HaloPretty much what others have said,
J-20, J-31: No official data. Absolutely nothing is known about the RADAR, EW systems, EO/DAS, Any AN/ALR-94 like systems, and the list just goes on.
So right now, Rafale wins by default.
When will the J-20 enter service? Going by the F-22,
YF-22 1st flight – 1990
F-22 1st flight – 1997
F-22 IOC – 2005Thats 15 long hard years. I don’t think well will see a fully powered (WS-15), fully capable J-20 until around 2025.
The Chinese usually do things in a rush so I do expect early entry of J-20/31 with stealth shaping with low quality 4-4,5gen Avionics.
-Rafale, better flight performance, availability and avionics but inferior shape/stealth
HaloI would go with a smaller and aerodynamically more stable version of the F117. High focus of shape, very simple RAM and small internal bay. Very crude, very conservative design but enough to cause some fear!
HaloAgreed when (if) the F35 can be deployed and is available.
HaloWhy is it fair to say that, does the Gripen not require fuel and weapons? Don’t put too much faith in SAAB powerpoint marketing slides or you’ll be disapointed.
Not only does the Gripen consume less fuel, it doesn’t demand the same facilities nor the man hours for maintenance or turnaround. In my “fanboy Gripen World”:) the difference is expected to be huge, but even somebody biased against the Gripen must agree to some point…
Halo@Agrippa post 437, Most interesting indeed, the low bandwidth antenna of Gripen C/D is in the forward lower part of the fuselage so I guess these “broadband aesa antennas” has to be new for the Gripen E?
HaloIt would be fair to say that Gripen has a smaller logistic footprint compared to most fighters on most missions (or do we have ameeting of the flat Earth society)
HaloThe Marines talk about using amphibs for the F-35B. Ashore they could use a 3,000 foot runway if they wanted to operate with C-130s as well, or they could go shorter and rely on helicopters/Osprey and/or trucks to bring in supplies.
That assumes the Gripen NG goes into production at all, something that is less than assured given that its one export customer has yet to commit fully to the program.
The Gripen’s biggest problem by far is that it offers little that its 4th generation competitors don’t and has an extremely questionable long-term road map. A potential Gripen NG buyer would have to seriously consider that even if the Swiss commit to the program and the Gripen NG goes into production, it will have a total order book of less than 100 aircraft leaving its long-term viability in question. Any buyer of a new fighter type has to look beyond where the aircraft will be at the time of purchase to where it will be over the course of its operational service. Buying into a small program on a shoe-string budget may seem attractive in the short term, but could prove to be very short sighted.
Sure, and when the Swedes announced their willingness to proceed with the Gripen NG it was conditional on finding an export buyer… not much of a vote of confidence and another sign that the program may suffer for funding and continued support years from now.
All of that said I think the Gripen is a nifty product and actually wouldn’t mind seeing the US pick some up as advanced trainers/adversaries/air policing aircraft if a good business case could be made for them.
Hopesalot, you have been around long enough to know the answer to many things that you question.
1) The good old “paperplane” issue, Sweden don’t have any realistic options to Gripen E so it is not even relevant to discuss this issue.
2) The “100 airframes”, the Gripen E will share development path with C/D so C/D/E numbers will be higher
3) Regarding future upgrades, you also know very well that a lot of components are shared with other defense companies, Heavy reliance of COTS, 2 split software, proven history of cost effective upgrades.
4) The Gripen E project is more commercially driven than other projects that I would consider more like state run capitalism. Mao would have loved any of these slogans “WE will produce 4000jets of unique quality”, “We will reinvent the Wheel and produce 100% of all subsystems in our great country (at any cost)!”
HaloLRIP or not, the first 2-4 Norwegian F35s didn’t come cheap. I think the costs of this is worth a thread of its own (very expensive Aircraft based in US, expensive “2nd” batch, expensive life time extension of F16 due to delay, air base relocation and more…) .
HaloDepending on how open the Korean and Canadian decisions are, we may finally get an apples-to-apple comparison of the F-35 with other systems.
No partner “right now” is buying large amounts of F-35s for their fleets, so LRIP pricing is not relevant. A report due out this fall will finaly shed some real-world light on the long term costs of the F-35 based on real-world values instead of 4th gen assumptions.
