Norway might buy JAS 39C/D Gripen instead of F-35 JSF

[mustamato]

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,469953,00.html

____________________________________________________

http://www.edu.linkoping.se/pedagogisktcentrum/Far&Flyg/sajter2001/ryd6a/images/gripen.jpg
JAS 39 Gripen

For the first time Norway might buy a fighter that comes from a non-NATO country.

Norweigian NRK today reported that the Norweigian Defence Forces is considering
to change their old F-16 fighters against Swedish Gripen aircrafts. Originally Norway
was supposed to choose the American F-35 oint Strike Fighter from Lockheed Martin
as a replacement for the old F-16 planes. But the Norweigians are not happy with the
American project. One of the reasons to this is that Norweigians have not been allowed to
participate in the development of the Americans warplane. There is also some disputes
over the American investments that is customary at larger military sales.

- This far the Americans Joint Strike Fighter has been my favorite, but now the Swedes have entered
the arena with a strong candidate, says Marit Nybakk in the Arbeiderparti (Labour) that
is the chairman in the parliament´s defence council to NRK. The NATO-countries Czechia
and Hungary has already bought the Swedish warplane.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/images/img12.jpg
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[Lysander]

Interesting development. When did Norway get its F-16s?

[mustamato]

Interesting development. When did Norway get its F-16s?

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f16_15.html


Norway was the fourth member of the European consortium (along
with Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark) which was formed in the
late 1970s to build the F-16 under license. The first Fighting Falcon for the
Kongelige Norske Luftforsvaret (Royal Norwegian Air Force) took off on
its maiden flight on December 12, 1979. It was built at Fokker's Schiphol
plant in the Netherlands. The first Luftforsvaret F-16 was delivered to
Norway on January 15, 1980. Norway acquired 60 F-16As and 12 F-16Bs
from the Netherlands' Fokker production line between January of 1980
and June of 1984. They were all constructed to Block 1, 5, 10, and 15
standards, but all of the Block 1 and 5 aircraft were later upgraded to
Block 10 standards.

It can be noted that Norweigian F-16´s have been used to attack goals in Afghanistan
as well. So they have not only been training with them.

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00012/f16-_fra_338_sqd-370_12814a.jpg
Norweigian F-16A taking off

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00010/f16_stor1_10419a_10480a.jpg

[-Max2-]

Interesting development. When did Norway get its F-16s?

During the 80s.

IMHO, Norway should nevertheless choose the F-35 JSF. The F-35 will be more advanced than the JAS-39C/D Gripen and is going to be the NATO standard combat aircraft for the next 30 years. And AFAIK, Norway already paid a few millions dollar to enter the JSF program...

[Lysander]

Thnaks for the info guys.

Maybe this is just a ploy to get something from the US? Threaten to withdraw from the program unless Norway gets to participate, or something of that nature.

[Ichhabe]

Interesting development. When did Norway get its F-16s?

And AFAIK, Norway already paid a few millions dollar to enter the JSF program...


Baaah! We got money to burn. :D

[mustamato]

Interesting development. When did Norway get its F-16s?

During the 80s.

IMHO, Norway should nevertheless choose the F-35 JSF. The F-35 will be more advanced than the JAS-39C/D Gripen and is going to be the NATO standard combat aircraft for the next 30 years. And AFAIK, Norway already paid a few millions dollar to enter the JSF program...

Depends on what you mean with "NATO standard", it´s not like all countries
will have F-35´s, far from it. Also as you know Norway and Sweden is neighbouring
countries, already today Norway/Sweden/Finland train together in the air, if Norway
and Sweden would fly the same planes I can´t see how that would be something
negative from a Norweigian point of view. But I guess it all comes down to if US
will invest a lot of billion dollars in Norway or not.

[duck]

Isn't Bae doing the marketing and sales for the Gripen nowadays?

[Commander Cool]

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, so I doubt they care if the US invests in them or not.

Anyways the JAS-39 uses American weapons, has American engines, etc. Also the JAS-39 has already been ready for purchase for a few years, the JSF will not be ready for a long time yet.

[Ichhabe]

As I see it: More fighters for less money. And it will also maybe get us Nordic countries closer to military cooperation.

[cold0]

JAS-39C/D Gripen offered to Norway is completly NATO-compatible, thank to Saab co-partner, th English BAE.

Tecnically the JAS-39C/D Gripen is true multi-role fighter, something that we can't say for the JSF, more advanced, but limited ait-to-air combat role.

