Loke“Combat range”, as defined in Spud’s Lexicon: “Range achieved in any configuration where the F-35A has an advantage.”
On the other hand, if I compare F-35A and F-16 combat radius with the same weapon load and mission profile, and with cleared take-off weights, the F-16 is comparable or superior despite being much smaller.
Not according to the Norwegian MoD.
I have a slide showing two different loadouts and missions profiles (one with 2 GBU-12 and 2 AIM-120; the other with 2 GBU-31 and 2 AIM-120). The F-35 range is significantly larger in both cases (same mission profile assumed for both F-16 and F-35).
LokeIt was well known even during the early JSF phase, that the USN was having to compromise , as they clearly wanted the N-ATF but could not get the money for an all out exclusive project. It is also well known that the Navy absolutely loves the Super Hornet and wants to invest in furthering its capability (block improvements, next generation jammers, new cockpit, IRST , etc etc etc)…If given a free hand, i bet the USN would want to reduce its F-35C buy and add more SH because well, its cheaper, not only to buy but to operate and they could really make use of that money on other things.
We all know the USN love their SH, but I often get the feeling that some people (perhaps in particular the USAF oriented ones) don’t always appreciate why.
I have the clear impression that there is a significant capability jump from the Hornet (and the F-16!) to the SH; this is why I keep insisting using the “4.5 gen” term for the SH!!
Perhaps the air force people never fully appreciated the SH because it is not “sexy” and has no internal weapons bays?
In the RFI from Canada they described two sets of scenarios; one up to 2030, and the other one post 2030.
It seems to me that platforms like the SH should have no problems addressing the first set of scenarios (pre 2030).
I also suspect that if the SH would get a decent MLU around 2030 then it should be good for some more years post 2030…
I also have the feeling that the F-35 (that should have been finalized by now!) was in many ways a huge overkill for near future scenarios, e.g. up to 2020 and possibly 2030..
Perhaps the USAF should have taken a more step-wise approach and developed a “super F-16” 4.5 gen similar to the Super Hornet; this would have allowed it to develop a 5. gen platform at a slightly later time point; a platform that would not be such a complete overkill for near-term (since it would not exist yet) and better suited to meet the future scenarios.
By doing a step-wise approach it is also easier to avoid the massive budget and time overruns that we see with the F-35.
Anyway this is all hypothetical.
How much did the SH cost, and how long did it take?
Loke1. Rafale is not in the competition because Dassault and the French are not part of the US-centric military-industrial complex. If Denmark were to choose Rafale, the Danes would most likely lose access to some high-tech that they otherwise would have access to. Also, Rafale is not cheap and is therefore not an alternative in any case (see also below)
2. Costs
3. If they don’t buy F-35 their workshare will be quite limited. It will not drop to zero but it will be limited.
Thus the most likely winner is IMHO the F-35. They may have to reduce the number of a/c to a minimum (or perhaps even below what they would consider a minimum) but nevertheless I think it will win.
IF they decide that it becomes too expensive then I think they will go for the SH.
Gripen could also have a chance, if the Danish economy becomes really poor. However I doubt it will come to that.
I don’t see the Typhoon having much of a chance since cost is the main issue.
Lokei’d love leaks hehe i read the rfi, quite complete (sry it was in french).
Maybe just a way to bother Boeing/LM?
This is what I can find in English:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/questevalfin-finquesteval-eng.html
is what you saw much more detailed?
Perhaps one should pay attention to this one:
Vignette 4 – Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period (Coalition war fighting – state on state).
Canada has committed the CAF as part of a coalition responding to the threat of aggression from a foreign state. Included in the CAF contribution to the allied force is a fighter expeditionary force aimed at helping to deter aggression from the threatening state. If deterrence fails, the threatening state will be defeated. State on state war fighting will require the conduct of the full-spectrum of operational capabilities in a joint coalition. The Canadian fighter aircraft will be deployed to a forward coalition base, and will make use of coalition support assets in any ensuring air campaign.
:diablo:
LokeI am somewhat surprised — do Dassault really think they can compete against the US manufacturers in North America!?
In any case it will make the “competition” interesting — and perhaps there will be some leaks towards the end? :diablo:
LokeWell, the best bet for boeing would be to keep the SH line going for as long as possible. Subsidizing or reducing price on the deal to brazil and other potential customers might extend the line, and then they can push the USN to re look its SH:JSF ratio and maybe order 50-100 more jets. I do not think they will be adventurous enough to enter into a 5th generation Light fighter market, especially when LMA has the sheer numbers (thousands produced on the line with US backing when it comes to Political support for competitions abroad)…. Even if the 5th generation fighter is light weight, small (which is gonna be tough due to internal weapons) it will require significant development and testing (tens of billions) so unless boeing can find nation partners, i do not see this happening. Perhaps they could team up with some EU contractors and lobby EU nations to develop a Mini-5th generation fighter for the future.
