Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

That list is closer and I have no real issue. They are talking clean platforms without tanks and weapons. It doesn't have the SH block II or III. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 but it is not that significant. To go into more detail we need to look at what radar bands are being prioritised and probable flight altitude.
 
Last edited:
Lolwa said:
Seeing Gripen dominate in this and the Canadian deal, I wonder if the gripen could end up being the MMRCA 2 winner. The ES/05 is the most advanced AESA in the market right now and with its weapons suite and ew, I don't know.
Click to expand...

The Gripen is indeed a great aircraft and one that's just beginning its development and upgrade cycle, like the F-35, but Finland's tender wasn't simply about choosing a good aircraft to base their future force around. It also saw import on industrial offsets, investment and complete weapons deals. Neither the Eurofighter Consortium or Dassault were able to match the industrial cooperation and investment of LM, Boeing or Saab. In fact that's been a knock on both companies for sometime now (as I've discussed in the past with DNCS as well). Saab put forth commonality with Finland, a major factor with the F-35 as well, two GlobalEye surveillance aircraft, and a huge weapons package - which LM did too, and its entry, the F-35 didn't need a GlobalEye-type aircraft to be effective at recon and electronic warfare. Finland already operates a large amount of American made munitions so the commonality aspect was important there too. Saab was offering good products, but the overall cost of procurement, training, storage and maintenance was higher.

It's not that the Gripen was overly dominant in the HX tender, its score, rating the second highest, had a lot to do with what other vendors wouldn't do - provide industrial support and investment. The Gripen is a good airframe, one that I'm very high on as well, but its performance wasn't the sole deciding factor in Finland.

Canada's fighter tender is a joke. It's political. A way for them to say they gave other vendors a fair chance before ultimately picking the F-35. If they pick the Gripen I'd be shocked.

If India desires more then just an airframe going forwards Saab is a reliable and flexible partner in providing high levels of offsets. The Gripen offers competitive performance versus the Rafale, Eurofighter or Russian/Chinese equivalent, but Saab is will to provide much more in the way of industry support versus other large international vendors
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj and _Anonymous_
Optimist said:
I don't think the SH and Gripen are 0.1 either. I do think the SH and Rafale would be similar and not an order of magnitude different, if that helps.
Click to expand...

You are just going against verified data then.

The Korean brochure places the SH, Rafale and Typhoon in the RO category. That's an RCS below 1m2. You can bet they know what they are talking about since they have tested all these jets themselves. Going below 1m2 is a bit special for radars, hence the special category of RO. And we know for a fact that the Rafale is 10-20 times smaller than the M2000. And we know for a fact that the M2000 has a smaller RCS than the F-16, and we know for a fact that the RCS of the F-16 is a little over 1m2.

Swedish govt papers revealed that the Gripen Demo has an RCS of 0.1m2 as well.

This stuff's actually conventional wisdom now. Nothing secret. While we do not know the exact numbers, we do have an idea in which class they fall under.
 
Draughr said:
The Gripen is indeed a great aircraft and one that's just beginning its development and upgrade cycle, like the F-35, but Finland's tender wasn't simply about choosing a good aircraft to base their future force around. It also saw import on industrial offsets, investment and complete weapons deals. Neither the Eurofighter Consortium or Dassault were able to match the industrial cooperation and investment of LM, Boeing or Saab. In fact that's been a knock on both companies for sometime now (as I've discussed in the past with DNCS as well). Saab put forth commonality with Finland, a major factor with the F-35 as well, two GlobalEye surveillance aircraft, and a huge weapons package - which LM did too, and its entry, the F-35 didn't need a GlobalEye-type aircraft to be effective at recon and electronic warfare. Finland already operates a large amount of American made munitions so the commonality aspect was important there too. Saab was offering good products, but the overall cost of procurement, training, storage and maintenance was higher.

It's not that the Gripen was overly dominant in the HX tender, its score, rating the second highest, had a lot to do with what other vendors wouldn't do - provide industrial support and investment. The Gripen is a good airframe, one that I'm very high on as well, but its performance wasn't the sole deciding factor in Finland.
Click to expand...

Raw airframe performance alone puts the twin engine jets head and shoulders above the Gripen, but it comes at a cost. And the downside is the more industrial cooperation offered, the higher the cost, the less competitive they become. The cost of European A2G weapons makes it worse.

Draughr said:
Canada's fighter tender is a joke. It's political. A way for them to say they gave other vendors a fair chance before ultimately picking the F-35. If they pick the Gripen I'd be shocked.
Click to expand...

Yep. But it's Trudeau's Canada. Anything can happen.

Draughr said:
If India desires more then just an airframe going forwards Saab is a reliable and flexible partner in providing high levels of offsets. The Gripen offers competitive performance versus the Rafale, Eurofighter or Russian/Chinese equivalent, but Saab is will to provide much more in the way of industry support versus other large international vendors
Click to expand...

We have the LCA Mk2 in the same category, with ADA promising better-than-Gripen capabilities in terms of airframe performance. It's lighter, has a higher MTOW and is powered by the same engine.

And in our case, the Rafale's industrial offer is the best, they are offering 100% of the engine and airframe. 70% of the Rafale will be built in India, well above the minimum 50% local production requirement. Saab's potential offer could have been better if they had power over the engine. Otoh, GE is offering 60% of the engine for local production for the LCA Mk2, as long as Congress approves it, but that's an uphill battle. As of now, the USG has only offered assembly. In any case, the industry support that a country like Finland needs is completely different from what India needs. So only companies with more power over their own technologies have the advantage in these categories.
 
randomradio said:
You are just going against verified data then.

