jets have become successful sales across the globe, bringing billions of dollars in foreign exchange in Brazil, placing the Company as the third largest producer of airplanes in the world, behind Boeing and Airbus. Interestingly, Aeritalia longer exists and only produces Aermacchi training aircraft.
He concluded in his testimony to the column: “We can conclude that the proposal submitted by the Swedish SAAB, entering the Brazilian aeronautics industry in design development and production of the Gripen NG is the one that serves the interests of the nation. It will be the third technological leap from the industrial park after Xavante, AMX and finally the Gripen NG. ” This column is open to disseminate theses experts argue that the French and American models, though I know that, in general, proponents of each model work more directly with the government of the summit to debate in public opinion, because this is the norm of the billion dollar global arms industry.
There is also this:
Area defense aid provider Embraer to overcome crisis
VirgÃnia Silveira, para o Valor, de São José dos Campos Virginia Silveira, for the value of Sao Jose dos Campos
05/04/2010 05/04/2010The refit of the Brazilian Armed Forces opened new avenues of business for INBRA Aerospace Group Inbrafiltro, a scenario not very favorable for the aeronautical sector. “Although 80% of contracts tied to Embraer, which reduced about 25% of the requests, and we face the crisis period, why not provide only for the segment of commercial aircraft (the most affected by the crisis) but also for the area of defense, “said the CEO of the group, Jairo Candide.
Last year, the INBRA Aerospace had revenues of U.S. $ 9.8 million, down 18% compared to R $ 12 million achieved in 2008. Inbrafiltro The group consists of five companies (Inbrafiltro, Inbratêxtil, Glass, and Armored INBRA INBRA Aerospace) and global revenue was R $ 70 million in 2009.
The company, according Candide, already has planned investment of between $ 35 million and $ 40 million for a new plant for composite material, which will meet the major ongoing programs in the defense area in Brazil: the development of transport aircraft military KC-390 by Embraer, the production of EC-725 helicopters by Helibrás / Eurocopter to purchase 36 fighter aircraft F-X2 program and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for FAB.
“The investment in new plant could reach $ 140 million if the winner of the competition’s F-X2 is the Swedish Gripen fighter, we already have a contract for the development of the wings and cover the landing gear of the aircraft, material compound, “explained the executive. The INBRA is contracted in the Saab Gripen’s development program through the holding NG T-1, which comprises five Brazilian companies in the aviation industry, led by Akaer.
🙂
LokeWell, the main point in “total technological transfer” is the word “total”.. if that means, we totally let you put together parts we produce, then, obviously, there’s no transfer…
Whether we can believe it or not doesn’t really matter.. from Dassault’s POV, selling all the details of their latest bird may soun,d crazy, but if it brings them several marteks that otherwise wouldn’t go their way, it’s still a profitable deal for them.
Then why does Embraer prefer the Saab collaboration and not the Dassault collaboration?
Sign In