In fact the JSF is an attack aircraft; so it's not the better choise for an airforce that would only use an aircraft model. If the Norway wants, as it seems, use only an aircraft platform for the future (for cost reasons, standarization ect.) Gripen is a more sound option.

[Commander Cool]

Huh?? First you say the JSF is limited to air-to-air, and then you say it's an attack aircraft? Doesn't attack mean air to ground?

[AFACadet]

The JSF has vastly better capabilities in both AA and AG than any multi-role aircraft flying today. If Norway chooses to go with the Grippen, that's their choice, but its also their loss.

[mustamato]

Anyways the JAS-39 uses American weapons, has American engines, etc. Also the JAS-39 has already been ready for purchase for a few years, the JSF will not be ready for a long time yet.

About the weapons the Swedish AF use AMRAAMS in example only because
the European missiles are not ready yet, when they are the Swedish AF will
switch to them, as many other European countries I can add, I think Norway
cares more about what the neighbouring countries have on their planes than what
the F-35 can or can not carry. Some of the Euro-stuff:

http://imagebase.saab.se/ibsaab/file/saab/F986/F98695/low/F98695.jpg
Gripen with IRIS-T and Meteor

http://imagebase.saab.se/ibsaab/file/saab/DK03/DK035450GI2/low/DK035450GI2.jpg
Gripen with Taurus long stand-off missile´s

[duck]

Each Air Force should slowly be looking beyond manned attack/figher aircraft. If Mr.Rumsfeldt gets his second tenure at the Pentagon, UAVs like the Predator, Global Hawk and their successors will get a big boost in R&D funding.

[Commander Cool]

The JSF has vastly better capabilities in both AA and AG than any multi-role aircraft flying today. If Norway chooses to go with the Grippen, that's their choice, but its also their loss.
Actually the difference between the JSF and JAS-39 is not that great, and the JAS-39C will close the gap completely, especially with its NORA avionics. The JSF does not have vastly superior flight performance, or avionics. In fact the only huge advantage it has is stealth. Also the JSF has some inferiorities compared to the Gripen too. For example it has too few hardpoints which will put it at a seirous disadvatage compared to something such as the Su-35 which carries 14 air to air missiles.

[cold0]

Huh?? First you say the JSF is limited to air-to-air, and then you say it's an attack aircraft? Doesn't attack mean air to ground?

Sorry for my bad english; I want to say that the JSF is limited in air to air combat and it's primary an attack aircraft. For the USAF this's not a problem becuase they hope to a sufficient number of F/A-22s. The JSF is probably the standard attack aircraft for many western air force in the future but some of them prefer to rely on other aircraft for A2A role. RAF and AMI will use Typhons in tha A2A role and the F-35 in A2G role.

[cold0]

Each Air Force should slowly be looking beyond manned attack/figher aircraft. If Mr.Rumsfeldt gets his second tenure at the Pentagon, UAVs like the Predator, Global Hawk and their successors will get a big boost in R&D funding.

Yes, but you can't use the Predator or a global Hawk as attack aircrafts, at least not against enemies that have a decent IADS system. The future of the UCAV is the X-45 and, anyway, it will need a fighters escorts to survive against modern enemy fighters.

[AFACadet]

Commander Cool,

I can see you don't know that much about the JSF. You're just looking at the external differences. External differences these days are just superficial.

What you can't see is what's on the inside. This is what really makes or breaks aircraft today. Its what sets the JSF apart from everything else flying, or being designed. The JSF is truely a massive generational leap from the aircraft flying today due to the avionics.

[mustamato]

What you can't see is what's on the inside. This is what really makes or breaks aircraft today. Its what sets the JSF apart from everything else flying, or being designed. The JSF is truely a massive generational leap from the aircraft flying today due to the avionics.

Since you seem to know so much about the inside, why is the F-35 so superior
to everything else except the F-22? I assume that Norway would get F-35A so
you can stick to that.

[Commander Cool]

AFACadet: The JSF's flight performance is not that much better than most of the planes flying now, or even ten years ago. An early 80's Mig-29A or Su-27 could match it in maneuverability. Can the JSF do the Cobra? No. (Yes I know the Cobra has limited combat use, but it proves the maneuverability of the Flanker).

As for the JSF's avionics, they are more advanced than anything flying today, but not vastly. For example the EF2000 and the Rafale (both of which are flying today).

