The F-35 Thread

[marcos]

Just a tought. how long before humans are redundant for the survival of intelligence on earth??

For some nations it is already true.

[RIPTIDE]

Just a tought. how long before humans are redundant for the survival of intelligence on earth??

Intelligence on Earth? If humans were to vanish for eternity today, there is intelligence here. Not as visibly accomplished as our own, but Large mammals in the Sea and Primates, even some birds have a measurable intelligence.

[Phantom88]

Damn,"You must spread the rep before giving it to Marcos again":D

[Yellonet]

The Gripen's biggest advantage is that it is much more affordable, you can almost buy five Gripen for the same cost as three F-35, and that's just the initial cost, the Gripen is also much more affordable to operate and maintain. The total cost of ownership for the F-35 seems to be (very, very,) much higher.

 

The Gripen has nearly the same weapons capability, better, performance, range and ceiling and it has a 2-seat version which is great for training.

 

I'm not sure that many nations would really have a need for the few benefits that the F-35 gives them, the stealth is only usable with a greatly diminished weapons load, and the performance of the aircraft seems to leave a lot to be desired.

[Invader ZIM]

Well, some of these countries have requirements that don't fit in with what you think might be the better choice.

 

Here's the article in Norwegian on why the Gripen didn't work out:

 

http://www.tu.no/industri/2009/01/19/svensk-innrommelsebr--gripen-passer-ikke-norge

 

Google Translation of article above:

 

Gripen can not fill all the requirements set Norway for its next fighter, admits the Swedish Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors on his blog.

 

American, no doubt

Last November it became clear that Norway chooses to buy new fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.

 

Selects American fighter

 

When appointed Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen F-35, also known as the JSF, which is the obvious choice instead of Jas-39 Gripen Next Generation (NG) from the Swedish Saab.

 

- JSF meets all requirements of the four threat images, while the Gripen NG meets only the requirements of the international threat. JSF is considered to be better than the Gripen NG in all combat aircraft's main tasks - data collection and monitoring, as well as combat targets in the air, ground and surface, said Strøm-Erichsen.

 

A few weeks went Strøm-Erichsen to Stockholm to give reasons for his Swedish colleague Sten Tolgfors face to face.

 

Strøm-Erichsen will explain Gripen no wrecks in Sweden

 

After the Swedish government analyzed the failed bid game in the neighboring country. The conclusion was clear this weekend.

 

- Norway wanted a plane that could carry out ground attacks on their own over enemy-controlled territory, protected by long-range anti-aircraft and next-generation fighters. In such a perspective, including stealth characteristics are important. Gripen is not designed to act autonomously, but is designed as part of a larger system such as support of the airborne radar, writes Tolgfors.

 

Less weapons load

Swedish Radio Ekot confronts the defense minister that the Gripen was also rejected in aerial combat in the Norwegian analyzes.

 

- The scenarios are set up with very large distances, where the stealth characteristics and a small radar signature has had most to say, points out Tolgfors.

 

He also points out that the Gripen is worse when it comes to the ability to carry ground attack weapons in addition to self defense weapons.

 

- We do not prioritize attacks

- Since Sweden and other potential exporting countries do not prioritize attacking abilities, so says the Norwegian evaluation relatively small gripe that the system would not fill our needs, writes Tolgfors on the blog.

 

There are also shows that he still disagrees with Norway's calculation indicates that the Gripen is more expensive than the F-35. And not least, how Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Minister of Defence Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen presented the fighter selection.

 

I would think the Defense minister might have better classified info on what would be the best choice for his countries airforce. He may have seen something that most of us haven't in regards to the performance and value the F-35 provides for their country. :book:

Edited April 7, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[GGTharos]

The Gripen's biggest advantage is that it is much more affordable, you can almost buy five Gripen for the same cost as three F-35, and that's just the initial cost, the Gripen is also much more affordable to operate and maintain. The total cost of ownership for the F-35 seems to be (very, very,) much higher.

 

The Gripen is not really more affordable - it's quite an expensive aircraft. And it requires supporting aircraft and other equipment, where the F-35 significantly reduces that need.

 

The Gripen has nearly the same weapons capability, better, performance, range and ceiling and it has a 2-seat version which is great for training.