The Korean brochure places the SH, Rafale and Typhoon in the RO category. That's an RCS below 1m2. You can bet they know what they are talking about since they have tested all these jets themselves. Going below 1m2 is a bit special for radars, hence the special category of RO. And we know for a fact that the Rafale is 10-20 times smaller than the M2000. And we know for a fact that the M2000 has a smaller RCS than the F-16, and we know for a fact that the RCS of the F-16 is a little over 1m2.

Swedish govt papers revealed that the Gripen Demo has an RCS of 0.1m2 as well.

This stuff's actually conventional wisdom now. Nothing secret. While we do not know the exact numbers, we do have an idea in which class they fall under.
Click to expand...
The data isn't verified. I don't have official data to 0.1 and neither do you.
the swedish rcs was fake, Google it on f-16,net that goes into great details and gives where that 0.1 came from.
 
sunstersun said:
72 F-35As Block 4 AETP engine to India to cover the J-20 :)

AMCA is not gonna cover the J-20 during the 2020's and early 2030's for sure.
Click to expand...
In all probability , the job of countering the J-20's would rest with the Su-57. Neither is the F-35 going to be offered nor will the IAF / GoI seek it .
 
sunstersun said:
72 F-35As Block 4 AETP engine to India to cover the J-20 :)

AMCA is not gonna cover the J-20 during the 2020's and early 2030's for sure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we ever go for the F-35A, it's gonna have to be on the AETP. Need the performance boost and the 30% additional range versus the J-20C.

Even 36 will help, forget 72. And we will need the F-35I rather than the F-35A. The Israelis were showing off their jet to our air chief only a few months ago.

image.jpg


The aircraft in the picture is the Israel-specific prototype.

But, more realistically, I see the IAF buying the Su-57 instead, due to our need for a lot of customisation, and the role it's been designed for. Rather the IN may eventually give up the MRCBF in favour of a GTG for the F-35C. The Rafale doesn't fit on our carriers and the SH is too old to fight China, resulting in a single-vendor situation. I doubt Dassault has a realistic solution.
 
Optimist said:
The data isn't verified. I don't have official data to 0.1 and neither do you.
the swedish rcs was fake, Google it on f-16,net that goes into great details and gives where that 0.1 came from.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose I should be happy knowing the LCA is the "only" 4th gen design in the world with an RCS below 1m2, especially considering it was designed in the 80s.

Btw...
9062f639c715.jpg


My bad... It refers to the Gripen A/B/C/D, not the Demo.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
In all probability , the job of countering the J-20's would rest with the Su-57. Neither is the F-35 going to be offered nor will the IAF / GoI seek it .
Click to expand...
I am, mostly of opinion, that IN might go for F35C/B variant post 2030 considering the LPD/LHD/Light carrier and heavy carrier program. IAF going F35 way depends if IAF selects F16/rebranded 21/15/18s then it's definite possibility, else chances seem negligible. Other possibility is India joining multinational stealth jet programs like UK/French or Korean (or was it Japanese) led programs. We need to already start looking beyond AMCA considering the leapfrog China is making both militarily and technologically. India going alone head to head is difficult, not impossible thought, but it creates the uncertainty levels in the minds of those evaluating it or checking the relevance of air force for air dominance.
sunstersun said:
AMCA is not gonna cover the J-20 during the 2020's and early 2030's for sure.
Click to expand...
Agreed in current conditions.
 
Last edited:
Optimist said:
That is a fake document. Go and look on f.16.net. Or google up : FOI-R etc.
linkomart's post on this page. View topic - F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG - F-35 versus XYZ
Click to expand...

It's not a fake document, it's a real document. But what you're trying to say is the Gripen's figure could be fake because that version did not exist at the time of the report, which is likely true. So the 0.1m2 figure is supposed to be for the Demo or E, so I suppose I was right the first time. Although the Swedish text doesn't translate very well on Google, would have helped if he had provided translations for page 47 and 48 rather than deciding on his own, but what it really means is this report has considered the potential RCS of a future Gripen. And that future is today. No one just randomly uses completely fake figures in a sponsored sudy.

Interestingly, this is my first time visiting a Western forum in years, and I didn't realise the American echochamber is bad enough to dismiss even conventional knowledge. But, just so you know, the LCA is indeed below 1m2, and we know that the Rafale does better than the LCA. Maybe the Americans are referring to average RCS, which is likely above 1m2, or with payload, which can take it to above 1m2 depending on the payload.
 
I'm not going to argue with you. download the PDF document and quote where it says any gripen has a RCS of 0.1. You can copy paste into a translator. or use a PDF online translator
 
Okay, made it work.

The translation is terrible. The report is about modeling an exercise about future capabilities. They have assumed a Gripen with an RCS of 0.1m2 in their tests, and the RCS has been achieved using "signature mitigation measures".

They wouldn't have assumed Gripen's RCS to be 0.1m2 in a commissioned research if it wasn't possible.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. You are just going against conventional wisdom. So you are free to believe what you want, there's no use arguing about it.
 
agreed. you have the document that says it was an unrelated model and idle speculation. Internet fanboys aren't conventional wisdom. You could open the link at the top of this page and see what conventional wisdom says.
 
Optimist said:
agreed. you have the document that says it was an unrelated model and idle speculation. Internet fanboys aren't conventional wisdom. You could open the link at the top of this page and see what conventional wisdom says.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a commissioned report is using unrealistic modeling for simulation? Ah, well, only in your own world. Perhaps the experts have no clue.

With the link on top, you at least agree that the Typhoon is below 1m2 then. Or the fact that the B-2 is 0.75m2. Or the fact that the F-35 is less stealthy than the F-22.
 
I believe all of these aircraft are whatever these things claim until they are in combat load with weapons and pods then it's a shitshow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom