pfcemAh yes. The F-35 is so superior that they had to adjust the economical evaluation so that even if Saab would have given Norway 48 Gripen NG aircraft it still would end up being more expensive than JSF.
On top of this, they’ve managed to perform very exact simulations without any key performance parameters from Saab. Etc.
***
If F-35 was so clearly superior, then it would not need to enter any competition with Gripen NG at all.
If LM needs to bribe, lie and deceive in order to win with its ‘clearly superior and clearly cheaper aircraft’ then it logically means that
– it is not clearly superior, or
– it is not clearly cheaper, on the contrary it is much more expensive. or
– any combination of the two previous statements.
***
Are’nt people tend to be more direct and straight forward in west.
Norway could have simply told the sweden that they want F-35 (after all it is better than Gripen in RCS department). What possible ramifications could have been for such an an explict statement.
By the way, is Sweden allowed to sell the Gripen to China, or is it under some kind of EU imbargo ?
Again, it SHOULD be clear since 2002 that Norway was going to replace its F-16s with the F-35. Politics (& I have not doubt Norwegian law) DEMANDS that there be a competiton even when the choice is painfully obvious & the ‘decision’ having already been all-but made. Now, I don’t know how Norway selected its criteria for the ‘competition’ (whether they altered their criteria so that something other than the F-35 COULD compete or if their criteria could actually be met by other than the F-35).
The US DOD has set the fly-away price for the F-35A for partner nations at $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars). I suspect that LM & the DOD ‘figured’ out the expected price the F-35 will be once it reaches full rate production & that the US Government is ‘subsidizing’ the higher cost of earlier production aircraft so that partners pay the same price reguardless of whether they commit to early production or wait for full rate production.
Don’t geve me that BS that Norway was not given any key performance parameters from Saab. If they did not then the Saab proposal would have been laughed at & rejected. And any performance/capability/whatever parameter Saab did not provide is Saab’s own fault. And just what is so special about the NG that a reasonable assumption of any of its performance/capability/whatever parameters could not be made?
pfcemI can understand Saab’s frustration & it is unfortunate that most western nations are required to conduct “competitions” in choosing its weapons systems, it SHOULD be clear to anyone with any significant degree of knowledge that Norway’s F-16s were going to be replaced by the JSF when it joined the program in 2002.
pfcempfcemMost of the spec sheets I’ve seen say 1,850+. The question is how much is that +.
And that is because most of the ‘specs’ given for the F-22 & F-35 are not the true specs at all but simply a regurgitation of KPP THRESHHOLDS (i.e. MINIMUM acceptable). đ
pfcemStonewall,
âCost information provided to Norway in response to a Request for Binding information in April 2008 was a âbudgetary estimateâ in 2008 US dollars,â Lockheed Martin JSF spokesman John Kent said in a Dec. 4 e-mail. The cost âincludes aircraft Unit Recurring Fly-away cost plus Ancillary Mission Equipment, e.g., fuel tanks, weapon pylons, safety pins, weapons racks, etc.â
Fly-away price is STILL the same $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars & at some 2008 exchange rate) the DOD has said it is, the difference between $58.7 million & $68.1 million is Ancillary Mission Equipment & possibly a different exchange rate used.
USAF FY2009 budget documents are in THEN YEAR DOLLARS, not constant dollars. How many times does this have to be stressed before people get it?
pfcemAir superiority is achieved when your adversary runs out of airplanes before you do. There are ways of accomplishing that without the use of an uber-fighter and killing them on the ground is the easiest way to do so. That fact will probably not be well received by this forum.
“Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history”.
No, air superiority is achieved when you can fly your aircraft with relative/significant security/impunity and your enemy can not. You do not have to “kill” any enemy planes to do that, just make it certain that they WILL be killed if they attempt to enter YOUR airspace.
The problem with relying on “killing” enemy planes on the ground is that you have to achive air-superiority over enemy airspace in order to do so. Unless of course your bombers can attack the enemy without being intercepted.
