I don’t think it’s going downhill per se, it has just stagnated a little bit lending time for others to catch up somewhat. Also, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t UCAV development in the US years ahead?

The last war of the tiffin 🙂

http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/files/2013/01/159500951.jpg

Interesting mix of A/C there. 😀 Two F-1’s in French colours, two An-24s, eight? MiG-21s, one C-47 Turbo, one MiG-15/17, one crop duster/glide tug (Air Tractor?) etc… It’s like a history class.

I was just looking up aircraft types and who has them for the “what’s the oldest combat aircraft in service thread” when I stumbled upon (the first time I’ve noticed it) the NATO naming conventions for Russian aircraft.

These forums don’t like their multiple threads per aircraft so didn’t start a new one. I thought it might be fun in here to take guesses at what the NATO reporting name of the PAK FA will be.

It’ll have to start with “F”, needs to sound a lot different to existing names over radio and NATO never gives cool names to russian aircraft (refer to the poor Ka-25 and Mig-15)

As its a reporting name that gets called when its first encountered, the obvious one that springs to mind for a stealth fighter is “Fu”

Anyone want to try their hand at playing Nostradamus, then come back in 5 years for bragging rights?

I think “Firefox” is what we’re all hoping for but it’ll probably be something funny like “Flapjack” or “Furry”…

Snufflebug’s portrayal of the Viggen doesn’t seem to match common perceptions.

You never hear anybody say anything negative about these things, especially not in Sweden. Hell, people went berserk where I work when a hypothetical JA 37 vs F-14 encounter was being discussed and the Tomcat turned out vastly superior (which it was).

The less flattering characteristics and relationships vis a vis competitors only slowly emerge when you dig deep, talk to pilots (who rarely want to discuss negative aspects of aircraft they’ve come to love, but you can still lure it out of them) and review accident reports et cetera.

By contrast, the 39 Gripen which has gotten some bad PR due to two crashes in its early history (one of which was very public indeed, occuring during a big festival in Stockholm) has a far better record and makes the 37, 35 and 32 seem so outdated and incident prone it’s not even funny. Now, up until the Flanker, the 37 and to a lesser extent the 35 fared very well in the BTO (if you can call it that). But after that, no sir. Despite the massive upgrades they both recieved (like AJS 37/D and J 35J) they lagged very far behind. On the other hand the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 looked significantly better. After all, it was all about USAF/USN vs. VVS/VMF. Sweden was but a parenthesis, despite what we Swedes like to think (oh, fending off Russian fighters like it’s childsplay).

Care to provide a source on that statement ?

I’ve been trying to find it online but to no avail. It was mentioned in an interview regarding the Su-15 splashdown in 1985, the pilot said that while the Su-15 was a pretty mediocre machine overall, except for its acceleration and climb performance, with the advent of the Su-27s in the late 80’s the Viggen was completely outclassed in air combat, both performance-, weapon- and sensorwise. Even the far lighter and less capable MiG-29 was considered a formidable opponent (esp. in close combat of course). With the Gripen A to D it was supposed to be more even vs. the Flankers (presumably up to SM). The Su-35 is a whole other story, as is the Gripen NG/E/F, hence what I said above.

Swedes have a tendency to overestimate their stuff a lot. Take for example the RM8A-equipped Viggens that had a pathetic AoA limit of some 35 dgs, that were highly sensitive to aggressive throttle changes and that were highly unsuitable to push more than 6 G’s. The RM8B rectified most of these issues, but was thirsty as hell and the planes still inherited some of the basic structural flaws (weak construction, stall prone etc). Regarding the loiter time, there are stories about Viggens accompanying Flankers on patrol in the Baltic where the Swedes had to return to base and refuel in the midst of things, whereas the Flankers stayed aloft without IFR during it all. And PS46 was outclassed by contemporary Russian radars in many respects etc. In fact this made the Swedes so annoyed that they (we, I am a Swede) carried out some pretty intensive spying efforts to get hold of information re. the Flanker sensors (like the Roberth Winton spy affair) to facilitate the development of the Gripen suite.