The Gripen doesn't have anywhere near the same weapons capability nor range. If you look at what CAN be carried alone, sure, but that is misleading - this isn't FC2/3 missions where you fly a tiny 80nm to your target and then back, so you can afford not to mount tanks AND you can fly low. Scenarios for real aircraft range require matching various parameters and the F-35 almost always out-competes others in range simply because it can continue to fly high while evading IADS and not going as far around, either - so there it saves fuel to penetrate deeper into enemy territory or have longer loiter time, etc.

 

Two seaters are great too, but somewhat of a thing of the past if you have other (cheaper! ;) ) trainers + FMT's for the specific airframe.

 

I'm not sure that many nations would really have a need for the few benefits that the F-35 gives them, the stealth is only usable with a greatly diminished weapons load, and the performance of the aircraft seems to leave a lot to be desired.

It's funny that you say that 'stealth is only usable with a greatly diminished weapons load', when that is really all the weapons that are needed to kick down the door. By comparison the Gripen won't carry any more weapons into battle anyway, but will have to put on fuel tanks just to attempt to match the range, and then it will have to fight a lot harder to get through a defense net.

 

As for the performance, the F-35 performs just fine, and out-performs a bunch of other aircraft in some parameters while those other planes are flying clean. It also under-performs them in others, while they are flying clean ... but not quite so much when they are combat-loaded. Like with any aircraft, it's a compromise. It was probably somewhat unfair to attempt to compare it to purebred fighters when it was conceived as a strike fighter - all it means is that the bar was set very high.

[Invader ZIM]

Don't know if this was posted before, but another recent Distributed Aperature System video while flying over a town, almost immediately multiple hostiles on the ground are identified and marked.

 

I can see why the aircraft has a rather unique recon capability not usually seen in a strike or fighter aircraft.

 

Link:

 

[Invader ZIM]

The F-35A Lightning II flies above the compass rose of Rogers Dry Lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base, May 13, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Paul Weatherman/Lockheed Martin/US Air Force

 

 

 

 

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 3, 2013 3:55pm EDT

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department said on Wednesday it has approved the sale of either the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 stealth fighter or Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle fighter to South Korea, which is expected to announce the winner of a 60-jet competition later this year.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, which oversees foreign military sales, notified U.S. lawmakers Friday about the possible sales to South Korea as tensions continued to mount with North Korea.

The agency said U.S. warplanes would help Seoul "deter aggression in the region," but industry executives and U.S. government officials said the notification was unrelated to the latest flare-up with Pyongyang or its surprise announcement on Tuesday that it would restart a long-shuttered nuclear reactor.

DSCA said it had notified Congress about the possible sales of the competing fighter jets, as well as radars, electronic warfare systems and other equipment.

The F-35, F-15 and Eurofighter Typhoon are locked in competition to supply South Korea with 60 fighter planes. Industry sources and U.S. government officials expect Seoul to announce its decision between June and November.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems.

South Korean defense officials say they hope to wrap up the 8.3 trillion Korean won ($7.43 billion) competition in the first half of 2013.

The Pentagon said the Lockheed F-35 fighter sale would be worth up to $10.8 billion, including engines built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

One industry source familiar with the sale said the total sum was "conservative" and the final selling price of the F-35 and associated equipment would likely be significantly lower.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said the notification was an administrative requirement that allowed South Korea to consider the two U.S. proposals.

"Evaluations of the three competitive offers (F-35, Boeing's "Silent Eagle" and Eurofighter) including price discussions, are on-going," he said.

Lockheed welcomed the congressional notification about the possible sales, and said the F-35 would give South Korea "all-aspect stealth with the most advanced avionics ever integrated into a fighter aircraft providing a quantum leap in capability over all 4th generation aircraft."

DSCA said the foreign military sale portion of Boeing's modified F-15 fighter would be worth up to $2.4 billion. That includes only the direct government-to-government sale of some equipment for the jets, but not the actual planes, which would be sold to South Korea as part of a direct commercial sale.

One industry source said the total cost of the Boeing proposal was believed to be lower than that of Lockheed's.