As for its weapons, it will carry the same weapons which the JAS-39 can already carry, and the latest European weapons which EF-2000 and JAS-39 can carry (eg Meteor, IRIS-T) will be just as good as the latest American weapons, eg AIM-9X.

Now explain to me how precisely the JSF will be vastly superior?

By the way the export version of the JSF will be downgraded and less stealthy: http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr040416_1_n.shtml

[AFACadet]

Steath (given), defensive and offensive avionics using totally integrated sensors on such a level that they are impossible to install in any other aircraft besides the F/A-22.

I'm just going to get into the published, open source material and not the REALLY cool stuff (for obvious reasons).

The JSF has the APG-82 AESA radar which is the most advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground radar in the world--by a long shot. I'm unable to get into the capabilities of this radar as opposed to others--but its good, very good. Career fighter pilots who fly the newest aircraft are usually shocked at what it can do. This is one of the major aspects of the JSF that sets it appart from everything else. By their nature, AESA radars are able to be in AA mode, AG mode, search mode, track targets, passive mode to detect other radars, and jamming mode to very effectivly jam other radars--at the same time. Any mode besides jam mode will be extremely difficult for any other aircraft or ground system to detect even when the JSF is fireing its missile at an enemy target.

It uses this in conjuction with a 360 degree IRST type system infused into the skin of the aircraft allowing the computer system to constatly 'look' at the world around it. This can be patched into the pilots HMD allowing him to look through his own body, ejection seat, and aircraft, to see the world around him in full 360 degrees.

The JSF has integrated targeting systems to incluse the IRST type system, laser targeting and electro-optical targeting under the nose of the aircraft.

The cockpit simply uses one instrument--a massive touchscreen MFD that takes the whole front panal and can be used any way the pilot wants it to.

It has secure datalinks a steap above anything else flying which again allow it to have capabilites that other aircraft simply don't have with their current datalinks and I'm unable to fully get into.

The JSF has extremely long range (much longer than the Grippen), Grippen and F-16 level maneuverability, and is very easy to maintain. The stealth on the JSF is unlike the F-117s and B-2s which must be constantly maintained. You can walk on it and it won't be damaged.

You get all this at very low prices (25-35 million).

There is a reason why so many countries have signed up for the program. There is nothing else in the world that has its capabilites for the price. These countries know what's being offered (because they know a lot more than I can write on here), and they know the price.

I agree with others when they say Norway is playing games to get more out of the program for what they put in. Its not bad, its just human nature. They may also be looking to get something sooner than the JSF because these countries probably won't get it until about 2015.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

My guess is that while the Gripen certainly is no slouch...its boiled down to a political/economics decison. They'll prolly want to keep the money closer to home (Gripen= Saab & BAE Systems).

[-Max2-]

Depends on what you mean with "NATO standard", it´s not like all countries
will have F-35´s, far from it.

Not all countries, but a lot. Just like the F-16 today...


Also as you know Norway and Sweden is neighbouring
countries, already today Norway/Sweden/Finland train together in the air, if Norway
and Sweden would fly the same planes I can´t see how that would be something
negative from a Norweigian point of view. But I guess it all comes down to if US
will invest a lot of billion dollars in Norway or not.

The Gripen is a nice aircraft but compared to the F-16, its not a real revolution IMO. Norway use upgraded F-16AM/BMs who are still very capable against a Gripen.

The F-35 is simply more advanced.

[obd]

AHHAHA ROFLMAO...... The difference between the Jas 39 Gripen and the JSF is not that great?????? LOL...... The Jas 39 Gripen is said to have the same basic capability as the latest block of F-16's.........

The Jas 39 lacks the range of the JSF, even using conformal fuel tanks and/or external fuel tanks........

The Jas 39 does not have capability to carry stores such as JDAMS internally like the JSF.

The JAS 39, even with its latest avionics, will not have anywhere near the advanced avionics and provisions for upgrade that the JSF has....

The Jas 39 is not a stealth aircraft at all and the JSF will use advanced paint to hide it visually, it with have both radar and infrared stealth......There is no such thing as stealth when you have two JDAMS hanging from your wings......

The Jas 39 will not be equiped to fire, without further modification, the latest advanced missiles as well as those in developement... The JSF will.

The Gripen is a lightweight fighter and will not be able to carry as much weaponry as the JSF.

Some JSF variants will be able to use VTOL like the harrier. The Gripen, while able to take off from short runways, will not.

