aurcovThat graph shows F-35 going 610 nm with a light load of two AAM’s and two JSM, launching the JSM’s, having some kind of combat 20k ft and then going back. 20 min dogfight was very uncommon even during WW2, I don’t think anyone believe that will happen in the future.
The Gripen graph shows it going 700 nm with 6 AAM’s, staying there for 30 min and then going back.
I’n not comparing these two planes here, OK? I’m just showing his parti-pris vs. grippen. In that post at his blog he dismiss the F 35 for having “much” (:p) lower combat range. But he did not mention the details. Many of his readers felt that it wasn’t OK, and they express it on his blog.
The same tactic works for Kopp when he wants to make a point. On APA site he consider, for example, the combat radius of a Flanker (with 8 AAMs) in A-A at medium-high altitudes and he compare it with the radius of a Hornet in low altidude penetration, with 3 tons of bombs. He concludes that the Flanker radius is 3 times the Hornat radius! Well in these conditions it is true, but only in these conditions. Details count, don’t they?
This sort of twisting the reality in known here. A couple of weeks ago, in my country the chief of staff of the AF was fired, just because of this: in some interview he said that the grippen is the best solution, and in order to prove it, he compared -again- apples with oranges.
As for RCS I was talking about the possible future, but even today RAM is an important part of RCS reduction.
The best RAMs can lower the RCS of a legacy fighter with 1 order of magnitude. Not enough for VLO.
F-35 doesnt have price that is fixed today and claiming it to be cheap without having a price is quite silly.
That why I said that I don’t consider the Norway offer as real. But neither the present prices for Grippen/EF/Rafale won’t be the todat prices in 2014-2015 when the F 35 will have a firm price.
aurcovThat graph shows F-35 going 610 nm with a light load of two AAM’s and two JSM, launching the JSM’s, having some kind of combat 20k ft and then going back. 20 min dogfight was very uncommon even during WW2, I don’t think anyone believe that will happen in the future.
The Gripen graph shows it going 700 nm with 6 AAM’s, staying there for 30 min and then going back.
I’n not comparing these two planes here, OK? I’m just showing his parti-pris vs. grippen. In that post at his blog he dismiss the F 35 for having “much” (:p) lower combat range. But he did not mention the details. Many of his readers felt that it wasn’t OK, and they express it on his blog.
The same tactic works for Kopp when he wants to make a point. On APA site he consider, for example, the combat radius of a Flanker (with 8 AAMs) in A-A at medium-high altitudes and he compare it with the radius of a Hornet in low altidude penetration, with 3 tons of bombs. He concludes that the Flanker radius is 3 times the Hornat radius! Well in these conditions it is true, but only in these conditions. Details count, don’t they?
This sort of twisting the reality in known here. A couple of weeks ago, in my country the chief of staff of the AF was fired, just because of this: in some interview he said that the grippen is the best solution, and in order to prove it, he compared -again- apples with oranges.
As for RCS I was talking about the possible future, but even today RAM is an important part of RCS reduction.
The best RAMs can lower the RCS of a legacy fighter with 1 order of magnitude. Not enough for VLO.
F-35 doesnt have price that is fixed today and claiming it to be cheap without having a price is quite silly.
That why I said that I don’t consider the Norway offer as real. But neither the present prices for Grippen/EF/Rafale won’t be the todat prices in 2014-2015 when the F 35 will have a firm price.
aurcovPerhaps he thought people could read for themselfs?
Look: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf page 3
It was the F-35 on the maritime surveilance mission.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENOVERVIEWAug08.pdf page 8
And Gripen had 30 min on station.
Edit: And those who bother to read can see that both are using external fuel.
Some people can’t, indeed. Both presententions were for Norway, if you look at my post. And the figure quoted by Sweetman was at page 4 at the same presentation: 610 Nmiles, of which only 220 Nmiles were at optimal cruise altitude and includes a maritime attack (not maritime patrol) and 20 min dogfight with AB!
RCS might stay the same, but I wouldnt bet on it, many predict that the next big technology leap will be in nano technology.
A guy in the industry once said that the 3 most important things in VLO are 1) shape, 2) shape and 3) shape.
And for F-35 being cheap, well I think I would wait to see what a real deal with a fixed price will be.
Don’t expect the price of EF/Rafale/Grippen to remain fix either.
aurcovPerhaps he thought people could read for themselfs?