Looking outside of Europe and US, there may be some opportunities for Boeing.
In particular India with it’s AMCA plans: Look at where they are after 30 years with the Tejas; and they are planning to develop a light 5. gen! They may need a partner!
Other countries that may consider developing their own 5. gen but would need a partner, might include Brazil, Turkey, and South Korea/Indonesia.
Europe is bankrupt, I don’t see much happening on the 5. gen front there. The only excemption could be France (perhaps together with Germany and Sweden?) but I don’t see those countries teaming up with Boeing; if they decide to develop a 5. gen instead of buying the F-35 then the rationale would be to preserve their own industry. If you look at what they have done with Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, add to that the work on Neuron, I don’t think there is much for Boeing to do.
India and the other countries however is a different kettle of fish!
LokeJoint Strike Missile makes F-35 debut
Kongsberg’s developmental Joint Strike Missile (JSM) has been attached to a Lockheed Martin F-35 for the first time at the airframer’s Fort Worth, Texas facility.
Installed on 27 February as part of a “fit check” to one of the stealthy fighter’s weapons pylons, a further test will be conducted later this year to verify that the munition is able to be carried within the F-35’s internal weapons bay.
Lockheed will conduct similar external trials on all three variants of the fighter, while internal fit checks of the JSM will be confined to the conventional take-off and landing F-35A ordered by Norway, says Norwegian F-35 programme director Anders Melheim.
A critical design review of the missile will be carried out in mid-2013 to confirm that integration efforts can continue.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-joint-strike-missile-makes-f-35-debut-383362/
LokeThis is the Debate thread, please keep News in the other thread (sorry I simply could not resist… :diablo:)
LokeA potential solution for some European countries?
Belgium is a keen supporter of the European Union’s concept of pooling and sharing and points to the European Air Transport Command (EATC) in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, as a shining example. Inaugurated on 1 September 2010, the command coordinates the military air transport movements of its members: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. These countries have committed their military transport aircraft to the EATC on a permanent basis or occasionally according to specific requirements.
Could this, (or something similar) be a solution to countries like Denmark, Holland and Belgium?
Currently both Holland and Denmark are considering what to do with their F-35 purchases. I think the high cost is a bit scary to those countries in particular given the currrent economical crisis.
Imagine if Holland bought around 40 a/c; Denmark 20; Belgium 30; Luxembourg 10 — that’s a total of 100 a/c!
The a/c could then be operated from one common air base, and maintained at the same place, with pilots and mechanics from each country. By sharing the infrastructure (including simulators etc), and sharing the costs according to how many a/c and flight hours, I think all countries could arrive at a very cost-effective solution.
The range of the F-35 is after all more than enough to cover all 4 countries from one airbase 🙂
What do you think?
LokeYou’ve just opened up the flood gates of Hell, i.e. France, with that!
..and India, don’t forget India! (assuming they sign later this year).
On a serious note: The Rafale is one of the most (if not the most) potent multirole fighters available today. Ref. Swiss eval (and a few others ;).
LokeSingapore is close to completing its evaluation of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which it sees as a possible fit for its future requirements.
“Though the F-35 aircraft is still in development, we are nonetheless interested in the platform for our future needs,” defence minister Ng Eng Hen said in a speech to parliament on 11 March. “The F-35 will be the vanguard of next generation fighter aircraft when operational.”
Ng added that the nation’s force of Northrop F-5S fighters is at the end of its service life, and that its Lockheed F-16C/Ds are at their “mid-way mark”. According to Flightglobal’s World Air Force’s directory, Singapore operates 26 F-5s and 60 F-16s.
“For the longer term, the Republic of Singapore Air Force has identified the F-35 as a suitable aircraft to further modernise our fighter fleet,” Ng added. “We are now in the final stages of evaluating the F-35.” Nonetheless, he stopped short of committing to the type.
“[The defence ministry] will have to be satisfied that this state-of-the-art multi-role fighter meets our long-term needs, is on track to be operationally capable and, most importantly, is a cost-effective platform,” he said. “I’ve given many necessary caveats before we make a final decision, but we are evaluating the platform.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-set-to-complete-f-35-assessment-383321/
I highlighted above what I think is the most important point… 😉
LokeLokego explain to netherlands officials that their new fighter has to be used in a huge network made of AWACS, air superiority dedicated fighters, electronic warfare aircraft, etc… same for the norwegian politicians or any other nation that won’t have anything else in terms of “fighters” to count on
You say it’s a force multiplier, but from that description, it is a most network-dependant aircraft ever: basically, when in perfectly known conditions, it may fit the bill (albeit, not the original one, but the tempered down one), but when being on its own as in most air forces it is supposed to equip, it is anything but an advantage
Poor examples; both Holland and Norway are part of NATO, if ever attacked then article 5 will apply and NATO (with all it’s networking capabilities) will participate.
