It 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

You know, I’m not so full of myself that I just care about attacks against me. This thread has been full of people that has been outraged that Mr Sweetman hasn’t bought into the “F-35 will be the best since slice bread choir”.They have still not been able to take his arguments and instead gone for personal attacks and yours about him being corrupted is the worst so far.

He has a blog that is open for comments and is not afraid of critisism, unlike many others. If you don’t agree with him try to take the debate with him there, if you can, instead of polluting this thread.

I don’t understand you. I show some inconsistencies in Sweetman article. He try to diminish F 35 advantage over legacy fighters using the Kopp arguments–the F 35 isn’t stealthy enough… I also show you that only 1 year ago he considered F 35 VLO. But if you agree with him it’s OK. Just don’t be so outraged if others don’t…As for being on SAAB payroll, it’s obvious. It’s not illegal either. If you read his articles in AvLeak or on his blog on Ares, he is lobbying openly SAAB. See the page 9 at http://www.ausairpower.net/AeroIndiaSweetman-0209.pdf. “What kind of fighter. Survivable. Affordable”. And the picture at the bottom of the page, illustrating that survivable & affordabler fighter? Of course a Grippen NG :p. It doesn’t count that on the following page there is an F 16. The participants of AeroIndia retain subliminally the grippen.

So typical, dancing around, without taking the issues and instead going for the worst personal attack. :mad::mad::mad:

I will not waste my time on such drivel.

When did I attack you????

I have not seen USAF officially state that F-35 is VLO, but if so, what is X-47 or even B-2? VVLO? It gets a bit ridicolous.

Also if F-18 E/F is LO then is also Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale. That means that Bill Sweetmans comparison still is valid, even if you want to use different names.

Mr. Sweetman itself considered F 35 VLO, back in 2007 (I suppose it wasn’t yet on SAAB payroll) :diablo::diablo::diablo: http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/December/12132007/12132007-18.htm

It was a requirement that F-35 were to have lower operational cost then the aircraft it was meant to replace, -Yet according to GAO it is now expected to have higher operational cost then F-16, an aircraft it was meant to replace.

As i said the F35 is not yet operational, so no one can say for sure what would be the operational cost. As for GAO, they butcher any weapon program. It’s their job. And many of their assesment of future program proved wrong.

F-22 is 8 years already, maintenance can only go south from this point.

F 22 was operational in Dec. 2005. Do the math.

As a matter of fact i didn’t read it, as i don’t know what page it is on. But according to LM or USAF, F-22 scored 30:1 while F-35 scored 3:1. over a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”. So how did 3:1 morph into 7:1 ?

If this “threat aircraft” will be a serious fighter such as an MKI, I guess that it would be 3:1. OTOH, if the threat aircraft would be a groppen, than it won’t be a threat. :p So, a 7:1 ratio is correct, but if the F 35 driver is drunk.:diablo:

As for

Cheers

it was for Jwcook. He ends his post like this and I reply him.

What is the difference between LO and VLO and who decided that?

UASF. I.e. the only ones that got it. And in their book, F 35 is VLO. Also, in AF site, superhornet is classified as LO.

11 t vs ~13 t is more 2 than 1.;)

Not again! The weight optimised AF 1 is 12.1 t. ! Check your sources, please.

Probabley taking Typhoon’s external fuel tanks into account. And the mission radius figures officially stated are not that different either. And don’t waste your time in trying to explain the merits of larger internal fuel vs. internal+external fuel.

The F 35 combat radius without EFTs is equal with EF with EFTs. But in this case, the T/W ratio and wing loading are in F 35favor. So, in this case the so-called EF advantages (page 15) of lower OEW and more wing area vanish. One should compare apples to apples. If he intended to offer a fair assesment, he should mentioned that these advantages are only for a EF on internal fuel. Or, to remind that without EFTs, the EF has 1/2 the combat radius of an F 35. Or, at least to explain what he means by “similar normal fuel load” But he didn’t.

F-22 and F-35 for starters, both had a requirement of being less maintenance intensive then previous generations.

The F 35 isn’t in yet service and already proved unsuitable? :p As for F 22, the availablity is 70 %. If you think that is poor, think again. It’s a a new plane. When F 15 entered in services, the problems were so serious (F 100 engine for exemple) that dozens have to be grounded. Why? It was a new plane. however, once the inherent problems solved, in differnt conflicts the availablity was ~ 90 %. Why? Experience.

Can you tell me what page or site that made some believe 1 F-35=7 EF ?

You did not read carefully the source I indicated. It did not say that the F 35 offered a 7:1 advantage over EF, but over a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”.

As in another study made by the RAF, EF will be 80% as effective as F-22 to counter a
And USAF claim F-22 is vastly better air superiority then F-35 against a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”
So: it doesn’t make sense that EF is 14% as effective as F-35 but 80% as effective as F-22.

Another hint that something is wrong with the picture is that USAF or L.M (can’t remember which)
claim F-22 score 30:1
F-16 1:1
and F-35 3:1
I would assume EF totally out-perform F-16 in air superiority.

It’s your problem who’s study/simulation you trust (USAF/LM or RAF/EF)

I think you are forgetting that F-22 too, are emitting with its radar, that a weapon with HOJ can home in on.
A radar can be detected 4 times the distance it can detect anything itself,
LPI perhaps only twice as far as it can detect anything.

A prerequisite for stealth to work is an AWAC at hand, something that may not be available with S-400 and Kh-31 AWAC-killer missiles multiplying like rabbits.
Otherwise it is just screaming out its presence like a flash-light at night, like any other fighter.

An AESA radar won’t be detected so easily. In many exercises (Red Flag, Northern Edge) the F 22 (without AWACS) confronted US (F 16, F 15, F 18) and foreign fighters. Guess what? Their RWRs didn’t pick F 22 radar…:diablo:

and if your not transparent enough your still visible

and standoff jamming removes the element of surprise.. and HOJ is just what a towed decoy loves..

Both methods will stop the kill chain, one is cheaper and more flexible than the other.

also remember cost has killed the f-22 effectiveness, if not the entire program.

Cheers

An F 22 is 145 mil. $ flyaway. It’s only twice the flyaway price of the EF. Remember ~ 700 EFs will be built. I wonder what would be the EF price if only 187 would be built.:D

Cheers

Is the basic concept he proposes correct? that there are three main sorts of stealth, and that LO & VLO stealth has some drawbacks.

As I said, here is his first mistake. He takes Kopp’s bumbling for granted and ranks the F 35 as LO instead VLO.

Why is it that stealth is perceived by some as more effective than jamming?

Maybe because AESA will proliferate. And AESA will be way more difficult to jam than MSA radars.

Its the difference between looking for something transparent vs having sand thrown in your eyes, either way you can’t see the target

Using your analogy, AESA is like wearing protective glases. One can throw sand, it won’t stop you from see him.

I don’t think Mr Sweetman is biased against the F-35 but he does show his experience in the industry when he takes what LM or the USAF say with a large pinch of salt due to the string of broken promises that have come before.

Please, name one plane delivered by LM that did not performed as promised.

HUH ? where did you get that idea from ?

According to the post that opened the thread (closed recently) — LM about the F-35s A2A performance ;):

Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”.