eagleFYI, the one in the middle is Australian actress Sophie Monk.
eagleJust a reminder, the F-5 and Mirage III were never competitors for the F-104. The F-104 entered service for european countries in 1960, the Mirage III first rolled off the production line in 1960 and the F-5 didnt enter service till 1962.
The Mirage III was, it was one of the contenders in Germany, the others being the F-104, F-11F and the SR.177. But an American plane was the only realistic option as it came with special weapons.
The only real competitors for the F-104 was the Tiger, F-8 and the CF-105 (the Arrow being the obvious correct choice). These jets were superior to the F-4 so it would have been embarrassing for the US to sell a better fighter than their current top-of-the-line fighter. As we all know the F-4 proved to be quite a dud at dogfighting in Vietnam.
Neither of those jets is superior to the F-4 in the fighter-bomber/strike role. Only the CF-105 might have been superior in the interceptor role. None were considered in Germany so…
Some other potential candidates would have been the F-102, F-105 and F-106. I also want to mention that I dont buy into the idea that the F-104 was an untouchable low level attack fighter. That myth was dispelled when mig-15s made easy meat out of F-105s in Vietnam.
The F-105 yes, but that’s basically a larger, more complicated and more expensive F-104 and a worse interceptor. Even though the interceptor role was less important than the strike role, 2 GAF fighter wings were equipped with Starfighters, so they probably would have required another jet for those wings. Sidenote, there were 5 GAF bomber wings, 2 fighter wings, 2 recce wings and 2 Navy wings.
Didn’t the F-105 have a positive exchange ratio over Vietnam? That’s not what I would call easy meat… Besides, did the USAF really fly on the deck, and what’s the percentage of sorties that didn’t get shot down? Remember, were talking low level nuclear strike for the F-104G here, so heavy losses were expected, certainly much heavier than over Vietnam… up to 50% I think. And thats per sortie, not per war.
eagle1994 dollars? When was that estimate from?
The JSF program didn’t award the contracts to develop the X-32 and X-35 until late 1996. Lockheed wasn’t officially selected to develop and build the F-35 until 2001.
No question the F-35 program has been a mess but even an updated F-16 or Super Hornet is going to be way more than 45 million in 2014 dollars and you can forget about a Eurofighter or Rafale…
It wasn’t an estimate but a price target (ie KPP) from 1996. The 2001 change to $31M almost seems absurd now.
Yes you won’t get an EF or Rafale for 45 millions. Not even for the revised 31 million which is about 50 million in 2014 dollars. Thing is though the point of the JSF program was to have an affordable 5th gen jet. Much like the F-16 was back in the day vs. the F-15. Now if they reach the current 75 million target, that is not bad compared to the competition. But it was supposed to be cheaper which it isn’t.
eaglea) Its under $85M in TY dollars.
b) Recurring flyaway cost including the engine.
Flyaway cost target was $28M in 1994 dollars. That’s about $45M in 2014 dollars.
Now its $85M in then year dollars or $75M in 2014 dollars.
An increase from 45 million to 75 million or two thirds. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Ah well, in hindsight it was a good idea to drop the A for affordable in CALF when they merged it with the JAST project. On the other hand, it could be worse…
eagleGood AoA performance would have helped with the pop-up attacks practiced by the SAF (IIRC from published details of joint exercises).
If you’re thinking pop-up attacks from narrow valleys, the F-16 or anything else is perfectly capable to do that. No cobra like stunts are involved, 25 degrees AoA is plenty.
The APG-68(V)5 was pretty decent radar. Could detect a fighter sized at ranges at 80km IIRC. More than enough to exploit the existing AMRAAM.
Maybe so. The APG-73 is better though.
The Swiss airspace is relatively small. Endurance shouldn’t have playing a very big role IMO.
It’s small allright. F.e. next week, Swiss AF will provide air cover for the annual World Economic Forum in Davos. Payerne air base to Davos is only about 220 km. But more time on station is nice esp. for a small force.
eagleSTOL performance would probably have been a priority given the nature of the Swiss mountain bases. Otherwise, the F-16 Blk 50/52 would have met the SwAF’s criteria, with a better climb rate and at a lower cost.
STOL performance obviously wasn’t a problem, otherwise neither F-5Es nor Mirage IIIs would have been chosen and operated.
The F-16 would have been an interesting option, nonetheless.
STOL wasn’t a problem, all Swiss jet bases have 1800+ m runways, but nice to have imho. Field arrested landings and high sink rates are no problem for an F-18 obviously.
The F-16 mainly lost due to worse radar performance. Both against ground clutter in difficult terrain and general BVR performance. APG-73 > APG-68, after all the latter is pretty small and wasn’t really designed for BVR combat. I think slightly worse endurance played a part too. The Hornets general toughness ie landing characteristics (look at the flimsy F-16 gear), twin engine safety and being designed for maintenance in confined spaces (carrier –> cavern) were all non-crucial iirc.
eagleTo get this thread back on track – I think Switzerland should have gone for Mirage 2000C-RDI instead of F/A-18Cs. While being a great striker, I somehow can’t see how the Hornet fits into an almost pure A-A role. Same with Finland – I think they could have purchased the AJ37/JA37 Viggen (although I am aware of the US industrial offsets which lead to cellphone business rise of NOKIA).
The relatively outdated Mirage 2000C didn’t make the cut against the latest F-16/F-18. The French offered the then new but not yet flying Mirage 2000-5 later in the competition, but were rejected.
My opinion: the F-18C had the better radar (APG-73 vs RDI) and better missiles (AIM-120 vs Super 530). Better STOL performance is a bonus. The Hornet may not have the edge up high and fast, but the Swiss model with -402 engines and low drag pylons climbs way better than older Hornets. The Mirage IIIS scandal and the French desperately trying to sell the Milan to Switzerland in the early 70s probably didn’t help.