Look: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf page 3
It was the F-35 on the maritime surveilance mission.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENOVERVIEWAug08.pdf page 8
And Gripen had 30 min on station.
Edit: And those who bother to read can see that both are using external fuel.
Some people can’t, indeed. Both presententions were for Norway, if you look at my post. And the figure quoted by Sweetman was at page 4 at the same presentation: 610 Nmiles, of which only 220 Nmiles were at optimal cruise altitude and includes a maritime attack (not maritime patrol) and 20 min dogfight with AB!
RCS might stay the same, but I wouldnt bet on it, many predict that the next big technology leap will be in nano technology.
A guy in the industry once said that the 3 most important things in VLO are 1) shape, 2) shape and 3) shape.
And for F-35 being cheap, well I think I would wait to see what a real deal with a fixed price will be.
Don’t expect the price of EF/Rafale/Grippen to remain fix either.
aurcovTypical case of ignorance &/or intellectual dishonesty.
page 5
For the USN, warships have a PLANNED life of 35 years. It is VERY rare for any particular fighter airframe to last that long. The 1st 5 Ticonderoga class cruisers were retired early NOT because they were old but simply in order to save the USN some money for other things (& the remaining 22 Ticonderogas are planned for a 45 year life – depending of course on when their eventual replacement materializes).
*
page 13
Simplistic BUT accurate within its simplicity.
*
page 14
Appears to be jumping ahead considering 6th generation aircraft (still a couple decades away) as VLO but ‘current’ 5th generation (B-2, F-22 & F-35) as ‘only’ LO.
*
Similar fuel load when the Typhoon carries THREE external fuel tanks…
The OEW of the EF Typhoon is ~24,500 lbs (sources vary from ~24,240 to ~24,581 lbs).
The OEW of the F-35A (as per weight reduction) is 26,664 lbs.
Differense ~2,083-2,424 lbs.
1 tonne is 2,240 lbs…F-35 has PLENTY of carriage of flexibility in ‘LO’ mode & EVEN MORE in ‘reduced RCS’ mode with external stores.
EF Typhoon has NO ‘LO’ mode AND requires 2-3 external tanks to match the range/radius of the F-35 carrying just internal fuel…*
page 16
External tanks are WORSE than internal fuel capacity.
External tanks LIMITS performance MUCH more than internal fuel.
When fighters start carrying 10 times their own empty weight in external fuel THEN it will be like stagging in on rocket…*
page 17
Thats right. A F-16 requires two 600 gal external tanks AND 450 gal CFT to match the range of the F-35A carrying just internal fuel.
*
page 21
The F-35’s ‘targetting pod’ is INTEGRATED – no need for external pods.
*
page 24
MMI
It’s not only this presentation for AeroIndia.
For example, when the result of competition for Norway was expected, he commented some declassified data on his blog at Ares. He said that the combat radius of the grippen ng was longer than the F 35 with ~ 50 Nmiles. A guy from Norway, post a comment, pointing some “minor” details that Mr. Sweetman conveniently ignored. First the grippen was with 3 EFTs. Second the mission in the SAAB presentation was maritime patrol at the most convenient altitude. OTOH, the mission profile of the F 35 was an intercept, including 20 minutes of dogfight with some AB usage!
It’s this kind of “inaccuracies” that annoy me because they are from a known journalist. But one with an agenda. If Kopp agenda is revolving around f 22, Sweetman’ sweetheart is the grippen. I don’t have time to look for his article when the Dutch MoD announced that the F 35 was declared winner. My God, what a sorrow! It’s like his favourite football team lost the final.
aurcovTypical case of ignorance &/or intellectual dishonesty.
page 5
For the USN, warships have a PLANNED life of 35 years. It is VERY rare for any particular fighter airframe to last that long. The 1st 5 Ticonderoga class cruisers were retired early NOT because they were old but simply in order to save the USN some money for other things (& the remaining 22 Ticonderogas are planned for a 45 year life – depending of course on when their eventual replacement materializes).
*
page 13
Simplistic BUT accurate within its simplicity.
*
page 14
Appears to be jumping ahead considering 6th generation aircraft (still a couple decades away) as VLO but ‘current’ 5th generation (B-2, F-22 & F-35) as ‘only’ LO.
*
Similar fuel load when the Typhoon carries THREE external fuel tanks…
The OEW of the EF Typhoon is ~24,500 lbs (sources vary from ~24,240 to ~24,581 lbs).
