FBWInteresting comment re: cost of Norway’s 52 F-35 and Sweden’s 60 Gripen E by head of aeronautics Ulf Nilsson
Comparing Sweden’s programme to acquire 60 Gripen Es with Norway’s to introduce 52 F-35As, he says: “We are one-third of the cost that the Norwegian state has set aside.”
Only for register flightglobal users: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-saab-targets-fresh-export-deals-for-gripen-412275/
No doubt that the Gripen E is cheaper, but the statement from the SAAB exec should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
The Norway program for the F-35 has been quoted at NOK 62.6 billion (between 8-10 billion US). The Swedish plan to aquire and operate 60 Gripen E was quoted as 2.5 billion when they were planning to remanufacture Gripen C into E’s, they have not amended that number to reflect new build aircraft so his comparison is B.S.
http://www.janes.com/article/39139/swedish-gripen-es-to-be-new-build-rather-than-re-manufactured
The newest estimates for the Swedish contract is:
Moreover, the government puts the total cost of acquiring 40 to 60 aircraft, including development and lifecycle costs, at $13.5 billion
So, once again you have an Exec making a quote that does not reflect reality, just like the infamous “63 million per plane” quote from Lockheed.
FBWDont take my word for it, google F-35 chief test pilot Beesley
“DAS is basically missile launch detectors, beesley said”
Not going to discuss this with you in Typhoon thread, stick to what you think, you’re wrong but it hasn’t stopped you before.
FBWi judge the IR MAWS sensors on Rafale/F-35 to be on pair, so with sensitivity for false rate set equal,
they would pick up objects equally
Except the EODAS is not just MAWs as you should know. Seeing as how you consistently ignore information, exactly how valid is your opinion that they are equal? You don’t even understand the differences on how they are integrated or function.
FBWnope
I’ve seen you say this before, and I know you’re generally knowledgeable regarding information on the Rafale. But even MBDA has on product information that DDM-NG is integrated into the Spectra system as a the IR warning system. The imaging is not accessible to the pilot, nor integrated with anything other than the Spectra suite.
The brochure says that “Thanks to the high-quality IR imagery produced by the DDM-NG
sensor, many other applications can be foreseen on aircraft (Air Policing,Situational Awareness, Targeting, Assistance to navigation, Air Patrol,Anti-collision, “IR Black-Box”,…).”
Nowhere on any of the information I’ve seen does it say that it has any other function than MLD currently.
FBWCue the star wars soundtrack, laser tested on fighter sized aircraft by 2022:
FBWI don’t know if there’s much to that other than photo ops. You’re talking about flying low and slow for pictures. The fighter is going to have a higher AoA at slow speeds, perfect for wingtip vortices.
F-35 also lacks the wingtip launch rails of the f-16, f-18. Look at the f-15 flying at low level.
FBW[ATTACH=CONFIG]237464[/ATTACH]
http://www.janes.com/article/51452/russia-developing-shtorm-supercarrier
There are some more details at the link. I am quite skeptical of this becoming a reality. It would be a simply immense undertaking…
Still, interesting to see it even being discussed.
It would be interesting. There is not a naval shipyard in Russia capable of building a 90,000 ton aircraft carrier. It will be a massive undertaking to build the facilities for construction of this beast. But the pace of the overhaul of the Russian military has been impressive so far, so where there is a will there is a way.
FBWShocking, the senate cuts money from the LRS-B to keep two programs the airforce does not need or want. In 2020, congress will be wondering why the new bomber project is behind schedule and over budget after years of cutting money at the front end of the program. SOS in Washington.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/sasc-markup-whacks-lrs-bomber-adds-12-super-hornets-6-f-35bs/
FBWT-X and LRS-B pretty much will decide the survival of NG. Scary stuff IMO, a Boeing-Lockheed stranglehold on military aircraft manufacturing cannot, will not be a good thing.
interesting article:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/June/Pages/NorthropGrummanAimsToRetainGriponAviation.aspx
FBWWith all the talk on this thread about lagging upgrades to the Typhoon, it seems that US companies view the Eurofighter’s Pirate IRST is cutting edge (at least compared to the upgrades of the AN/AAS-42 the US is still trying to field).
FBWHas the USAF ordered this radar for the B-1B? How long will they continue to operate the B-1B?