Get your point but I dont agree. The average price of all aircraft incl LRIP is what matters in a apples to apples comparison. IMHO the extra cost for aircraft based in US for training should also included.
HaloBeamed data link coverage from Paris presentation
Regarding the SAAB presentation (http://storm.zoomvisionmamato.com/player/saab/objects/r79dkqb2/) on page 7, it seems like the beamed data links orgin from the rear of the aircraft and the angels are not restricted by the AESA coverage. How is this done? 1) There should be vacant space in the tail fin since the AESA will do the job of the tail fin mounted jammer. 2) The disconnected IFF ssystem? 3) Agrippa previosuly posted about “conformal antennas”, does he know of was it just a mistake/speculation? 4) Fancy pesentation but not correct?? Does anyone have any info on this??
HaloNice powerpoint in the present X-band world
I already said it was simplistic.
That does not take away from the fact that it was, and is still, based in the realities of war.
As far as “multistatic receivers” goes, get back to us when they are operational and proven to work against VLO assets.
Most agree that F35 will be a game changer in many aspects and that many SAM systems will face serious challanges but with MEADS / Nebo and future lower frequency radars that could guide intercepting fighters and even guide missiles close enough. This will erode most of that chart.
HaloI already said it was simplistic.
That does not take away from the fact that it was, and is still, based in the realities of war.
As far as “multistatic receivers” goes, get back to us when they are operational and proven to work against VLO assets.
Most agree that F35 will be a game changer in many aspects and that many SAM systems will face serious challanges but with MEADS / Nebo and future lower frequency radars that could guide intercepting fighters and even guide missiles close enough. This will erode most of that chart.
HaloLies, damn lies and statistics….
This.
Using the “general inflation” to adjust military development costs is basically useless. Another index must be used. As mentioned in a previous thread, Norway used an index that actually matched surprisingly well the increase in F-35 costs. I suspect that had the same index been applied to Rafale, one would see that the Rafale program is very well managed with little or no “real” price increase (compared to other defence articles of similar complexity).
Basically the most relevant is Consumer Price index (we are all tax payers…) however since military equipment is getting both better and more advanced there is an index to describe this (the Eurofighter is bound to be more expensive than the Spitfire!). IMHO its pure corruption to apply this index to one project with a fixed specifications. I do admit that this index will apply to the cost increase of NEW capacities but NOT to planned ones.
HaloFunny how all these different countries seem to agree upon a common enemy. Are they all nuts or is China becoming drunk with power? It is a question that demands an answer
Well superpowers and specially rising ones always twist the rules in their favour but in Chinas case a few things make this 100 times worse!
-chronic lack of Rule of law
-a tradition for following persons rather than rules or principles
-little respect of unknown persons (why let the ambulanse pass u in the highway when u dont know the victim?)
-a rough society where the strong and well connected grabs it all
-20 years of nationalistic indoctrination in schools
-A lasting feeling of humiliation after 19th century, and that this is “Payback time” now!
-An intersting idea that they must rule all who is using chinese writing!
=>Some war and lots of pressure between China and its neigbours is very likely!
Halosee below,
“Gripen does not have any classified features”.
Quite a statement from your side…
“
More likely comparable to Lavi/J-10. that belong to pre supercomputer era.
I never heared SAAB installing new supercomputers or buying Japanese industrial robots.
Most people praise the agility and low drag configuration, obviosly you are of a different point of view…
Sweden simply dont have any surplus money or technical power.
This is priceless, what planet do you live on? I strongle recomment last issue of The economist, google any country innovation or creativity rating, country competative index, budget balance…..
“even if it knows anything it cannot implement effective counter measures. as most of R&D in Sweden is for benefit of foreign multinationals“.
This is getting even better, I just love the last line, (never mind Ericsson, Atlas Copco, Volvo, SKF, Astra Zenica, ABB, Skype, SAAB, IKEA, H&M….) You are great keep going!
so there is no control over R&D to create unique un saleble product on vast scale.
You need alot of money and bargaining power to trade intellegence in 21st century. Sweden has none. maybe 20 to 30 years ago when it has niche capabilities in R&D. first thing is you start with supercomputers for design”.
Computing capacity is a tradable commodity in the FREE world..
Sign In