The JSF is being bought by virtually every major NATO nation and some non NATO nations like Israel...... It is folly to go against the doctrine of comonanilty..... They will not be able to share parts or experience like the JSF people....

Next and perhaps most importantly, The JSF program is far far far better funded than the Gripen with advancements scheduled to come rapidly.... The JSF will mature far more rapidly and will most likely have the latest and greatest systems out far far faster than the Gripen people.......

On the plus side for the Gripen it is more of a homespun design since its made right in Europe.......for the most part anyway heheheh.......

The Gripen is also cheaper so they will get "more for less". Time and time again, subverting quality for quantity has proven a failure in battle.......I cant even count how many times in war the smaller but better equipend and more highly trained air force has prevailed...... The recent Israeli air foce battles are perfect examples.............Also the Falklands war saw Britain POTENTIALLY go up against an air force with superior numbers but that really never materialized due to HIGHLY TRAINED Brits kicking the ass out of the Argentine Air Force in the intitial skirmishes.......

[FallenAngel]

Bah....

The F/A-18E....now that's what I'd take :D

[mustamato]

The Jas 39 will not be equiped to fire, without further modification, the latest advanced missiles as well as those in developement... The JSF will.

The Gripen is a lightweight fighter and will not be able to carry as much weaponry as the JSF.

Some JSF variants will be able to use VTOL like the harrier. The Gripen, while able to take off from short runways, will not.

Norway would still get the export version of the F-35A, and not the F-35C that
you are talking about. And "advanced missiles", well I´d say that in example
Meteor and IRIS-T should count as quite advanced, and these Gripen can use,
as well as the latest Python and what not.

[HELEX]

The Jas 39 is not a stealth aircraft at all and the JSF will use advanced paint to hide it visually, it with have both radar and infrared stealth......There is no such thing as stealth when you have two JDAMS hanging from your wings......

The same for the JSF... :lol:



The Jas 39 will not be equiped to fire, without further modification, the latest advanced missiles as well as those in developement... The JSF will.

The latest and most capable Missiles are the european Meteor for beyond visual range and the Iris-T for close ranges. The Gripen already is capable to use these Missiles. :cantbeli:


The Gripen is a lightweight fighter and will not be able to carry as much weaponry as the JSF.

Most fighters today are not fully loaded because of Precision Ammo. And the Gripen only weights half as much as the JSF but nearly carrys the same amount of Weapons. And when the JSF carrys as much weapons as the Gripen, Stealth is gone.


Some JSF variants will be able to use VTOL like the harrier. The Gripen, while able to take off from short runways, will not.

These VTOL variants of the JSF have significant lower weapon load and Range compared to the conventionals. The Gripen beats out these variant by far.


The JSF is being bought by virtually every major NATO nation and some non NATO nations like Israel...... It is folly to go against the doctrine of comonanilty..... They will not be able to share parts or experience like the JSF people....


Did you forget your Medicaments today? UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and France are the major NATO nations. UK will perhaps get some VTOL JSF for its carriers. But mainstay is the Eurofighter. And France will definitively buy no US Plane. :cantbeli:

[Midav]

The F-35 is a stealth shape from the ground up.

Also, and has not been confirmed yet, the F-35 may have supercruise ability like the Typhoon and F/A-22.

Weapons will be carried mainly internally, with slots available for external ordnance, drop tanks etc...

For the rest, really don't know too much about range, top speed, weapons load etc.

[Mark Sman]

Purely political move. This sort of dance takes place around many large system purchases.

We have to wait and see where it all comes home to roost.

[obd]

Hate to break it to you HELEX but the JSF was designed from the gorund up as a stealth aircraft.......which is why it has been built to carry internal weapons just like the F-22...

Oh and the new missiles slated to arrive with the F-22 and JSF will blow anything else out of the sky...even the new Euromissiles......

And I dont know if you keep up with Janes Defense weekly (its a great resource) but England has not been 10% with the Eurofighter typhoon lately and all nations slated to get them have dropped orders significantly of late.....just as the F-22 orders are under threat..........Apparently, the Eurofighter is already considered an "aging" platform and its hardly even entered service.......It cannot match the F-22 in any area of combat capability accept manueverability.... Of course it can carry more weapons than the F-22 if the Raptor is in stealth mode but if it is carrying stores on its wings than nope...........Dont get me wring, the Eurofighter is an excellent aircraft but it just doesnt measure up to future projected threats coming out of Russia and God only knows how many dictators and Thoecratic states France will sell its Rafale to.....Maybe Libya and Iran LOL????