The OEW of the F-35A (as per weight reduction) is 26,664 lbs.
Differense ~2,083-2,424 lbs.
1 tonne is 2,240 lbs…F-35 has PLENTY of carriage of flexibility in ‘LO’ mode & EVEN MORE in ‘reduced RCS’ mode with external stores.
EF Typhoon has NO ‘LO’ mode AND requires 2-3 external tanks to match the range/radius of the F-35 carrying just internal fuel…*
page 16
External tanks are WORSE than internal fuel capacity.
External tanks LIMITS performance MUCH more than internal fuel.
When fighters start carrying 10 times their own empty weight in external fuel THEN it will be like stagging in on rocket…*
page 17
Thats right. A F-16 requires two 600 gal external tanks AND 450 gal CFT to match the range of the F-35A carrying just internal fuel.
*
page 21
The F-35’s ‘targetting pod’ is INTEGRATED – no need for external pods.
*
page 24
MMI
It’s not only this presentation for AeroIndia.
For example, when the result of competition for Norway was expected, he commented some declassified data on his blog at Ares. He said that the combat radius of the grippen ng was longer than the F 35 with ~ 50 Nmiles. A guy from Norway, post a comment, pointing some “minor” details that Mr. Sweetman conveniently ignored. First the grippen was with 3 EFTs. Second the mission in the SAAB presentation was maritime patrol at the most convenient altitude. OTOH, the mission profile of the F 35 was an intercept, including 20 minutes of dogfight with some AB usage!
It’s this kind of “inaccuracies” that annoy me because they are from a known journalist. But one with an agenda. If Kopp agenda is revolving around f 22, Sweetman’ sweetheart is the grippen. I don’t have time to look for his article when the Dutch MoD announced that the F 35 was declared winner. My God, what a sorrow! It’s like his favourite football team lost the final.
aurcovThe latest game changer has been the modern avionics including better radars on every fighter, the more widespread AEW&C support and better SAM’s. LO/VLO, jamming, SEAD/DEAD and so on are reactions to that.
In the future I believe that constant evolution of existing fighters will be a game changer. Instead of building new aircraft to take advantage of new technology they will be changed on the inside and get totally new capability but still look much the same.
Up to a point, yes. You can add a better radar, jammer, IRST. But the RCS will remain the same.
Another game changer is economy. So far fighter aircraft has become more and more complex and most of all expensive. This has been paid by reducing the numbers, but that road is soon at its end. There is a limit on how thin you can spread your fighters on the battle field and still be useful. Therefore we will have to find ways to increase capability without increasing costs.
And here, the F 35 has an advantage. While, I doubt that the price will remain the 52 mil 🙂 ofererd to Norway, it will still be 2/3 of an EF/Rafale, and just a little more than a grippen.
aurcovThe latest game changer has been the modern avionics including better radars on every fighter, the more widespread AEW&C support and better SAM’s. LO/VLO, jamming, SEAD/DEAD and so on are reactions to that.
In the future I believe that constant evolution of existing fighters will be a game changer. Instead of building new aircraft to take advantage of new technology they will be changed on the inside and get totally new capability but still look much the same.
Up to a point, yes. You can add a better radar, jammer, IRST. But the RCS will remain the same.
Another game changer is economy. So far fighter aircraft has become more and more complex and most of all expensive. This has been paid by reducing the numbers, but that road is soon at its end. There is a limit on how thin you can spread your fighters on the battle field and still be useful. Therefore we will have to find ways to increase capability without increasing costs.
And here, the F 35 has an advantage. While, I doubt that the price will remain the 52 mil 🙂 ofererd to Norway, it will still be 2/3 of an EF/Rafale, and just a little more than a grippen.
aurcovHas the USAF officially certified the F-35 as VLO? So what you are saying is that for the B-2 mission extra stealth is required compared to the F-35. Therefore you are recognising the distinction that Bill Sweetman did in his presentation.
And as you arent even presenting any arguments you are clearly not trying to convince me, just declaring things for your own satisfaction.
As I told you, the JSF office is representing the DoD in relation with the F 35 manufacturers. It is lead by an USAF general, Charles Davis. Until the first F 35 will be come operational, these peoples are the only ones that are entitled to make a comment of F 35. And they say the F 35 is VLO. So you have the claims of the manufacturers, of future users, on one side, and the claims of Sweetman&Kopp on the other side. Pick your choice.