Boeing declined comment on details of its proposal to South Korea, but said it was confident that is F-15 Silent Eagle offering was "best suited" to address Seoul's requirements.

South Korea already operates a fleet of Boeing F-15 fighters, but the company's new Silent Eagle model includes some stealthy -- or radar-evading characteristics.

Boeing spokeswoman Karen Fincutter said the newest F-15 model included additional capabilities that offered Seoul "an unprecedented blend of balanced survivability and lethality to meet customer needs in all phases of air combat."

Japan has ordered Lockheed's F-35 fighter, and many analysts expect South Korea to follow suit in buying the newest fighter jet developed. Singapore is also expected to announce an order for more than a dozen F-35s in coming weeks, and Australia is one of the countries helping to fund its development.

Japan's highest-ranking uniformed officer told Reuters last week that the F-35 was the best choice for his country's future operational needs, citing advancement of North Korea's arms technology in a series of nuclear and missile tests, and other threats.

($1 = 1117.6000 Korean won)

(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul; Editing by Bernard Orr and Leslie Gevirtz)

 

So a possible 60 F-35 or Silent Eagle purchase from South Korea later this year?

 

From the following Reuters site: http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-korea-usa-fighters-idUSBRE93210220130403?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563

[GGTharos]

Nice finds :)

 

Personally I think the 15SE is dead in the water, but who knows.

[Invader ZIM]

I actually liked the idea of the F-15SE, but when you factor in how much it costs to maintain the F-15 fleet as is, and in the news article it doesn't state the actual full cost of the F-15SE's in comparison to the F-35, it may be a bargain to get the F-35's and they'd break even on the F-35's maintenance over the course of time, say 10 years. The kind of capability the F-35 would offer is unique, even compared to the Silent Eagle, and your getting a platform that's going to be around for at least 30 years so like they say, you get what you pay for.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[aaron886]

Betcha they pick the F-35. On that peninsula, even a small advantage against IADS counts. (And there just might be some political motivation, but lets not get into that.)

[Yellonet]

The Gripen is not really more affordable - it's quite an expensive aircraft.

Of course it's not cheap, but the marketing of the Gripen has always included that it's relatively affordable, and if the pricing in that document is somewhat accurate it's a huge difference between Gripen and the F-35 (although it's a bit strange that those two jets are compared).

And it requires supporting aircraft and other equipment, where the F-35 significantly reduces that need.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The Gripen is made to be as easily maintained and serviced as possible to be able to land, refuel and rearm and then take off from bases along regular roads.

 

The Gripen doesn't have anywhere near the same weapons capability nor range. If you look at what CAN be carried alone, sure, but that is misleading - this isn't FC2/3 missions where you fly a tiny 80nm to your target and then back, so you can afford not to mount tanks AND you can fly low. Scenarios for real aircraft range require matching various parameters and the F-35 almost always out-competes others in range simply because it can continue to fly high while evading IADS and not going as far around, either - so there it saves fuel to penetrate deeper into enemy territory or have longer loiter time, etc.

Well, obviously the Gripen and the F-35 are made for quite different types of warfare, the Gripen was designed during the cold war with the primary goal of having the ability to defend Sweden against the Russians, i.e. a small country getting attacked by a large country.

If those scenarios you speak of are what the F-35 was designed for it sounds more like an aircraft created for an offensive role, flying into enemy territory and fighting, perhaps more of how the US have fought since WW2.

I guess that the F-35 was primarily developed for the US market and as such it's not strange that the design reflects what the US would need in an aircraft based on how they have conducted their air warfare.

 

So with such different origins and goals for the aircraft it is understandable that the result are two quite different jets.

 

Two seaters are great too, but somewhat of a thing of the past if you have other (cheaper! ;) ) trainers + FMT's for the specific airframe.

Maybe, but it's certainly not a disadvantage.

 

It's funny that you say that 'stealth is only usable with a greatly diminished weapons load', when that is really all the weapons that are needed to kick down the door. By comparison the Gripen won't carry any more weapons into battle anyway, but will have to put on fuel tanks just to attempt to match the range, and then it will have to fight a lot harder to get through a defense net.