Edit: just looked further into the article:
They’ve not set an hard out of service date. They’ve said that it will serve “at least through the 2030’s”
Some of the upgrades are needed and well overdue. Some of the crews were still buying handheld GPS receivers well into the Afghanistan conflict.
Some of the recent work:
http://defensetech.org/2014/02/21/air-force-begins-massive-b-1b-overhaul/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-upgrades-usaf-b-1b-lancer-aircraft-fleet-4569025
FBWFBWThe most important question is: what happens after those 150 miles @ M1.2?
The pilot needs to stretch their legs, grab a coffee?
Think it is probable
1.full mil power is going to dent range, especially after climb, afterburner.
2. there may be a slow deceleration from higher Mach, I.e. the fighter cannot maintain speed for more than a 10-12 minute “cruise” at supersonic.
Pure conjecture, and not really all that important except for the screaming masses on either side of the whole F-35 scrum.
P.S. Can we move this to the proper thread?
FBWits the other way around, i look at both statements and draw my conclusion,
while you carefully ignore L.M statements that claim F-35 doesnt supercruise,
there are several, but lets pretend they dont existOr perhaps, as lockheed has stated, the aircraft can maintain mach 1.2 for 150 mile. As that is not super cruise, the aircraft does not super cruise. its not supercruise in a technical sense if it require A/B to keep it up,
but it can maintain supersonic speed with “not too much a/b”depends on fighter, as can be seen here, most has exit between mach 1 to mach 1.1, F-35 is still stuck tho
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?90432-Saab-JAS-39-Gripen-Info-2&p=1695216#post1695216
Ah, so according to your flawed analysis of wave drag based solely on wing sweep that the Gripen clears transonic wave drag (totally disregarding the shape of the mach cone, drag from canopy, skin, control surface wave drag). Good job, now explain the F-104, F-22 with their radically different approach. Not to mention how you don’t address the rest of my post:
Or perhaps, as lockheed has stated, the aircraft can maintain mach 1.2 for 150 mile. As that is not super cruise, the aircraft does not super cruise. Also worth noting is that modern fighters have multiple afterburner settings. Your confusing minimal use of afterburner with minimal afterburner settings. The quotes from both are vague in reality, largely irrelevant. As with your love the Gripen E/F, the Su-35, F-106, F-16, and others. An aircraft flying at mach 1.2 at the edge of the transsonic using full military power is not all that unique, nor is it a tactical game changer.
Edit- just to make the above point, an airliner traveling at mach .95 at 30,000 ft is moving at 60 knots slower than a “supercruising fighter” at mach 1.2 30,000 ft. All the while, that fighter is at max mil thrust and using much more fuel than it would not experiencing the higher wave drag and power settings required. This whole argument about super cruise is stupid unless the aircraft can maintain a speed well clear of the transonic and on reduced power settings (which leaves 3 aircraft with operationally useful super cruise).
Cherry pick your points much?
FBWL.M conform with the rest of the known world with the definition of supercruise, do you need L.M quote on it ? i can find it
..and then they have introduced another definition labeled “non-technical supercruise” which refers to supersonic speed
with the augment of afterburner, just not too much afterburner, or in L.M words:
“technically very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising, not too much”
Ah so you accept the quote that fits your opinion and reject the one that does not:
“The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners., “Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.
Or perhaps, as lockheed has stated, the aircraft can maintain mach 1.2 for 150 mile. As that is not super cruise, the aircraft does not super cruise. Also worth noting is that modern fighters have multiple afterburner settings. Your confusing minimal use of afterburner with minimal afterburner settings. The quotes from both are vague in reality, largely irrelevant. As with your love the Gripen E/F, the Su-35, F-106, F-16, and others. An aircraft flying at mach 1.2 at the edge of the transsonic using full military power is not all that unique, nor is it a tactical game changer.
Edit- just to make the above point, an airliner traveling at mach .95 at 30,000 ft is moving at 60 knots slower than a “supercruising fighter” at mach 1.2 30,000 ft. All the while, that fighter is at max mil thrust and using much more fuel than it would not experiencing the higher wave drag and power settings required. This whole argument about super cruise is stupid unless the aircraft can maintain a speed well clear of the transonic and on reduced power settings (which leaves 3 aircraft with operationally useful super cruise).
Sign In