The JSF will form the mainstay of the British Air Force when it matures if you go by numbers..... it is projected to be bought in far greater numbers than the Eurofigher Typhoon which has very limited Stealth........Israel is also interested in both the F-22 and the JSF and has not even considered the JAS-39 because Israels latest F-16's are already superior in range, speed, armament, avionics, manueverablity, altitude ceiling, etc.....

I never mentioned France by the way HELEX.....I said virtually every NATO member... France doenst really count as a full NATO member as they mostly pulled out and retain only limited presence..........And besides the French Rafale built by Dasault is far superior to both the JAS 39 and the Eurofighter and the F-16 and is probably the only design that comes close to the F-22A Raptor and JSF........

And yeah, of course the VTOL has less storage..its a VTOL after all isnt it hehe...... But it sacrifices that for a great capability....... Remmember how well the British harriers used thier VTOL systems in combat in the Falklands to defeat French Mirages and Super Entendards..............

[mustamato]

And besides the French Rafale built by Dasault is far superior to both the JAS 39 and the Eurofighter and the F-16 and is probably the only design that comes close to the F-22A Raptor and JSF.........

Ok. Now we know.

[HELEX]

The Rafale is rated much lower rated when compared to the Eurofighter, the "french Weapons only" of the Rafale makes it significant less capable at all ranges.....

The Typhoon is even 0.2 Mach faster than Rafale, just show me one Source theat states the Rafale is better.... :lol:

The Gripen weights only a bit more than half of the Typhoon or Rafale, but its the best light single engine Fighter available. And with the Meteor it outranges the Rafale too.

[DLodge]

If you ask me this is just a ploy by the Norwegian government to put pressure on the U.S. They are unhappy with their share of contracts for JSF work...

Washington Post
April 16, 2004
Pg. E3

Norway Threatens To Revoke Support For Strike Fighter

Official Seeks Contracts From Lockheed

By Renae Merle, Washington Post Staff Writer

A top Norwegian Parliament official warned yesterday that the country would abandon the Joint Strike Fighter program if project manager Lockheed Martin Corp. doesn't help Norway's local industries secure work on the aircraft.

Norway is one of eight allies to sign up as partners on the $244 billion fighter jet project and has pledged $125 million to help develop the plane. Yet Norway's defense contractors have struggled to secure subcontracts on the project, said Marit Nybakk, chairwoman of the defense committee in Norway's Parliament.

When the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, was created, the Pentagon courted allies to help fund development, collecting pledges of $4.5 billion. But many of those foreign participants were expecting to gain access to technology and contracts in return -- both of which have been slow to appear.

"Two years have passed and we are not satisfied," said Nybakk, who met with Lockheed and Pentagon officials this week. "We think there is something fundamentally wrong between Lockheed Martin and the Norwegian defense industry."

Norway's Parliament will evaluate the country's participation in the program in June, she said. "If we don't get more signals, better signals from Lockheed Martin . . . there is a big possibility that the Norwegian Parliament will be inclined to get out of the development program for the Joint Strike Fighter, which is a pity," Nybakk said.

The departure of Norway would be a blow to the fighter program, which also counts England, Italy and Turkey among its participants. Foreign partners have complained for more than a year that it has been difficult to obtain access to certain sensitive technology and to secure contracts.

If Norway departs and sets off an exodus, it could signal a crisis, industry analysts said. "In the scheme of life, nonparticipation of a couple of smaller European companies will not impact the integrity of the program, but if there is a pile-on here, circumstances could change," said Jeff Bialos, an expert on transatlantic relations at Johns Hopkins University. "International participation is the backbone of the JSF program."

Finmeccanica SpA, an Italian defense conglomerate, expressed concern that U.S. companies had a competitive edge in winning JSF contracts. American competitors are less likely to have to include the cost of building new facilities, ordering new equipment or developing new technology, giving them a price advantage in bidding for work, said Stephen Bryen, president of the company's one-year-old U.S. operations.

"A lot of countries have been concerned about being able to compete for these contracts in the JSF program," Bryen said. "There is this general concern that has spread around."

Lockheed said it is working with Norway to identify appropriate opportunities for the country. "We are eager to keep them on as a partner," said Jeff Adams, a Lockheed spokesman. "Lockheed Martin remains confident that the Norwegian industry will be satisfied with the level of work they receive throughout the life of the program."

The plane will not be operational until 2008.

The Pentagon also said it is working on improving the relationship with Norway. "We understand fully and appreciate their concerns regarding the limited success . . . some Norwegian companies have experienced so far in competing for work on JSF," Kathy Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's JSF program office, said in a statement. "We agreed to continue our efforts to improve the success level of Norwegian companies."

In a 2003 report, the Pentagon acknowledged the concerns of partner countries including Norway, which it said has a defense budget about 1 percent the size of the U.S defense budget. "Obtaining relatively sensitive data has been very difficult for Norwegian industry," the report said. "Norwegian companies have approached Lockheed Martin about their capabilities and interest in work on the JSF program but indicate that they have received no feedback."
Given that Norway's primary concern seems to be protecting their indigenous (and "struggling") defense industry, the notion that they'll forego any subcontracts at all and simply buy a foreign fighter piecemeal strikes me as extremely unlikely.

This Gripen business is just Norway's tactic for ensuring that they get their share of the JSF money pot.

[oldsoak]

I dont know. The Gripen makes sense in that the supplier lives next door for one, and secondly not even the Brits might get the full blown JSF a la americain . There is an arguement that without the US only gizmos and funky bits, the JSF does not offer terribly much more than Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen.
JSF is such that partners have to be able to add value to it in order to get a workshare or be involved in the design of the aircraft. THis means having a unique or unrivalled skill in some technology or process. Unless Norway can provide unique skills or technology, I doubt it will get more than a basic workshare.

[bloddyaxe]

What Norway really should, is. Buy a few dozen Gripens, then later get one or two F-35s.
Because Norway is far too rich. They should waste some of the money they get from selling all this oil.

Anyhow there can be no doubt that the Gripen far more reliable than the F-35, because its a simpler plane. And Norway doesn't really need very powerful fighters, just look at the limited capabilities of the F-16A it fielded at the height of the cold war. In the nearest future Norway will be bombing infidels somewhere, just like its doing in Afghanistan. For such jobs stealth is of not of the slightest use, because the enemy has no radars.

And then the VTOL version of the F-35 is based on the Yak-41/141, so its actually a russian aircraft.
So it will be fascinating when HMS Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious will be carrying russian planes along with the USMC flattops.,

[Pille1234]

And besides the French Rafale built by Dasault is far superior to both the JAS 39 and the Eurofighter and the F-16 and is probably the only design that comes close to the F-22A Raptor and JSF........

In this one sentence you clearly show us that you are just one of these "Our plane is better than your plane because it's ours"-guys without further knowledge.

[Midav]

What Norway really should, is. Buy a few dozen Gripens, then later get one or two F-35s.
Because Norway is far too rich. They should waste some of the money they get from selling all this oil.

Anyhow there can be no doubt that the Gripen far more reliable than the F-35, because its a simpler plane. And Norway doesn't really need very powerful fighters, just look at the limited capabilities of the F-16A it fielded at the height of the cold war. In the nearest future Norway will be bombing infidels somewhere, just like its doing in Afghanistan. For such jobs stealth is of not of the slightest use, because the enemy has no radars.

And then the VTOL version of the F-35 is based on the Yak-41/141, so its actually a russian aircraft.
So it will be fascinating when HMS Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious will be carrying russian planes along with the USMC flattops.,

Is it for certain that all future actions will be against terrorists and non advanced forces?

The F-35, albeit I understand what you are saying, is not a Russian aircraft and nor are UK carriers of USMC origin.

The harriers and carrier machines we see today were perfected by the British to begin with.

[duck]

Scenarios involving notable enemy air superiority fighter forces:

-China invades Taiwan, the US Navy and USAF intervene, possible all-out nuclear war between the US and China.

-PRK attacks ROK. The PRK Air Force has a few dozen Mig29s and possibly modern Sukhois, the rest of the fighters are barely flying.

-A fundamentalist coup in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia with parts of the Air Force joining forces with extremists. In the case of Pakistan India will most likely launch a pre-emptive conventional/nuclear attack. If there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia, the pilots are trained in the US and would probably be slaughtered by the mob.

[Thor]

Interesting discussion..

Stealth (or semi-stealth) is really nothing but a hyped concept that don't have much proved value (except when attacking third world countries). New radar and weapon technologies will make stealth-planes pretty much obsolete.