On that subject, Swiss AF really should have gone for the A-7G in 1972. The Corsair crushed the competition, but due to mentioned pressure from France trying to sell the inferior Milan, the gov. decided instead to buy neither and opted for 30 used Hunters instead. That effectively was the end for serious air to ground business in Switzerland. The Hunters were kept in the A-G role until 1994 but that was hardly state of the art…
Last remark – I am not sure whether the F-4 Phantom II was the best choice for the Luftwaffe. They could have served on with F-104Gs and then gone for Tornado ADV.
The F-4F wasn’t a bad choice. Thanks to reduced weight and maneuvering slats, it was a good performer. With 2 sets of eyes and 4 Sidewinders plus gun certainly better than the F-104. The F-4 also was an excellent (interim) conventional fighter bomber, unlike the Starfighter. What else would have been available in the early 70s? The F-15 a few years later maybe. Tornado ADV wasn’t really ready until the Cold War was more or less over.
eagleThe F-35 has 4 luneburg lenses (the picture only shows 3). I think they fly with them most of the time outside of testing.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234307[/ATTACH]
eagleHas this been posted here yet?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234268[/ATTACH]
OK the F-35 is no F-16, that’s pretty straightforward. But that’s an 88% increase in fuel consumption ie fuel cost… with that in mind it wouldn’t surprise me if the cost per flight hour will be in the same F-16 plus 88% range.
Combat radius of 600 nm seems plausible.
Difference in empty weight is 50 to 60% btw…
eagleAFAIK, the Rafale was tested up to Mach 2.0 but is limited to Mach 1.8 in operational service… so Mach 1.5-1.6 with some (supersonic) tanks seems plausible. The point is however, most fighters outperform the F-35 in an air-to-air configuration, minus the F-18 series, and I don’t know about the Gripen. Some even beat or match the F-35 when carrying one drop tank.
@ FBW: according to my copy of the F-15E manual, the F-15E-229 top speed with CFTs is only limited by CFT design limit of Mach2, on a standard day that is. It’s Mach 1.9 @ standard day +10°C.
Back to the F-35… wasn’t it already tested up to Mach 1.67? The A-model I guess, will be interesting to learn how fast the F-35C can go, and how long it takes to get there.
eagleUK based defence contractor Hawker Hunter Aviation are apparently acquiring an ex-German F-4F plus a spare.
eagleIf the Gripen has been so cheap to operate why the Royal Sweden Air Force had decreased from 200 JAS 39 Gripen A / B / C / D operation in 2004 to something like 100 JAS 39 Gripen C/D in 2008, and now has been intending to reduce in the near future for 60 Gripen E?
You gave the answer yourself. Cold War has ended in 1991 leading to a massive force reduction in Sweden like most other western places.
The Swedish Air Force wants 70 to 80 E models.
eagleYes, yes I do….lol…..you do realize that Denmark doesn’t have military assets on Greenland yet right?…
In fact even the US has the USAFB Thule on Greenland. So yes as a NATO Country boardering Greenland, Canada patrols right up to her waters/airspace, and your point to that was what?……that Denmarks territorial land mass should be larger and include Greenland?….yet there are no Danish fighter planes stationed there to patrol it. anyway……….
Nice video …was taken by Major John Kristensen of the Royal Danish Airforce flying out of Thule AFB on a 3 or 4 day trial mission from Denmark. Note the Bright Orange flight suits….not your average flight gear, this is for high vis. in case of bail out in remote areas.
What’s your point? Denmark doesn’t have F-16s stationed in Greenland on a permanent basis, correct. Just as Canada doesn’t have F-18s permanently based in the North either. But Denmark does fly the Viper over Greenland every now and then, that is the point. Anyway, bailing out over the open sea is more dangerous I imagine, and thats where F-16s operate on a daily basis.
btw, did you bother to check out the USAF single/twin engine safety statistics I posted a while ago?
@ MSphere: Sadly there are no more F-15s in Elmendorf, Alaska. But they still have F-16s in Eielson, Alaska, soon to be replaced with F-35s.
eagleUmmm – you are a little confused.
Both the USN and USMC provided EA-6Bs to cover USAF operations.
The last of the USN’s EA-6Bs returned from their last deployment 16 November 2014 – and have been replaced by EA-18Gs.
These will be needed due to the intent to operate the F/A-18E/F for at least 2 more decades – as well as to help out the EW-less USAF.
To clarify, there are 3 joint expeditionary EA-18 squadrons with apparently another 2 to stand up. That’s 15+10 jets to cover USAF operations as these units don’t deploy on carriers.
eagleThe F-15E is sold now with a choice of PW-232 or GE-132, so the USAF could chose the one it wants for its F-15Es. The current engines on the Es ( 229s ) would go to the F-15Cs. The Cs would get like 15% more thrust and the Es 10%+ more thrust.
I believe they had tested an F-15C with 229s back in the early 90s, it could supercruise at Mach 1.3 if I remember correctly what I read.
The first 132 or so F-15Es are -220 powered, so there’s only around 100 -229 powered F-15Es in USAF service.
The F-15C has had some upgrades, e.g. the APG-63(v)1, & an AESA radar upgrade has been developed, but not yet fitted. The major upgrades, though, have been firstly, the development of the F-15E, & secondly, the way that has been upgraded. Look at an F-15SG, for example.
The F-15C AN/APG-63(V)3 radar upgrade is well underway with more than 60 delivered iirc. The plan is to equip 179 jets eventually.
As to earlier upgrades, there was also the APG-70 for later C models.
Sign In
