LokeThe F-35 need not be available by 2011, just by next year/2011 when the decision is made that delivery will fit Japan’s required schedule.
I don’t think Japan wants Rafale because it’s more multi-role than the ASDF needs. The Typhoon is more air-combat orientated, which is what Japan wants. So it’s F-35 versus Typhoon.
I thought Japan was also a bit worried about the timelines for the F-35 because they needed a replacement rather quickly? And that they may need a stop-gap like Australia? Are you saying that’s not the case?
If they are looking for an a2a platform then the Gripen NG should also be of interest. It’s a tiny mosqito but in a light a2a config that is just an advantage… And range in a2a is also impressive as just pointed out in the Gripen Info thread. With a 1000-element swashplate AESA it would probably have a larger search volume than Rafale and the SH… New MMI, excellent IRST, low RCS and IR signature, MAWS, Meteor and IRIS-T, supercruise and I ask; why do you need the much more expensive Typhoon?
Norwegian F-16 pilots have had trouble finding those Gripens during exercise with Sweden….
LokeI think that some of the IP that Volvo/Saab developed for the RM12 actually went into the 414.
And in any case I think it’s cheaper. Also, I think the amount of changes needed to the airframe were smaller with the F414 than with the Eurojet (although I may be wrong on this last part.)
Cola, are you not happy with 1.2Mach supercruise with 4 AMRAAMs two sidewinders and one huge drop tank? 😎
LokeWe now await the evaluation of the Brazilian armed forces and then the political decision making,” Morin said to the press after a meeting with his Brazilian counterpart Nelson Jobim.
I believed the FAB had completed their evaluation already? Or did something get lost in translation?
LokeThe new version of the Saab says that the combat range was extended to 1300 km, the aircraft can stay for up to 30 minutes in the patrol, armed with four missiles BVR, WVR two and a central fuel tank.
The 1300 km radius with 30 minutes on-station is of course known from previously, however there have been some discussions on how many drop tanks was used for such a scenario. Seems they are saying here that it was with only one drop tank… Interesting.
With regards to supercruise: NG will be able to SC > 1.2 mach with the above config 🙂
LokeAnd just how on earth do you come up with such BS? The USAF order alone is more than DOUBLE that & the USN/USMC order is almost that much.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/10/marine_f35_103109w/
Watts said he expects the Air Force to buy 800 to 1,000 F-35s instead of the 1,763 in current service plans.
Aside from Obama succeeding in transforming this great nation into a third world SOCIALIST country that is…
So if the USAF and USN cut their F-35 orders it is all because of Obama? :rolleyes:
LokeThink of it this way- mixing high PRF with low PRF on a radar won’t increase the range any more than mixing shorter wavelengths with longer ones in the IR spectrum. The range is physically limited by the wavelength. You can’t increase the range beyond this physical limitation. You can increase the resolution within the limitations of the frequencies used, but that doesn’t correlate to a longer range under optimal conditions where the ideal wavelength is already working.
I am not an expert, but if one band can be used to reduce the background noise from the other band then the effective range should actually increase. Due to increased SNR (which will increase due to a lower Noise component).
There is always noise in a signal, so to increase range you basically have two options; either you increase the Signal or you reduce the Noise. Perhaps what Dare2 is hinting at is a method to reduce the noise component. If that works in all weather conditions then the result will be that the detection range will increase in all weather conditions.
Sensitive cameras are sometimes limited by thermal noise; to increase their sensitivity their are cooled; the Signal does not increase, but the noise will decrease (if the thermal component is dominating) leading to better SNR and better sensitivity.
Edit: Dare2, sorry I did not see your post above when I responded to ww… your post above explains it quite clearly.
LokeLoke i have a question for you.
All considered i.e performances technologies and the all industrial deal, would you be happy if your country was to go SAAB way’s?
Yes, but with a disclaimer:
I think Gripen NG will become a fantastic 4.5 gen fighter, and for sure good enough for Norway in 2016; add to that the industrial offsets, and it looks like a very good deal. However I do recognize that it’s not a 5. gen a/c; so therefore my suggestion was to not just go for Gripen NG but start a collaboration with Sweden and some other countries (South Korea perhaps) to develop a multirole 5. gen fighter but with more balance between a2a and a2g than what’s the case with the F-35.
I think that would have been good also for “the Western world”; now we are putting all our eggs in the F-35 basket.
Anyway that’s not what happened. The decision was made last year; we will get the F-35 not the Gripen.
Of course to develop a 5. gen with Sweden and S Korea would have been quite expensive, OTOH we would have had a bigger upside, with more contracts, and a bigger share of sales on the export market. And just like the eurocanards are superior to the teens today, I would not dissmiss the possibility that such a future 5. gen stealth jet would have been superior to the F-35 (although I’m sure some people here will tell me that would not be possible) 🙂
I also find it funny that most people compare the F-35 to today’s jets. It is fun but also funny because the more interesting will be how it compares to the jets that will hit the market in roughly the same timeframe, i.e. the future 5. gen jets from China and India/Russia. I think people are underestimating in particular the Chinese; For sure their first “5. gen” jet will be far less capable than the F-35. But the implication of that is that they will start development of their next plane quite quickly. They will catch up. And then it would have been nice to have some 5. gen eurocanard being developed, just in case…
So, we are getting the F-35 and my hope for an “alternative” 5. gen fighter rests with France and Brazil…
LokeWhat, a negative F-35 thread started by an F-35 fanboy? 😀
As a Norwegian I agree it is a pity that the countries could not agree on the purchase plan since it would have lowered the price and thus the amount of my tax money that will be allocated to this.