 

As for the performance, the F-35 performs just fine, and out-performs a bunch of other aircraft in some parameters while those other planes are flying clean. It also under-performs them in others, while they are flying clean ... but not quite so much when they are combat-loaded. Like with any aircraft, it's a compromise. It was probably somewhat unfair to attempt to compare it to purebred fighters when it was conceived as a strike fighter - all it means is that the bar was set very high.

Well, they're just created for different missions. I would find it a bit strange if a nation would be choosing between these two to fill the same role.

[GGTharos]

Of course it's not cheap, but the marketing of the Gripen has always included that it's relatively affordable, and if the pricing in that document is somewhat accurate it's a huge difference between Gripen and the F-35 (although it's a bit strange that those two jets are compared).

 

Yeah sure, I could say F-16's are relatively affordable too ... so what? :)

It's like saying that it's more affordable to take the bus than own a car. It's literally correct, and it works out if you don't have far to go and the bus runs often ... but if you don't have those shall we say, luxuries, well - they say time is money.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

The Gripen is made to be as easily maintained and serviced as possible to be able to land, refuel and rearm and then take off from bases along regular roads.

Yes, but the Gripen requires EW and AWACS support. For the F-35, those are 'nice to have', but you don't need them - the 35's are their own AWACS/EW network, and thanks to their stealth, ability to pinpoint threats and increased SA, you can do the same work with fewer aircraft, AND you will lose fewer aircraft to attrition.

 

Well, obviously the Gripen and the F-35 are made for quite different types of warfare, the Gripen was designed during the cold war with the primary goal of having the ability to defend Sweden against the Russians, i.e. a small country getting attacked by a large country.

The F-35 is designed for offense and defense. What's the best defense? Exactly :)

 

If those scenarios you speak of are what the F-35 was designed for it sounds more like an aircraft created for an offensive role, flying into enemy territory and fighting, perhaps more of how the US have fought since WW2.

I guess that the F-35 was primarily developed for the US market and as such it's not strange that the design reflects what the US would need in an aircraft based on how they have conducted their air warfare.

 

So with such different origins and goals for the aircraft it is understandable that the result are two quite different jets.

The point is that if you want to win a fight, you take your fight to the other guy ... as fast as you can, or else.

[Yellonet]

Yeah sure, I could say F-16's are relatively affordable too ... so what? :)

It's like saying that it's more affordable to take the bus than own a car. It's literally correct, and it works out if you don't have far to go and the bus runs often ... but if you don't have those shall we say, luxuries, well - they say time is money.

Well, cost of ownership is a big consideration when buying something, that's what :)

Stealth is not needed for every type of combat scenario, if you don't need it, why pay for it? For some nations it may make more sense to have a non stealth aircraft in larger numbers than fewer of a stealthy one.

 

Yes, but the Gripen requires EW and AWACS support. For the F-35, those are 'nice to have', but you don't need them - the 35's are their own AWACS/EW network, and thanks to their stealth, ability to pinpoint threats and increased SA, you can do the same work with fewer aircraft, AND you will lose fewer aircraft to attrition.

I don't think the Gripen requires any AWACS, the Gripen has been in service for quite some time now, and Sweden did not have any AWACS until a few years ago.

If it was really required it would have been available from the beginning.

Also, the Gripen has a very refined datalink system, one aircraft can get radar data from another, and from what I understand can guide its missiles from several other sources besides its own radar.

 

The F-35 is designed for offense and defense. What's the best defense? Exactly :)

 

The point is that if you want to win a fight, you take your fight to the other guy ... as fast as you can, or else.

Well, sometimes going on the offensive just isn't an option, when you're up against a much larger military force invading your country for instance, which is the kind of conflict that the Gripen was designed for.

To say it in a politically correct way; an aircraft designed for the USA will be designed for very different types of missions :D

Edited April 8, 2013 by Yellonet

[karambiatos]

[armchairgeneral]i really dont know why south korea would go for the gripen, there are much better choices including russian, aircraft, unless its purely political, the chances of them choosing the gripen are insanely low, esspecially when compared to the f-35, f-15SE even at the higher cost.

