Grippen NG
 

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_S1Gu2hX9S6c/Sl...ripen-ng-2.jpg

EconPapers: Military Industrial Cooperation: Saab, BAe and JAS 39 Gripen Joint Venture

JF makes a good point. Fighter performance (9 g and supersonic) results in high cost.

The practical counter-argument (in many years of following debates about A-10s, Su-25s and more or less hypothetical things like A-16s, Mudfighters, SABAs and Rutan-Tutan Areses) is that you have to have fighters and they can do CAS, so why not use them?

The argument goes back and forth with technology and circumstances. Today's targeting pods make fast-jet CAS more practical, but a long campaign (as opposed to a rapid intervention) gets very expensive indeed, so you have an economic argument for a low-threat, low-cost aircraft.

And by low-threat I am thinking that the bad guys have nothing more serious than MANPADS and AAA. Once you get up to the Pantzyr level, it gets more serious, and besides, someone with that sort of kit may have other things that cause you problems.

for low threat, why not build something like this?

Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Presumably they could fly from the carriers without catapults.....
Anyone ever ski-jumped a single prop aircraft?

I'll lay better than even odds that we NEVER see a "Grippen" (sic) operationally loaded like it is in that concept pic!

Did we not have that very aircraft, had around 10 - 15 years life left in it and called Harrier?

Oh, you just had to, didn't you?

It was a (yuk) [Management BS mode] "low hanging fruit" [/mode]

It can carry a lot, because it was developed from the outset to take over all roles from the different Viggen variants. The Gripen NGs for Swiss will have significantly more thrust and fuel capacity and be able to carry even more.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/ai...aab-gripen.gif

It seems Saab has done good business during the last decade, enabling them to launch the NG with a glass cockpit, more fuel, AESA etc.

It could have the same role as the Jags, F5s, Mirage5, A4's, Su-17s etc.

So coming back to the opening post, if could be an alternative if JSF should fail. BAE / the Brits are already heavily involved. Its far more multirole then the Typhoons were ever promised to be,

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7...9da66276_z.jpg

Sure, maybe...how many Gripen E/F NGs are flying now? No, not the demo D with a few glass panels added...

And why not? In the context of this debate, it's a valid comment. Regardless of your anticipated and obvious response - (neither are Hunters, A7's, Skyhawks or Skyraiders).

Foxtrot - Well, the JAS 39E is supposed to enter service in 2018, and it comes from this funny place where there are elks and blondes and flat-pack furniture and the tomtens work overnight building airplanes and usually deliver them on schedule. Weird!

NO CANCEL HERE (Nothing up my sleeve)
 

Cancel? What cancel?

Navy Under Secretary not worried about F-35B grounding by Mike Hoffman on January 30, 2013

http://defensetech.org/2013/01/30/na...35b-grounding/

"...Work [Navy Under Secretary Bob Work] said he was not concerned with the grounding and pointed to the vendor, Pratt & Whitney, as the source of the problem. He made sure to point out that the F-35B is also off probation.

“The F-35B is off probation. It’s doing well. Probably heard about a recent grounding. It’s going to be an issue with the vendor, it was a vendor issue, a problem. The plane is doing well,” Work said Tuesday.

Both Navy and Pratt &Whitney officials expect the crimp in the lines to be fixed soon and the F-35B to continue its testing regimen.

“The team continues to work diligently toward completing the investigation and implementing corrective actions with the supplier,” Partt & Whitney spokesman Matthew Bates said in a statement. “We anticipate a return to flight” soon.

As for the F-35B’s place in the Navy. Work said the service remains committed to the massive fleet planned for the F-35B to go along with the doubling the number of aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy.

“Because of [the F-35B] we’re going from 11 aircraft carriers to 22,” Work said."

Typical pol, playing fast and loose with terminology.

The American Navy typically assigns the term "Amphibious Assault Ship" to what other countries call "helicopter carriers" whereas an 'Aircraft Carrier" has to be able to launch and recover jets that don't hover.


