FBWThe F-15I carries a standard APG-70 radar. While still being a decent piece of kit, it is already surpassed by the advanced Flanker series (Bars, Irbis).. They will get back on top with the APG-82(V)1 AESA once upgraded..
Israel is beginning to transition to the APG-82(v)1, I would assume any new build F-15I would be equipped with such as well.
Is there a high degree of Israeli content? I know of Elbit DASH HMD and Python missiles having been integrated but not much beyond that..
It has Israeli EW system(Elisra SPS-3000), missile warning system (Elisra SPS-2110), GPS, Comms, datalink (RADA)- Israel does not release much on how they modify US sourced equipment
FBWInteresting that they are thinking about more F-15I — probably the F-35 range with full external loadout is not that great? And of course the F-15 can carry more than the F-35 (10,400 kg vs 8100kg). Interestingly the tiny Rafale can carry up to 9.500 kg, just between what the F-15 and F-35 can carry.
For Israel, there are several factors surrounding the F-15I.
There is opposition to the F-35 purchase by some ministers notably Yuval Steinitz.
Israel was allowed to buy up to 30 F-15I (they ended up purchasing 25, then pursuing more F-16 block 50/52 as F-16I), they were rejected from purchasing more F-15I twice before. They want a big twin engine fighter for deep interdiction, strategic strike, and air superiority. Their F-15 fleet is quite old (they still fly some of the earliest F-15A produced). Coupling the F-15I with the F-35 improves the lethality of both. The F-15I carries a very powerful radar coupled with the ability to carry a considerable load of weapons as Hopsalot said. The RAF has made comments to this effect regarding the pairing of the F-35 with Typhoon (based on their experience working with F-22 at RF)
Lastly, and in my opinion the most important factor for Israeli interest in more F-15I is the high degree of Israeli content in the F-15I. The F-35I will include some Israeli hardware, but the F-15I is customizable and that makes it very attractive for the Israeli aerospace industry and some politicians.
FBWI have seen no information on the F35 regarding it’s IR signature in comarison to any other plane, so tough for me to make bold statements. While there is no doubt that manufacturers are considering IR reduction (where the exhaust is) you cannot do much about the fact that it’s a draggy plane moving through the air at a high speed which generates heat, it has a big engine etc.
Ginner, don’t take this the wrong way but do some legwork. This is open source information. Start with a LOAN nozzle, then look up aerodynamic heating at various speeds.
The best way to look at the IR sig of the F-35 is that the US has stated many times that the focus of LO aircraft design is “balanced observables”- there have been various statements regarding this. In short, there is no point in designing a fighter to have reduced radar detection range and not to treat the IR spectrum. The US philosophy is that LO aircraft should be detectable in IR and EM at roughly the same distance. To that effect, the F-35 includes LOAN nozzle to cool and flatten the exhaust, hide the plume between the twin tails, extensive use of fuel as a heat sink, leading edge cooling, and so forth. Obviously, any aircraft in reheat, or moving at supersonic speeds is going to have a higher IR sig.
FBWThat 15 is from the order of 36.
Since Gripen E is meant to replace not only the now withdrawn Mirages but the 100 or so F-5E & AMX operated by the FAB, I would expect the final number bought will be nearer 100 than 36, & any additional ones after the initial 36 will be built in Brazil. IIRC Brazil was also offered production of any orders from other countries in South America.
That is what I said, the last 15 of the contracted 36 final assembly in Brazil. I believe that takes the contract out to 2024. We can expect follow on orders, assuming the turmoil in Brazilian economy/politics is resolved. But it is not a definite. I was unable to find any confirmation that any South American orders would be primarily built in the Brazilian factory. All the releases state is that Brazil will have “marketing and sales lead for Gripen in South America”. It would make sense to have final assembly there, assuming some South American sales materialize.
I think it is important to note that even in the unlikely event that Brazil does not place a follow on order, Brazilian companies like embraer still gained industrial partnership with Saab that ensures workshare on all Gripen E/F (especially the F). And Embraer gains a customer for the KC 390.
FBWSaab has been pretty consistent with both Brazil and India that they offer full control over software. (That’s not even too hard to find in a search).
This comes back to some of the misconceptions rife on the Blogs you’ve used to get some of your information.
Read “Full system control, full software control” – that is excellent ToT, no one would argue that. Does not mean that Saab or any manufacturer will “hand over” source code unless it is paid for as part of the contract, as per the Saab deal with Brazil.