We may speculate what happened; is it all due to the current economical crisis? or also something else?
If you haven’t already been there today, you should visit Bill’s latest story on F-35:
LokeMy question is if the RNoAF has chosen the JSF, or is there a (little) chance they might opt for another aircraft like Grippen NG or even Eurofighter?
Thanks for help,
TigerII
Norway has chosen the JSF. No chance that Gripen NG or any other fighter can be chosen now.
LokeNorway might purchase as many as 56 F-35A.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/NORWAY061009.xml
I believe it when I see it…
The RoNAF says that the minimum number of a/c they need is 56. That does not mean that they will get it.
Our Navy asked for 6 frigates — in the end they got 5 “cheap” ones with hardly any weapons, and now it turns out they will get money to operate only 3…
My guess is that Norway will buy a maximum of 48 F-35.
Lokenot really
block 60: ~$85 million
F-35: ~$112 million
Do you have a source for that block 60 number?
LokeAbout Norway I would say that the competition was not fair for the gripen but don’t take all SAAB press realeses that followed with no distance (for norway and brazil for that matter). This is a comunication exercise desined to give the feeling/influence the audience that the gripen is the right choice. Nothing bad about this, but of course these press releases never talk about the things you lack against the competition. So these press releases are always a bit too ‘rosy’. You can’t have only assets with being the lightest aircraft…That would be too easy. SAAB press releases are only one part of the story. Dassault’s story is off media obviously. I just try to tell to take these press releases for what they are : a communication exercise and thus they should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I agree that the competition in Norway was “not fair”.
I was not referring to Saab press releases, but interviews with Norwegian companies that had been offered very good deals from the Swedes. Even the Norwegian trade unions supported the Gripen because of the impressive offsets that would have supported a large number of jobs in Norway.
Perhaps you are mixing things a bit here (or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you try to say) — In Norway Sweden offered the best offsets, there is no doubt about that. But everybody involved clearly understands that offsets is one thing and technical capabilites of the plane is something else. When the Norwegian trade unions said that “Gripen was the best deal” everybody understood that this was from the point of view of offsets, and not technical performance…
I would not be surprised if Sweden could offer the best offsets also in Brazil. But we should keep the offsets discussion separate from other issues (including unsubstantiated claims about bribery, or discussions about technical capabilities)
LokeFirstly I must point out that this is only an opinion and you are free to not share it. I am just suspicious and I am not accusing anyone. Then I wasn’t refering to Norway but South Africa and the Czech deal.
OK, but then keep in mind that those deals were not handled by Saab but by BAE… Today, BAE is not longer directly involved in exports of Gripen. So those cases may not be relevant (and also, did they prove that bribery was involved?).
Interestingly, it seems both SA and Czech air forces are quite happy with their Gripens…
LokeThat is your own interpretation. I intentionally kept it free to everyone to make its own opinion. Lobbying or bribes who knows ? There is always a grey zone here. But I am not accusing anyone…I am just suspicious (at a personnal level) when you know Grippen tracking record for bribering…The timing of this press release is somewhat not neutral. But again that is just me and feel free to differ.
Just wanted to pointed out that SAAB is applying a particular communication strategy which differs from Dassault. And we should remain lucid that this is a communication strategy so we should take SAAB press releases with a pinch of salt. But it is true that the NG have some good points like lower costs. But did they need a competition to know that a single is cheaper than a twin engine aircraft ? Bigger as also its own advantages…Otherwise everybody would design litghtweight combat aircrafts….So the communication from SAAB on lower costs is as if this should be the overriding criteria. But I have never seen any official statements from the FAB about that.
Do you have anything to support those claims?
In Norway, Saab and Sweden simply offered the best offsets, and the best economical deal; there was no doubt about that. And the process was pretty open and transparant. Let me repeat that: There was no doubt that Sweden offered the best offsets, and the best economical deals, for a large number of companies. LM simply could not compete, with one exception; LM could offer the “potential” of big contracts for one (maybe two) Norwegian companies; bigger than what Sweden could offer that particular company. Sweden however could offer a large number of contracts for a large number of companies, some smaller contracts and some bigger. The total sum of all the contracts Sweden could offer far outweighted the one (or two) contracts LM may be able to offer.
ToT and offsets is one of Saabs main selling points; they don’t have to bribe people to make them tell this story. And Embraer is a commercial company; they look at who can offer them the best deals. The politicians look at politics; France has more political “impact” than little Sweden. So whereas Sweden plays the offsets card, France is playing the political card…
LokeMy (un)educated guess on who will win:
If IAF want a “lighter” a/c:
Gripen, Mig or F16 will win; politics will decide which…
If they want a “heavier” twin-engine a/c:
Typhoon, Rafale or SH will win; politics will decide which….
Since I think “politics” will point towards the US, my conclusion is that this is actually between F-16 and the SH — although there are 6 contenders, they could might as well have shortlisted to the F-16 and SH, because that’s what I think they realistically can choose from. However having competition with others is increasing the pressure on both LM and Boeing, and in addition it could be a good learning experience (the Indians get to learn a lot about e.g. how a tejas-like plane should really look like by studying the Gripen…. could be the main reason why Gripen is in there.)
Sign In