BTW, in this subject (VLO), I doubt that anyone outside the program has real info. So not even Sweetman (BTW, I read his articles with interest, except this subject) can make a ranking of various VLO platforms. However, the people representing the 3 US services and 8 foreign participants are informed about the real numbers. Up to now, I haven’t heard of any complaint.
aurcovHas the USAF officially certified the F-35 as VLO? So what you are saying is that for the B-2 mission extra stealth is required compared to the F-35. Therefore you are recognising the distinction that Bill Sweetman did in his presentation.
And as you arent even presenting any arguments you are clearly not trying to convince me, just declaring things for your own satisfaction.
As I told you, the JSF office is representing the DoD in relation with the F 35 manufacturers. It is lead by an USAF general, Charles Davis. Until the first F 35 will be come operational, these peoples are the only ones that are entitled to make a comment of F 35. And they say the F 35 is VLO. So you have the claims of the manufacturers, of future users, on one side, and the claims of Sweetman&Kopp on the other side. Pick your choice.
BTW, in this subject (VLO), I doubt that anyone outside the program has real info. So not even Sweetman (BTW, I read his articles with interest, except this subject) can make a ranking of various VLO platforms. However, the people representing the 3 US services and 8 foreign participants are informed about the real numbers. Up to now, I haven’t heard of any complaint.
aurcovYou know, just repeating the same thing with just less arguments is not convincing to me.
I don’t inted to convince you. That’s the difference.
And as you say USAF has not received any F-35s yet and therefore not able to have an independant assessment of their own.
???? Each milestones–such as qualifying as VLO — is certified by USAF, as #1 buyer.
The additional treatments as you say together with a completely different shape for the B-2 is just for fun? It does not have any difference for how it is utilised and all the extra cost and compromises are unnecessary?
The aditional treatment are a must for a strategic bomber, don’t you agree?
aurcovYou know, just repeating the same thing with just less arguments is not convincing to me.
I don’t inted to convince you. That’s the difference.
And as you say USAF has not received any F-35s yet and therefore not able to have an independant assessment of their own.
???? Each milestones–such as qualifying as VLO — is certified by USAF, as #1 buyer.
The additional treatments as you say together with a completely different shape for the B-2 is just for fun? It does not have any difference for how it is utilised and all the extra cost and compromises are unnecessary?
The aditional treatment are a must for a strategic bomber, don’t you agree?
aurcovNow you are silly. I could count to 5 slides illustrated with an F-16 compared to a single one with Gripen. F-16 was used to illustrate things like upgradability and versatility, while F-18 illustrated mobil, survivable and durable. Is he payed by LM and Boeing too?
Have you also follow his articles in AvLeak and Ares? I do, and the message is visible between lines, to say the leats.
Even if you consider the JSF office an official USAF entity, you still have to explain where X-47 or B-2 belong and if you accept that they differ from each other.
JSF office is not USAF is DoD. USAF did not receive the plane and until then, all what you can officially find about F 35 is from here. B2 has aditional treatment for lower frequencies. But the F 35 is VLO.
aurcovNow you are silly. I could count to 5 slides illustrated with an F-16 compared to a single one with Gripen. F-16 was used to illustrate things like upgradability and versatility, while F-18 illustrated mobil, survivable and durable. Is he payed by LM and Boeing too?
Have you also follow his articles in AvLeak and Ares? I do, and the message is visible between lines, to say the leats.
Even if you consider the JSF office an official USAF entity, you still have to explain where X-47 or B-2 belong and if you accept that they differ from each other.
JSF office is not USAF is DoD. USAF did not receive the plane and until then, all what you can officially find about F 35 is from here. B2 has aditional treatment for lower frequencies. But the F 35 is VLO.
aurcovIt is quite obvious that you don’t believe that anyone would use Gripen as an example of a good design without being paid for that. It shows your prejudice, nothing else.
If he would have ilustrated the page concerning a “survivable & affordable” fighter with a grippen and an F 16 (or anything else for that matter), I would say he is fair. But he didn’t. And it was a presentation for an international fair. Where people promote fighters. Worth billions…
Now, again, has USAF officially said that F-35 will be VLO and where does that put X-47 or even B-2? Do you have anything substantial against Bil Sweetmans comparison of different levels of RCS reduction.
Yes i have: http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf. That’s the official F 35 site (.mil). You will find plenty of VLOs inside the presentation :p But this must be a BS since Mr. Sweetman and Dr. Kopp said clearly that it isn’t VLO
Sign In
