Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ?

[Tourist]

LO

I'm going to choose, for now, to believe the assertions of the Marine with the stellar CV rather than the naysayers with less stellar cvs.....

[LowObservable]

Goodonya mate. It's your choice.

PS, who was right back in 09 or whatever, when LM and the JPO and the rest said that the project was abso-diddley-utely on schedule and cost?

[a1bill]

Everyone should go easy for a week or so, there may be hurt feelings. Now that the plane that we all were told that was going to be cancelled on a weekly basis, is IOC.


If a F-35 pilot finds himself in a one on one dogfight. He has made so many mistakes to get there, he deserves to die.
But a 1 VS 1, guns only, turning dogfight would be better with the F-35C.

[t43562]

Doesn't this make all the "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff a bit irrelevant?

That depends. If all you are arguing about is maneuverability and ignoring everythine else, then I believe all that "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff is highly relevant.

Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument though. I don't have any experience to claim but I do read a lot that it's energy that matters (hence the disinterest in adding thrust vectoring to Typhoon). Presumably about how much is lost in the kinds of manoeuvres that you do need to do.

Why bother to test or improve something that doesn't matter?

It most certainly matters, that's why its being tested so it can be improved. But the point is (and apparently missed) that maneuverability must be viewed from an entirely different perspective. One cannot look at any one component and declare "abysmal failure!" as has been done repeatedly. The paradigm has shifted and requires new thinking. According to Berke, old thinking means you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

"Failure" would be quite a bad thing even if you take away "Abysmal", surely?

I think it might be worth noting that iPhones were far faster and more powerful in general than other phones of the era BTW. Much higher performance, not less.

[Tourist]

LO

I never saw a video of the that Marine saying all was right in the program at that time.

I distrust LM as much as the rest of you. It is knowledgable operators I trust.

t43562

iPhone certainly has some metrics you could use to make it seem bad in comparison to older generation phones. At the time, "faster" was not even a metric associated with phones. Phones made calls. What had speed got to do with it? It is only in hindsight that we realised what faster even was.

Battery Life?

If he is right about the revolution in Gen 5, then iPhone may indeed be a very clever analogy.

[t43562]

Battery Life?

If he is right about the revolution in Gen 5, then iPhone may indeed be a very clever analogy.

I can't really see why other aircraft can't acquire information too, however. e.g. the Gripen.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by a1bill

If a F-35 pilot finds himself in a one on one dogfight. He has made so many mistakes to get there, he deserves to die.

REALLY??
The pilot **deserves** to die because he got caught in a WVR fight?
What is a pilot? A convicted criminal?
What if he is forced to fight defensively (escort eg.), or the time to respond is very short, or the A.O. is very small, or...?
What if he tries to disengage (even from BVR), but the problematic S.E.P. doesn't make it easy for him?
Your rhetoric is completely inappropriate and offensive.

Now, before this degenerates into another 'but, but, but, F35 ... 188:1 ... kill ratio" debate, I'd like to point out that I don't know how will the F35 fare in air combat and it may yet achieve an unprecedented effectiveness.
However, at this point it's rather clear that its S.E.P. being what it is, won't help winning many power demanding fights and I just can't understand why 'Die-hard V6.0' fans (and for some reason LM, as well) are still insisting on its superlative flight performance?

[a1bill]

it was paraphrased, but would the quote help?
What's the operational impact of reducing the F-35's performance specs? - The DEW Line
“The advantage of the F-35 is a result of being a 5thgeneration platform and an evolution in technology. Stealth characteristics and sensor fusion will enable it toget in to a target relatively undetected, have the ability to strike a groundasset or engage an enemy and exit the scenario without the threat even knowingit was there,” Toth says. “We will continue to work, as the system comes online,to develop tactics that take advantage of the 5th generation capability muchlike specific tactics were developed for the F-22, different from fourthgeneration platforms.”
Those tactics will inevitably emphasize beyond visual range combat. “Between [the AIM-9X], DAS[distributed aperture system] and the helmet, you deserve to die if you take this thing to the merge,”

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by a1bill

it was paraphrased

Thought as much, but you'd do good to stay clear of such quotes.
They speaks volumes of people telling them, but not in a positive way.

[KenV]

Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument though. I don't have any experience to claim but I do read a lot that it's energy that matters

Indeed, in a 4th Gen fight, rule #1 is "speed is life and more is better".

But in a 5th Gen fight, rule #1 changes. It becomes "info is life and more is better". That's the whole point of 5th Gen. It purposely changes the rules. Hopefully in your favor.

"Failure" would be quite a bad thing even if you take away "Abysmal", surely?

Agreed. But the point is that in a 5th Gen fight, "failure" (whether abysmal or just slight) is NOT determined by maneuverability. The rules have changed and a completely different set of factors rule the fight.

[KenV]

I can't really see why other aircraft can't acquire information too, however. e.g. the Gripen.

And indeed Gripen NG is moving in that direction. And (predictably) the cost (acquisition and support) of Gripen NG is MUCH higher than the cost of early Gripen. And keep in mind that the F-35 program paid for the development of those info systems. But yes, scabbing on F-35 systems technology into an old airplane improves the old airplane. Probably a lot. But can the old airplane really fully integrate/fuse all those systems? Maybe. Maybe not. But at what cost? And when will it deliver? Would it be cheaper to get an F-35 and/or would an F-35 deliver sooner?

And no matter how much you improve and integrate the systems on the old airplane, you still don't have stealth (and not just RF stealth). If you want the whole 5th Gen enchilada, you have to buy a true 5th Gen airplane, not a 4th Gen airplane with some 5th Gen systems.

Having said all that, I'm a USN guy and I'm an advocate of USN putting many 5th Gen systems in the Super Hornet, especially MALD (the high bandwidth datalink) and an upgraded HMD to display all the new data now available to the Hornet. And keep in mind what Berke said: the presence of 5th Gen aircraft makes 4th Gen aircraft more lethal and more effective. That's why USN will for the next few decades have more Super Hornets than F-35s. I'm reasonably confident that those older Hornets will have many F-35/5th Gen systems back fitted into them.

[LowObservable]

And (predictably) the cost (acquisition and support) of Gripen NG is MUCH higher than the cost of early Gripen.

Not according to Saab or the Swedish air force, who have consistently stated that the E is less costly than the C/D, but if you have evidence for the above, please produce it. (Comparing full-package export deals to earlier domestic sales does not count.)

And keep in mind that the F-35 program paid for the development of those info systems.

Yes, Lockheed Martin handed out fat contracts to Saab for integration, core avionics and EW, and to Selex for the radar, IRST and IFF - evidence for which you will now supply, I'm sure. Saab has bought comms hardware from Rockwell Collins, but RC does not play that role in F-35.

But at what cost? And when will it deliver?

One-third, and much more quickly.

[PhilipG]

What is 5th Generation

This debate could be seen as what is the definition of 5th Generation.

Putting the, when eventually working, sensor and integration suites from an F35 into an F15 or F18 would, subject to radar installation etc, give a plane with very good Situational Awareness, in a proven airframe with a proven set of weapon systems.

If it is the SA that gives the new 5th Generation plane the advantage that it has, a solution such as this would in my view by a far more economic and fit for purpose solution for a country looking for an air policing solution. I personally fail to see the attraction of a fairly slow, invisible to attackers radar, with a small internal weapons carriage capacity air defence interceptor. Surely an F15 fitted out with an F35 style sensor suite, integration engine and communications suite would be not far off an F22, or have I missed a total trick?

[BillHicksRules]

5th Gen Mindset v 4th Gen Aircraft.

Surely it is cheaper to remove the 5th Gen functionality and then fight with more capable 4th Gen aircraft.

By that I mean if the "game-changer" of the F-35 is its "interconnectability" then opponents will be better off spending money denying that ability and then defeating it with better handling aircraft.

[KenV]

Not according to Saab or the Swedish air force, who have consistently stated that the E is less costly than the C/D, but if you have evidence for the above, please produce it.

JAS39E: improved version following on from the Gripen Demo technology demonstrator. Changes from the JAS 39C/D include the more powerful F414G engine, Raven ES-05 AESA radar, increased fuel capacity and payload, two additional hardpoints, and other improvements. These improvements have reportedly increased the Gripen E costs to an estimated 24,000 Swiss Francs (US$27,000) per hour,and increased the flyaway cost to 100 million Swiss Francs (US$ 113M).