All, including the F-35 allow varying degrees control of object code, none are going to include source code to radar tracking/processing algorithms or, (in the case of Dassault Spectra’s source code) IDAS software source code. Short of buying into some degree of industrial partnership as Brazil did with Saab (and even then, Brazil gets only the intellectual property that Saab is able to transfer).
In the case of the F-35, there is no way that the U.S. government would have over source code as the F-35 with its ICP does not have federated software for radar tracking, NCTR, IDAS, FCS, etc. that would allow a user access to some subsystem source codes.
In short, if Canada wanted to increase massively the contract cost, they could have much of the source codes for any of the competitors, with the exception of the F-35. The question is, for what? Is Canada going to develop a IDAS system to rival Spectra, or EWS 39. Are there radar modes lacking in any of the competitors? I find the source code debate that occurs around the Gripen, F-35, etc to be ridiculous. Unless you are looking to kickstart your own nascent domestic fighter development industry (as in India/ Brazil to a lesser extent), or install significant amount of indigenous software/hardware, it isn’t needed. Even with the limited access partner nations are given to the F-35’s software code, Israel is able to customize Comms, EW sytems.
Despite what critics say, though the fighters you listed: Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon that would offer access to source codes, it would raise the costs associated for little gain in Canada’s case.
FBWOk screw it….I just cant let you get away with this….
A Gripen with tanks will outrange a F35 without them. With two tanks the Gripen will be able to i tercept Russian Bombers just fine. An F35 with tanks (they dont exist yet right???) Will lose all that fancy stealth advantage so you won’t be able to stalk that Tupolev all sneaky like you suggested. So your points here as a collective make no sense. The Gripen’s range with two tanks is adequate to intercept bombers and we do have a refuelling fleet if needed. The swiss have not flown the Gripen E. Nobody has (a risk we get to evaluate in three months).
How many EFT are you talking about and which size? The Gripen will only outrange the F-35 when fitted with the 450 gallon tanks. Those tanks are not supersonic, so you are not talking about outranging the F-35 on an interception mission, period. Second, do a little actual footwork- not looking at manufacturers claims.
What is the estimate empty weight of the Gripen E now? Then realize that it’s operational weight will be roughly 500kg heavier (pilot, countermeasures, etc), then calculate the weight of fuel for the 3 EFT and full internal, then look at the Gripen E’s MTOW.
What you will find? The Gripen isn’t going to be doing much of anything but ferrying in that configuration. It is not a realistic operational loadout. That is the problem with many of yours (and other’s) arguments for advancing the Gripen as the “perfect” aircraft for Canada. People start quoting the amazing brochure range, when you start looking at loading up a light fighter with fuel tanks, weapons: performance degrades and mission flexibility decreases.
I’m not saying that the F-35, or the Typhoon, or any fighter is ideal for Canada. Every aircraft has drawbacks and strong suits. The Gripen is attractive for two reasons: affordability, and clear (and demonstrated) upgrade path.
Saab offers technology transfer and access to modify source code….F35….nope
The great source code canard- Canada can modify and upgrade their F-35’s with the same flexibility as any other user. Why does Canada need all the source codes? Are Canadian firms planning to develop new weapons and sensors to add? No.
BTW, love a source that says that Saab is going to hand over all source code to MS21, and allow Canada to develop their own upgrade path for the Gripen.
FBWI find it obnoxious how LM marketing is constanly spat out as fact here. Every country has unique needs and constraints. The F35 may have narrow band frontal stealth and the greatest dependence on complex software of any fighter aircraft, but it does not make it the best plane, and specifically not the best plane for Canada. We are the only country in the world with our unique set of attributes and constraints and thus have a unique set of requirements.
I figured it would only be a matter of time before the true arguement “broke cover”. And exactly where do you source that “narrow band frontal stealth”?
Which one did you collect from “Gripen4canada” blog or “best fighter for Canada” blog. They are both about the same, and both garbage.
FBWI was referring to Gripens purchased from the Brazilian assembly line and – if Embraer have the knowhow – to support provided by Embraer. Of course exchange rate movements over 5-10 years cannot be predicted but if country X is interested in a couple of squadrons of Gripen E 10 years from now, it may be that those sourced from Brazil will be substantially cheaper than the same (or almost the same) aircraft sourced from Sweden.
From my reading of the press releases from Saab and news outlets, there will be final assembly of the last 15 Brazilian Gripen in Brazil. Final assembly of all other Gripen E/F will be in Sweden though with some components sourced from Brazilian industry (at what stage is unclear- post initial Swedish AF contract?). The two seater F will have higher percentage Brazilian sourced content and engineering input, that point has been made clear. It is unclear if follow on orders from other clients would be assembled in a Brazilian facility.