Besides, F-35 will be better equipped to operate independent from AWACS and other support assets than most other fighters. This due to a combination of stealth, world-class sensors, sensor fusion, and networking.
Actually I think only the F-22 will be in the same class when it comes to survivability in a really challenging environment.
I think this will be further elucidated after the Canadian evaluation, look at what they ask for and the different scenarios they describe.
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/questevalfin-finquesteval-eng.html
The 2020-2030 time horizon is characterized by proliferation of current threat technologies as well as digital upgrades and increased integration of systems including:
•Fighter Aircraft such as SU-27 armed with a mix of weapons such as AA-12 and AA-11;
•Bomber Aircraft such as Tu-160 employing sub-sonic to low supersonic guided cruise missiles;
•Civilian Aircraft including airliners and low/slow civilian aircraft;
•Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) ground or ship based systems such as ZSU-23/4;
•Surface-to-air missile (SAM) ground or ship based systems such as SA-15 or SA-20:
•Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) such as the SA-18; and
•Early Warning Radar Systems such as digital Spoon Rest and/or airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) integrated into a defence network.The 2030+ time horizon is characterized by the proliferation of emerging technologies including:
•Fighter Aircraft such as PAK-FA armed with a mix of advanced multi-spectral high off-boresight weapons.
•Bomber Aircraft such as next-generation strategic bombers with a reduced Radar Cross Section (RCS) and employing supersonic, low RCS, guided cruise missiles;
•Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) ground or ship based systems such as upgraded 2K22 or SA-19;
•Surface-to-air missile (SAM) ground or ship based systems such as SA-22 or upgraded SA-20;
•Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) such as the SA-24;
•Early Warning Radar Systems such as phased arrays integrated into a defence network.
I expect the following outcome of this process:
1. F-35 will meet all Canadian requirements
2. Rafale, Typhoon and SH will meet some but not all; in particular they will struggle in the post 2030 scenarios*
3. Gripen NG will be somewhat behind those listed in 2, it is after all in a different class.
The other big win for F-35 is that it’s US made; in reality the competition is between the SH and the F-35. Thus Gripen NG will win on costs but lose on capabilities and country of origin. Typhoon/Rafale will lose on costs, capabilities, and country of origin. SH will lose on capabilities, I am not sure about the costs.
*unless they can by 2030 create some really clever “Silent” versions with missiles etc. in CFTs, aka the Silent F-15, but still… will that be enough? I think not. It will become a very expensive MLU and most likely still be far away from the RCS of the F-35; in addition the weapons load and range will suffer. Rafale’s radar may also be considered too small and weak :diablo:
LokeIt isn’t that the 4th generation aircraft are going on, just that there aren’t enough orders out there anymore to sustain the number of production lines operating. Manufacturers can trickle produce airframes for a while, as has been done with the Rafale, but eventually you need real orders.
Not everybody can afford (or need) the F-35 capabilities. In case you have not noticed yet, the F-35 will be much more expensive than the F-16. Some countries may want more than 2 planes in their air force…
I foresee a market for a small single-engine 4.5 gen fighter.
Currently Gripen NG is the only fighter that fits this description. I think that’s why Saab is still quite optimistic.
As mentioned already the F-16V seems not to have succeeded in any competition so far. My guess is that it’s because, although they have made some modernizations, it remains a 4.0 gen plane with limited growth capabilities.
Perhaps the Korean FA-50 might be the only plane that will be able compete with Gripen NG in this particular segment.
Rafale, Typhoon, SH, Su-30/35 markets I predict will be eaten by F-35 and PAK FA ultimately.
LokeMore information about the Norwegian cost estimates and how they have changed here:
As you see from 2.4.2 in 2008 the estimate for 56 F-35 was 42 billion 2008-NOK. However after “technical correction” this becomes 60 billion 2012-NOK.
I try to figure out what this “technical correction” consists of, since most of the increase seems to be due to this correction.
There has been some further increases, since then, if you look at the assumptions (number of a/c was reduced by 4 (7%), and a few other things), and the cost has not really come down as you might expect. This seems to indicate a real increase.
The growth in total lifetime cost is even more interesting, from 145 billion in 2008 to 254 billion in 2012. This has since gone down a bit (to 230) due to reductions in number of air bases (from 2 to 1), flight hours (30% reduction) number of a/c (7%) .
More to follow…
Sign In