The Draken is often lauded as some kind of supersonic marvel but it had pretty mediocre performance in the supersonic regime and while the RM6C-equipped D version could reach 2.0 Mach it was an exception and evidently it wasn’t a very common occurence (contrary to what SAAB themselves say). For example, other Draken operators such as the FAF said that the Draken barely topped out at 1.6 Mach with any kind of useful load and they (FAF) regarded their MiG-21s as their only true M2.0-capable fighers. They flew F’s which also had the RM6C and were arguably more refined than the initial D’s. And then you have the stall proneness and so on there as well. Not to mention the inadequate sensor suite (somewhat remedied by the STRIL network, much like the MiG-29 and its PVO integration) and so on.

Etc etc and etc. Mind you, I am not here to throw dirt at the SweAF, SAAB etc. I am very proud of what they have achieved, but they aren’t infallible gods, their rep in Sweden is highly inflated and lest we forget, they are competing in the “low cost” segment here after all.

Not at all, sims show that NG with IRIS-T and Meteor is superior:

This should not come as a surprise; the Gripen family was designed to beat the flanker family. And just like Su-35 is a major upgrade of todays Flanker, so is Gripen NG a major upgrade of the Gripen C.

Yes, from SAABs PR departments’ computer simulation carried out in 2009 when neither plane was really past prototype stage, not to mention that the Su-35S’s planned missile load (the actual types of missiles and their performance) is still more or less shrouded in mystery. They haven’t even bothered procuring the R-77s in wait for the replacement so the ratios quoted are dubious at best. Besides, what does 1:6 to 1 even mean? 1:6 or 1.6 to 1?

Also keep in mind that SAAB decided to publish those figures after the Norwegian MoD loudly announced the Gripen to be inadequate vs. Sukhoi Su-30MKx/35S etc. There was no way SAAB would leave that kind of bad PR unanswered. Now, the Norwegian studies were obviously flawed themselves (highly politically biased, for one thing) but it smells like the typical number gibberish when it comes to these kind of evaluations in light of potential arms sales..

I remember a Swedish Air Force pilot saying that the appearance of Flankers in the Baltic immediately rendered the Viggen more or less useless and that the Gripen fared better against them but by no means spectacularly so. I think that is the case here as well, with both of them upgraded in absurdum. We’re probably talking much more modest win/loss ratios in real life.

The Gripen NG most definitely has superior networking abilities and so on (bit of a Swedish specialty) but the Su-35S blows it out of the sky in terms of performance, that much can be said. Then it’s down to sensor suites, detection ranges, ECM and stuff, which is a whole other story. From the top of my head I do think the Irbis-E has superior target acquisition range though, but without knowing anything about the missiles it’s supposed to guide you can’t even begin to mull about the end result vs. a Meteor-endowed Gripen NG. The Meteor is surely an impressive missile though, and the AESA is an obviously an important asset.

That being said, picking the Su-35 to pose as the enemy is logical considering the market. And while the portrayal of such an encounter might not be very realistic it’s perfectly in line with similar promotional videos elsewhere. The Russians themselves have effortlessly toyed around with F-35s and Eurofighters if I recall correctly. 😀 It’s marketing.

On a side note: what god awful acting.

The early ones were very pretty IMO

The Victor is my favorite V-bomber. It’s sleek and even somewhat futuristic looking, with those smooth wingroot intakes, the forward fuselage that gradually gets more angular toward the nose… Mmm:

It almost looks like some kind of science fiction:y massive hovering gunship or something. Not saying she’s all that pretty, but what a beast!

The Vulcan is also nice but IMHO a tad uglier (yet very gracious). The Valiant is another story…

And to you people complaining about the Buccaneer above, say what? I mean, she’s not really a looker but slap some Sea Eagles onto that and we’re talking one mean naval strike fighter. Me likey-likey:

Now, back to real uglies. 😀