FBWWith quite a lot of Gripen E structure to be produced in Brazil and with an assembly line in Brazil, I wonder if the cost of Brazilian-sourced Gripen E will turn out to be lower than was expected when SAAB was chosen as supplier for Brazil’s new fighter. Certainly lower production and assembly cost measured in $US would make Gripen E more likely to be selected for smaller air forces with tight budgets. If there were sufficient TOT for Embraer to offer the support SAAB offers for countries introducing and operating Gripen, that would further enhance its competitiveness in the world light fighter market in the 2020’s.
It may certainly help with the construction of the assembly facilities for the 15 Brazilian Gripen to be built there. I think it’s a bit premature to say it will lower the cost for all Gripen. We are looking several years into the future before Brazilian sourced parts will find their way onto Gripen assembled in Sweden (and into the 2020’s before Gripen are constructed in Brazil). It would be hopeful for the Brazilian people and government that they are well on their way to a financial recovery before then.
FBW[Q
UOTE=haavarla;2299954]That makes no sense what so ever.
Back here in Norway, last yearat airshow, i was looking at one of our F-16 doing a 9G Turn. We could hear the pilot over the intercom, talking us through his Flight Display.
If our old, and tired F-16 can do a 9G turn over a crowd of people, then why the hell cannot the F-22 do it?
I’m not buying that G-limit safty regulation one bit. Its BS.
If its anything, the FCS of F-22 is limiting the jet for a 7.5G display due to its weight.
Well, there havarla, I would have thought so too. But here are the regulations:
http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf
Are you going to argue with this?
For the F-16 pg.98
Demonstration pilots will not exceed 0.94 Mach. The maximum target G for this demonstration profile is 7.5 Gs. This does not preclude a momentary increase in G for safety considerations.
For the F-22 Pg.136
Demonstration pilots will not exceed 0.94 Mach. The maximum target G for this demonstration is 7.5 Gs. This does not preclude a momentary increase in G for safety considerations.
Are you arguing with me? Or the USAF demonstration manual? BTW, it is clear that the 7.5 G recommendation is not limited by FCS…. READ the demonstration manual. You are making silly assumptions
And another thing, are you saying the F-22 pilots have to follow his G force on his HUD display and keep the jet under 7.5G with “hands on stick”.. while doing all kinds of crazy display at airshows.. lol another ********.
This is stupid, the pilots know the recommended airspeed to commence the maneuvers, read the parameters for each. They are allowed to exceed the G recommendation, but consider why they recommend airspeed for the minimum radius turn? Could it be to stay within the G recommendations….hmmmmm.
A G-limiter would be like 10000% efficient in doing this, instead of the pilot.
Man you are posting your self into a corner here.. its just not logical.
Really? do you know why they spell out knots and bank angles for the maneuvers? No offense, don’t flaunt that don’t know that pilots have an understanding of the correlation of airspeed and bank angles on g onset for their aircraft.
When a pilot are doing flight display, the three most important thing to eyeball is Altitude, KCAS and his visuals outside.
When you have those under control, you know your jet can do the planned flight display.
Yes that is why the manual spells out the maneuver descriptions, so the pilot can concentrate on safety. ‘
Yes, there are flight displays that demonstrate full 9g turns and whatnot. But it is clear that the USAF Demonstration manual as of 2014 does not include 9G maneuvers as part of the standard display.
FBWI have never heard about F-22 or other jets doing flight display, were they have messed with the FCS(G-limiter) in order to reduce G-limits.
Source pls?We are not talking about external ordinance here..
You seem to claim F-22 with full fuel and internal ordinance can do 9G in such configuration.
Thats what, six AIM-120, two AIM-9x.
Do you have a source?And it is as peregrinefalcon says, if you are doing slow speed high AoA, you most likely never reach 9 G anyway..
With G forces involved, you need higher KCAS.pretty straight forward.
What are you talking about “messing with fcs”?
I never said that. The document on airshow regulation (posted by peregrine) states that the max target g limit for the airshow a is 7.5g with momentary excess g for safety. That has nothing to do with FCS limits. Those are parameters set by the USAF for displays.
The F-22 is stated as having a “9g envelope at combat weight”. Other than that your most likely not going to find a source ( as in flight manual, or official confirmation) showing weights, speeds for those limits. I never said 9G limit at full fuel and weapons, though I believe ( no proof) that it is cleared for 9g with full fuel ( after all the F-35 is 9g capable without air to ground ordinance).