Source: Kleja, Monica (11 December 2012), "Svensk Gripen E påstås dyrare än schweizisk" [Swedish Gripen E allegedly more expensive than the Swiss one], NyTeknik (in Swedish) (SE).

NOTE: that was a 2012 estimate. Nearly three years have passed and nothing in the military airplane world gets cheaper with time.

If anyone truly believes a manufacturer can put a more powerful engine, a much more advanced radar, more fuel capacity, more strength, more weapons, etc, etc into a fighter not only for free, but for "less" cost, then it would appear that someone has truly drunk the kool aid.

Yes, Lockheed Martin handed out fat contracts to Saab for integration, core avionics and EW, and to Selex for the radar, IRST and IFF

Sorry for the confusion. I was unclear. My fault.

I was referencing the F-35's systems. The Gripen E moves in the 5th Gen direction, but it is still far from a 5th Gen fighter and farther still from a non stealthy F-35. It remains a 4th Gen fighter with more advanced 4th Gen systems, just as Typhoon Tranche 2, Block 15+ is still very much a 4th Gen fighter. If someone was going to turn a Gripen into a non-stealthy F-35 as was suggested, they'd need to put the F-35's systems into that airplane. And development of those systems was paid for by F-35. And the price of those systems plus the cost of integrating those system in the Gripen would take lots of money and quite a bit of time. I am confident that there is no way this could be done at "one-third" the price and "much more quickly" than the F-35.

[KenV]

By that I mean if the "game-changer" of the F-35 is its "interconnectability" then opponents will be better off spending money denying that ability and then defeating it with better handling aircraft.

The F-35 is a "sensor/collaborator/shooter" platform. If an opponent removed the collaborator component by jamming the F-35's datalink, it's still got a powerful onboard fused sensor suite, is still capable of shooting, and is still stealthy. And any jammer capable of jamming the datalink would be very visible (and thus easy to target) and become a very high value target. Pity the poor guy sitting in the aircraft with the datalink jammer.

[LowObservable]

Ken - The quote you cite about increased costs is found nowhere in your link, which is a Swedish media source citing a Swiss TV station in a campaign that was rife with disinformation. Your quote is from Wikipedia and, moreover, does not specify that the increase was over earlier Gripen versions, which was your original claim.

Sigh. Oh my, &c.

[melmothtw]

Figures released by Saab show a 60% reduction in Gripen NG development costs when compared with the original estimate. Gripen E development is also currently being undertaken to a 60% cost level when compared with the 2009 estimate for the programme.

Saab aims to bring this down still further to 50% by the time most of the development is completed in 2016/17, and according to Saab, the Gripen E will have cost EUR1.5 billion to develop - 30% to 50% cheaper than the Gripen C/D was.

They call this 'breaking the cost curve', though having not independently audited their figures I can't vouch for their provenance.

[KenV]

Saab aims to bring this down still further to 50% by the time most of the development is completed in 2016/17, and according to Saab, the Gripen E will have cost EUR1.5 billion to develop - 30% to 50% cheaper than the Gripen C/D was.

That 1.5B in development still needs to be spread over the production aircraft. And the Gripen E airplanes will include a more powerful (and more expensive) engine, a much more sophisticated (and more expensive) radar, and include a number of (expensive) systems not included in the previous versions of Gripen. Is there anything indicating how SAAB is going to deliver all this at a price less than C/D?

[KenV]

Surely an F15 fitted out with an F35 style sensor suite, integration engine and communications suite would be not far off an F22,

Maybe. I don't know. But one thing is certain, Boeing is not yet offering such an upgrade package for either new build or existing F-15s, nor has USAF expressed interest in such an upgrade package. Nor is Boeing offering such an upgrade package for the Super Hornet.

I personally think USN should at least look into such an upgrade, and who knows, maybe they will. On the other hand, if USN developed such an upgrade, that could be used against them to cut off funding for USN's F-35C buy. And USN is keen on getting at least several squadrons' worth of F-35s because they really want to get a stealth jet on their carriers. Maybe once the USN F-35 buy is locked in they'll look at upgrading their Super Hornets. Who knows?