And don’t give me any BS about ballistic missles, BMD has come A LONG way & the problem with using ballistic missiles is that reguardless of whether they carry a nuclear/biological payload or not, they MUST be treated as though they do & the reaction of such COULD very well mean nuclear/biological payload weapons launched against you…
pfcemAfter watching how past operation unfolded like Desert Storm, Joint Endeavor, OEF, and OIF, do you really expect an adversary to give you 3-4 months to deploy your forces against him? If you are close enough to use your F-35, then he is close enough to his assets against your airbases during the buildup. The way to prevent a preemptive attack on your bases is to use bases out of his reach. Do you think Khadaffi ever expected F-111s from England to attack in Operation El Dorado Canyon? That is the benefit an attack airplane with a 1200 NM combat radius brings to the table. F-35 misses that mark by 500 NM.
AGAIN I agree something with such range capability IS needed, BUT not what the F-35 is intended to nor has it ever been intended to be.
pfcemItâs funny to hear people on forumâs claims that the F-35 will fly supersonic on dry thrust. Not even LM or USAF people claims that.
That is because for LM & USAF people “supercruise” is defined as Mach 1.5+ rather than Mach 1.0+. đ
Let me explain why:
– The F135 engine shares common core with F-22âs F119. The difference is a much larger fan and a two stage LP turbine, which gives the F-135 a much higher bypass ratio (~0.6; highest of any fighter engine)
No it is 0.56-0.57 [sources vary] for the F135 vs ~0.20 for the F119. Jet fighter engines are TYPICALLY (since the 1980s or so anyway) 0.40 [PW F100 for example] to 0.75 [GE F110 for example], the F-135 slides nicely just about in the middle of that range.
– The high bypass ratio gives good low speed thrust and fuel efficiency due to higher mass flow and low exhaust velocity.
Again, not that high a bypass ratio, just compared to the ULTRA LOW ratio of the F119.
– The problem of such an engine at supersonic speed is that more intake air must be slowed down to subsonic speed, and the modest exhaust velocity canât regain the intake losses.
Does not mean that it is incapable of supersonic speeds at without afterburners. All it means is that it has to SUCK in comparatively more air. And at supersonic speeds “thrust” is generated as much (or more – see the SR-71) by the ‘sucking in’ of air as it is by the ‘pushing out’ of air.
– This means that the F135 engine will produce significantly LESS dry trust than the F119 from say mach 0.95 and upwards. In reheat it can still produce more trust, but at a very high sfc due to the low reheat chamber pressure (acceptable, since the F-35 it is only specified to have supersonic dash capability)
You are exaggerating.
– The F-35, with almost the same frontal area, much lower slenderness ratio and less than half dry trust in high transonic regime, compared with the F-22, CAN NOT âsupercruiseâ (unless the F-22 easily âsupercruiseâ on one engine!!!). Fuel or weapon load does not matter much, since F-35 carry the huge tanks and weapons bays by default (internal). Aircraft weight (induced drag) will not have a large influence on total drag in the transonic regime, where wave drag plays the lead role.
No, the frontal area of the F-35 is about the same as that of the Rafale, where as the frontal area of the F-22 is closer to that of the F-15.
Given that the F-22 can supercruise at Mach 1.72 on two engines (& the law of diminishing returns), greater than Mach 1.0 on just one is not beyond possibility…
Correct, the speed of an aircraft that carries all its fuel & weapons internally is not effected much by what load it is carrying.
By the way; the so-called âquotedâ price of $58.7M to Norway is not quoted at all. Itâs purely a budged price, as response to an RBI (Request for âBindingâ Information). No one is surprised if the price has doubled in ~2013 when a contract might be signed
Best regards
Ole Kristian Holen
It is the (flyaway for F-35A in FY 2008 dollars) price the US DOD has told partner nations that they will pay. It is the price publicly known to have been told/given/”quoted” to Australia, Canada & Norway as well as PUBLICLY announced to the entire world.
pfcemIs the US govt really going to subsidise Norway to the tune of $35+ million per frame?