There has been much talk about F-16 with latest upgrades. Have in mind that it's a choiche that US itself abandoned because it's simply too expensive for an old and limited platform. For the cost of a new F-16 Block 5x you could pretty much buy an Eurofighter instead.

When it comes down to JAS 39 Gripen I would say it has truly great value for money spent and one of it's key charachteristic is that it's modular and probably the easiest plane to upgrade. New versions/upgrades include a new engine with more thrust and less heat signature, thrust vectoring and possibly supersonic ability, bigger fuesalage with more weapon hardpoints, and some sort of new remarkable radar (not my field of expertise). So yeah, it has potential besides being a great plane today.

[DLodge]

Interesting discussion..

Stealth (or semi-stealth) is really nothing but a hyped concept that don't have much proved value (except when attacking third world countries). New radar and weapon technologies will make stealth-planes pretty much obsolete.
Oh really? Over-hyped? And it will be obsolete soon? Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary supposition? If you do the USAF might be interested in knowing why it's wasting billions when it can just buy Euro-canards.


There has been much talk about F-16 with latest upgrades. Have in mind that it's a choiche that US itself abandoned because it's simply too expensive for an old and limited platform. For the cost of a new F-16 Block 5x you could pretty much buy an Eurofighter instead.
Actually the U.S. did not "abandon" the idea of tricking out its F-16s. We simply prefer to spend our money on revolutionary combat systems, not evolutionary ones. However...

The service also is quietly drawing up contingency plans in case its modernization strategy to field F/A-22s and F-35s in the coming years unravels or encounters delays. "I have no design to buy more legacy airplanes," Hornburg stresses, while conceding that "we have to have a mitigating strategy" if the new fighters don't show up as planned.

That could involve buying new F-15Es and F-16s. Boeing says it has provided the Air Force information on 144 more F-15Es, although Hornburg says there has been no such request and that back-up plans are still embryonic.

Additionally, the service is eyeing upgrades to its existing fighter force, such as upgrading F-15Es with active electronically scanned array radars, and adding more modern APG-69(V)9s to F-16s. Air-superiority F-15Cs may also get radar enhancements to allow them to conduct air-to-ground missions.


When it comes down to JAS 39 Gripen I would say it has truly great value for money spent and one of it's key charachteristic is that it's modular and probably the easiest plane to upgrade. New versions/upgrades include a new engine with more thrust and less heat signature, thrust vectoring and possibly supersonic ability, bigger fuesalage with more weapon hardpoints, and some sort of new remarkable radar (not my field of expertise). So yeah, it has potential besides being a great plane today.
No. Your vaunted Gripen is really no better, and worse in terms of pure sensor performance, than an F-16 Block 60. Oh and the "remarkable" new radar you're referring to uses an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA). AESA has been in service with USAF F-15s for about a year now, and the Block 60 will have it from Day 1.

[Thor]

Oh really? Over-hyped? And it will be obsolete soon? Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary supposition? If you do the USAF might be interested in knowing why it's wasting billions when it can just buy Euro-canards.
Stealth planes are picked up by radars today and the potential in technology for detecting is simply greater then it is for stealth, jamming and so on. But of course stealth gives a real advandtage when facing fighters and ground radars with not the latest capabilities.



Actually the U.S. did not "abandon" the idea of tricking out its F-16s. We simply prefer to spend our money on revolutionary combat systems, not evolutionary ones.
And I said what..? In terms of not ordering the project was abandoned in favor of JSF. Revolutionary is great.. if it is.



No. Your vaunted Gripen is really no better, and worse in terms of pure sensor performance, than an F-16 Block 60.
I agree. As for radars I was referring to a project that's not official yet. The discussion was about long term potential and therefor I mentioned it.

[Midav]

Stealth planes are picked up by radars today and the potential in technology for detecting is simply greater then it is for stealth, jamming and so on. But of course stealth gives a real advandtage when facing fighters and ground radars with not the latest capabilities.

Stealth aircraft can be picked up by radars from years past.

Stealth does not mean invisible. It means hard to see; to have a very weak radar return.

If a standard aircraft can be seen at 150 km's, then forces have ample time to get ready to set up defenses.

A stealth aircraft detected at 10 km's gives less time to get ready, does it not?