Tarawa class (LHA)
USS Tarawa (LHA-1) [I]
USS Saipan (LHA-2) [I]
USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) [I]
USS Nassau (LHA-4) [I]
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) [A]
America class (soon to be on line)
USS America (LHA-6) [P] **
USS Tripoli (LHA-7)
Amphibious Assault Ships (LHD)
USS Wasp (LHD-1) [A]
USS Essex (LHD-2) [A]
USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) [A]
USS Boxer (LHD-4) [A]
USS Bataan (LHD-5) [A]
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) [A]
USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) [A]
USS Makin Island (LHD-8) [A]

** = Ages ago, I served on CV-66, USS America. I am disappointed that a CVN was not named America as the new ones were being put together ... grrrrrrrrr

Anyhoo, the civ noisemaker in question attempts to claim a non Cat and Trap aircraft carrier as an aircraft carrier.

In the USN, it just ain't so.

I was under the impression that the powers that be also silently cancelled any further LHA's without well-deck after the 2 first ones, the next ones are going to be like the old ones again, so much for the MARINES carrier fleet I guess.

Also isn't the F35B grounded because of some ongoing structural issues on one of the forward bulkheads? (not100%sure about this)
The engine problem was an unforeseen (supplier quality) problem I think.

Surprised to see a comment like that from Work. Maybe he's "demob-happy" - he's on his way out.

As LW notes, there are not 11 large-deck amphibs today, but nine - eight Wasps and the shagged-out Peleliu. I believe that if Navy shipbuilding plans hold to course (which is most unlikely) we get to 11 some time in the late 2020s.

These "aircraft carriers" can carry six F-35Bs before they have to start offloading helicopters (which are necessary to transport and support the Marines on board). The V-22 and JSF presumably strain the Wasps' support capacity - hence the mods to the LHA-6 Flight 0 ships, which have no well deck, and replace the ballast tanks (associated with the well deck) with more JP-5. However, as noted this has been abandoned for LHA-8 and subsequent ships.

Meanwhile, the quest for a scenario or an adversary that requires a small force of supersonic stealth fighters, but does not call for AEW, EW or tanker support, continues. (Clue: There isn't one.)

52 Card Pickup
 

It is like playing 52 card pickup here. The title of this thread is:

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

N.B.
"...As for the F-35B’s place in the Navy. Work said the service remains committed to the massive fleet planned for the F-35B..."

Despite the other baubles and colour and movement - the message is as shown. And bring your money with you...

I take your point and agree with it, but you just made this forum wince
So what are you calling the 2 UK flat tops? By your definition they aren't aircraft carriers.

LO, As you have been show and I take it you are having a memory lapse.
The Wasp have a normal 6-10 Harrier load and CONOPS for sea control with about a load of 25 Harrier aircraft

Said in a Dustin Hoffman voice from Rain Man it makes perfect sense.

AW&ST: .......As the Boeing 787 fleet remains grounded due to safety issues with it's lithium-ion batteries, the Joint Strike Fighter program office is not saying whether the issue will prompt any review of the F-35's electrical system, which incorporates lithium-ion battery that is larger and higher-voltage than the 787's and has a once-per-sortie charge/discharge cycle. Made by a U.S. subsidiary of France's Saft, the JSF battery is the only onboard means of starting the fighter's integrated power pack, which starts the engine. It is also the second backup source of electrical power to flight controls and avionics, in the event that the engine-mounted starter-generator and the power pack both fail......

Lockheed Martin spokesman Mike Rein says that the F-35's battery "has undergone extensive destructive testing...... The F-35's batteries are not provided by Yuasa, therefore we expect no impact to the program."

Yuasa manufactures the 787 battery, but the investigation of the 787 issue has not yet concluded that the battery design or manufacturing issues are to blame.

May I be so bold as to ask a question of your fine gentlemen?

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact

read the above today - now , should it be a cause of conern that the `new` F35 has less turning ability than a phantom?