Theres also the availability of spare parts to consider, there will be much more countries using the F35 then the gripen [/armchairgeneral]

Edited April 8, 2013 by karambiatos

[Namenlos Ein]

[GGTharos]

Stealth is not needed for every type of combat scenario, if you don't need it, why pay for it?

 

Why do you brush your teeth?

 

I don't think the Gripen requires any AWACS, the Gripen has been in service for quite some time now, and Sweden did not have any AWACS until a few years ago.

 

The Gripen has a tiny little radar and not quite as much room as an F-35 for ISR equipment. It needs AWACS.

 

If it was really required it would have been available from the beginning.

 

F-15's didn't have datalink from the beginning, was it really required? Today, we say yes.

 

Also, the Gripen has a very refined datalink system, one aircraft can get radar data from another, and from what I understand can guide its missiles from several other sources besides its own radar.

 

Again, the Gripen's tiny radar can't compete with the bigger fighters. This is slightly less of a problem for defense, but only slightly.

 

Well, sometimes going on the offensive just isn't an option, when you're up against a much larger military force invading your country for instance, which is the kind of conflict that the Gripen was designed for.

To say it in a politically correct way; an aircraft designed for the USA will be designed for very different types of missions :D

 

It's more of a 'how do you want to fight this?' discussion, yes. Limiting yourself to fighting in a certain way is a problem, especially given the cost of the Gripen - it's really not all that cheap. In fact, IIRC there are some serious LOLs happening with Gripen purchases in Sweden.

[Invader ZIM]

I don't think the Gripen requires any AWACS, the Gripen has been in service for quite some time now, and Sweden did not have any AWACS until a few years ago.

 

If it was really required it would have been available from the beginning.

Also, the Gripen has a very refined datalink system, one aircraft can get radar data from another, and from what I understand can guide its missiles from several other sources besides its own radar.

 

 

Well, from the article I posted the Swedish Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors even claimed that the

Gripen is not designed to act autonomously, but is designed as part of a larger system such as support of the airborne radar, writes Tolgfors.

 

 

So straight from the Swedish Defence Minister, the Gripen really shouldn't be operating out there by itself, which means that you'll have to pay more for other aircraft in order to support in in a war footing. Perhaps years ago when WW3 was possible Sweden was hoping for another country to provide the AWACS support.

 

I mean you could go without AWACS, but your really limiting the capability of your air force doing that, and if you can't rely on having a good AWACS capability, then an aircraft that has some of the detection capabilities and other systems to help locate air surface and sea targets might be more useful, stealth in this case is also a BIG bonus and multiplier, right now you really can't beat the usefulness stealth provides.

[topol-m]

Limiting yourself to fighting in a certain way is a problem, especially given the cost of the Gripen - it's really not all that cheap. In fact, IIRC there are some serious LOLs happening with Gripen purchases in Sweden.

 

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes

 

Looks pretty good to me. I've seen similar figures in Aviation Week IIRC.

Edited April 8, 2013 by topol-m

[GGTharos]

What good is that if it can't compete? This TCO is only useful when considered in isolation, in peace.

 

Let's put it this way ... the LAS is very very cheap to operate. Would you send it into the fulda gap?

Edited April 8, 2013 by GGTharos

[topol-m]

What good is that if it can't compete? This TCO is only useful when considered in isolation, in peace.

 

Let's put it this way ... the LAS is very very cheap to operate. Would you send it into the fulda gap?

 

When you say it can't compete you mean C and D right? We're not talking about NG here or am I wrong? And if we're talking about C and D which aircraft are you comparing them to, hopefully not F-16 block 60 ;)

[GGTharos]

I believe SAAB claimed the NG to have lower TCO than then C/D ... and I've heard otherwise somewhere, but since I don't recall the people I spoke with and docs I've read regarding this, eh ...

[topol-m]

I believe SAAB claimed the NG to have lower TCO than then C/D ... and I've heard otherwise somewhere, but since I don't recall the people I spoke with and docs I've read regarding this, eh ...

 

If NG would have a lower TCO than C/D then we have winner here :D

[GGTharos]

No wonder it's been a winner all over the place ;)

[marcos]

I wonder which will arrive in service first, the F-35 or the F/A-XX?