The idea is that production will ramp up so quickly that the ACTUAL price is equal to (or less than) the $58.7 million being paid within a few years.
This sounds cloud cuckooland stuff to me. What would the reaction be if the US govt said to a Boeing 737 customer that it would would subsidise the purchase price to ensure it was cheaper than the A320?
Completely irrelevant & unrelated analogy. More accurate would be for the US Government to say to ‘Boeing 737v2014’ customers that since it is buying a LOT of them itself, it will cover the ‘excess’ cost of the 1st few years production so that other customers pay the same price for them as they would/will for later production aircraft so they can (& the hopfully is will) commit to buying them right away instead of waiting a few years for the price to inevitably come down to do so.
The intent is to give export customers a “fixed” price so they know ahead of time what they will pay at a price that is believed to be the price the aircraft will actually be shortly after reaching full rate production.
pfcemDont forget that LM posts f-35 prices in 2002 dollars.
The FY08 budget otoh;
NO, PRICES ARE IN THEN YEAR DOLLARS!!!
AND extrapolated out beyond 2030 (2036 IIRC)!
pfcemSo, it has started. The phantasmagoric LM $58mil price figures have not lasted more than a week.. đ I said previously I would never place my bet under $100mil UPC. Now I feel like rising the estimate a bit higher.
What are you babbling about now?
The $58.7 million price was made public in June & who knows how long it was the case before that but not public information.
Where is the announcement by the DOD that it has changed?
pfcemTyphoon ticks the box of 4 out of those (larger AtA load opposed to internal), eventually adding AESA then it ticks all five as the F-22.
The typhoon ticks the box for at least 4 of those.
Hmm, now which seems the most cost vs performance effective plane there đ Yes, the EF.
LOL.
Nice wet dream/delusion you are having.
pfcemNobody seems to be mentioning negative G?
Because it is not all that relavent. There simply is not enough of a difference to matter.
Would any combat aircraft dogfight carrying ext. fuel tanks- I thought the idea was you drop them before engaging?
Not if you can’t get home without them…
Does the F-35 have range,acceleration,endurance and load of a Typhoon, enabling it to perform long range CAP, which is a requirement of the RAF?
YES!
Could the F-35 carry 4 x Stormshadows internally, and 4 x AMRAAMs? And if if it could carry that load externally what advantages would it offer over the Typhoon?
The F-35 has no need to carry 4 x Stormshadows internally. And just because the F-35 CAN carry weapons internally, DOES NOT mean that it CAN NOT carry weapons externally when called for…
With ANY given weapons load the, F-35 will have greater stealth & geater range than the Typhoon.
pfcemI believe it suffers from insufficient combat radius. There is never basing where you need it and adding tankers to support a strike package is a poor way of doing business. It could also use a few more VLO enhancements to improve survivability.
Good God man. It is a medium weight fighter, not a heavy bomber.
Its combat radius exceeds any ‘competative’ 4th generation light/medium weight fighter – in fact they HAVE to carry THREE external tanks in order to even come close.
I do however agree wholeheartedly that a modern equivalent to the F-111 is needed, but again, that is not what the F-35 is or was ever intended to be…
pfcemI think you miss the point, you are suggesting that the US has built a Raptor clone ability wise in the JSF, if the F-35 is all you say it is then the F-22 is obsolete!!.
He is suggesting no such thing & neither is anybody else. But the F-35 is more F-22 than A-7 as others ARE trying to imply…
Note that the ‘DOD leadership’ has had it in for the F-22 from the begining…USAF leadership OTOH has been BEGGING for as many as they can get.
If your not saying that then your going to try to tread a very thin line of the what the F-22 can do and the F-35 cannot do.. something the USAF has had great trouble with:D
So what is the difference??.. what makes the F-35 worse than the F-22 and by how much?.
I think you will find the truth of the matter there, horses for course etc..
There is enough of a gap between the F-22 & everything else for the F-35 to ‘fit’ in. đ
Sign In