Again both you and peregrine need to read on what I said about pitch rates/high AoA manuvers. They are demonstrated at low speeds for a reason. Look up cases of over-G and you will see, the most common serious over-g stress on airframes are not from high G turns. They are from exceeding G in high speed pitch up maneuvers ( if you look at the F-22 maneuver speeds for the airshow demonstrations, they are below 350 KCAS).
Edit- are u sure you are not confusing peregrine’s posts with my rebuttals on FCS limits?
FBW@Peregrine-
Not even going to respond to most of the convoluted mess you posted above but two points;
Look what I wrote about SEP (and what you claimed about F-15 excess power for climbing), one of us was accurate, and it was not you. All you went back and did in the above post is give me your wikipedia definition of SEP. Maybe you should have looked that up before posting the silly comment about the F-22 vs. F-15 climb performance based on: airshow maneuver regulations, a YouTube video, and the SL thrust to weight ratios of the steak eagle and and F-22, that was a sad joke.
As far at the whole J-turn and High AoA maneuvers….. Why do you think those maneuvers are performed at low speeds? Hint- high speed rapid pitch up would lead to what?
Oh, and for your reading impairment, I never stated that the F-22 was G limited to 7.5G at full fuel (read my above post- the F-22 is cleared for 9G envelope at “Combat weight”). That is what the target G for air show maneuvers is, why? most likely to preserve airframe life, don’t believe it? I don’t care. It is written in black and white. The only poster displaying ignorance is the one trying to prove/disprove claims based on an air show climb profile.
As I feel like anyone with such a poor grasp of what they are trying to argue to the point that they can’t contain themselves from becoming irate when someone challenges their outlandish postings is pointless, feel free to ignore me as I will do the same. Your arguments are vapid and based on suppositions that don’t hold water..
Your little friend
FBWRaytheon has some GaN goodies on the way:
http://www.miltechmag.com/2016/03/raytheon-ready-to-unveil-its-aesagan.html
FBWA mixed fleet can give you some advantages in operational capability (range and payload vs speed and A2A), and can give you a variable cost advantage that may overcome the duplication of fixed cost components (simulators for example).
The report is flawed. It does not refute the option of managing a mixed fleet. Even a minimal difference of $4,000 per hour x 7,500 hours x 36 planes = just over a $1B dollars. That is material.
If mixed fleets were cost prohibitive, we would not have welcomed bidders on FWSAR to consider submitting mixed fleet proposals. If it gives you optimized capability, you look at it.
Even assuming CPH of two different fighters were 8,000 or 10,000 apart, it still does not make sense to operate two separate multirole fighters for such a small fleet. Why take on the major expense of another platform just for a minimal gain in one or two mission sets?
How much do you think maintaining two separate training programs, two separate groups of specialized maintainers and ground crew, simulators (a high fidelity basic simulator can cost 12 million, more for a specific fighter simulator ). For each fleet you would need separate stockpiles of initial spares, hours of familiarization/conversion flying time for each type (it costs 2.6 million to train a fighter pilot, now think about having to split your pool of experienced pilots to train on separate aircraft). Then you have weapon certifications if your inventory is not cleared on each of those platforms, or worse having to buy billions of dollars in new weapons (looking at you, Dassault).
FBWDude! Am I reading you right!?
Are you claiming that the F-22 have no G limit when it sports a full fuel and some ordinance weight??
Other heavy jets like Flanker has G limitations in such weight load.And some input;
the FCS of legacy Flanker made sure that the jet did not over G, in real combat and at Airshows.
It is only possible if the pilots disable some feature of the FCS, which should only be done at Airshows and early test phase.
And should only be done by experienced test pilots.Do you think the legacy Flanker has a more advanced FCS (FBW) vs the F-22??
The whole freakin point of FBW is for the pilots to have a carefree handeling when they manuvere.
The FCS keeps the jet under any G-limits at all weights, speed, altitude and AoA.
Dude, you are totally not reading me right. I was arguing the opposite. Although I do believe the F-22 is cleared for 9G maneuvers with full fuel. Looking it up right now.
BTW, I think it makes perfect sense to set normal G threshold at 7.5 G for the F-22 at airshows (with momentary higher G). Do most viewers a) care b) be able to notice a 7.5 G minimum radius turn from a 9 G turn?
Did you even bother to read what I was saying about stores CAT limits? I was saying the exact opposite of that. Most every modern fighter’s FCS will limit G load, roll/pitch rate, based on weights and stores.
Sign In