I do recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316743003/102-7119283-9129708?v=glance

Written by the late Ben Rich of the LM Skunk Works. He explains it better than anyone I know of. He also helped with the SR-71, F-117 and other projects. So figures why :)

[DLodge]

Stealth planes are picked up by radars today and the potential in technology for detecting is simply greater then it is for stealth, jamming and so on. But of course stealth gives a real advandtage when facing fighters and ground radars with not the latest capabilities.
That is simply incorrect. Stealth gives a tremendous advantage when facing any opponent. And it will continue to do so. There is no known technology on the horizon that negates the edge a low RCS gives fighters like the F/A-22 and the JFS. The counterstealth technology that is out there is not only in its infancy, but even when fully developed (if it pans out at all) it will, at best, reduce the huge advantage afforded by stealth.

Some counterstealth measure are discussed in this Aviation Week article...

Counterstealth Tackles U.S. Aerial Dominance
By David A. Fulghum/Aviation Week
February 2, 2001

The coup by Yugoslav air defenses of shooting down a U.S. Air Force F-117, a first-generation stealth aircraft, in 1999 reflects growing efforts to develop systems that stymie the operation of radar-evading U.S. aircraft.

Counterstealth concerns measures that can erode U.S. dominance in stealth design and manufacturing. The crashed F-117, according to U.S. analysts, was handed over to the Russians for study and analysis along with other advanced U.S. technology that was recovered during the conflict (for example, the electrical black-out bombs that plunged Belgrade into darkness).

Meanwhile, as a countermeasure to anti-stealth radar techniques, the U.S. is already working on advanced jammers and decoys that will increase the electronic noise level below which stealth aircraft can operate. At the same time, stealth aircraft are adding capabilities that were once thought vulnerable to detection. Some have received low-probability-of-intercept radars that produce "noise-like," spread-spectrum waveforms and ultrasmall sidelobes to avoid detection.

The U.S. has its own need to find anti-stealth technology to counter stealthy cruise missiles and manned and unmanned aircraft that the Pentagon has predicted will be on the world market soon. In associated efforts, U.S. planners want to develop air-to-air weapons with a single-shot, high probability of kill against fast, sea-skimming missiles and helicopters flying in urban clutter or using terrain masking.

The main technological response to modern U.S. aircraft will likely be the development of counterstealth, antiaircraft systems made possible by a thorough knowledge of stealth. Among the few places people can learn about stealth in an unclassified forum are seminars held by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The course started at the end of the Cold War, as tensions with the former Soviet Bloc disappeared, but before the specter of third world and pannational threats to the U.S. came into focus. Perhaps fewer than 1,000 people have taken the course.

The first classes were filled with U.S. engineers, defense civilians and military personnel, said David Jenn, an electrical engineering professor who co-teaches the course and instructs at the Naval Postgraduate School. His fellow instructor is Allen Fuhs, a former chief scientist at the U.S. Air Force aeropropulsion laboratory. But the combination of a shrinking defense budget and declining force structure has been paring U.S. participation. Filling in were Australians (who are developing their own stealth unmanned aircraft), British (who have their own low-observability projects and are buying into the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter program), Swedes, French, South Koreans and Germans. Some want to keep tabs on U.S. industry; others want to be able to read and understand the literature, Jenn said. Nowadays, more classes are being held overseas. In particular, interest has increased in Asia.

The Pentagon has been predicting in classified reports that China could have stealthy cruise missiles operational by 2003. Defense analysts also are worried that both Patriot-like anti-ballistic missile technology and S-300 (SA-10/20) anti-aircraft missile technology, both with some anti-stealth capability, have been exported to China.

So what do students of counterstealth technology have to work with, and what might an anti-stealth system look like?

Cavities in aircraft and other military equipment reflect radar much like light reflects at night from an animal's eyes to give its hiding spot away. Most of the rules of optics apply to the calculations of radar reflectivity. One big exception is that reflectivity from stealth designs--often modeled as spheres--is greatest in the opposite direction of the incoming radar signal. For example, if the signal hits a stealth aircraft on the nose, the greatest radar reflection is from directly astern as energy follows the aircraft's contours in a wave and gathers there. Stealth designers fear that this phenomenon may provide a key to finding low-observable aircraft.

"There is an enormous increase in RCS [radar cross section] that could be used for counter-stealth [defense systems]," Fuhs said.

A variation on this theme is development of bistatic radar that separates the transmitter and receiver. Since many stealth designs reflect radar signals to the sides, up or down and to the rear, a receiver placed at the proper alignment with the stealth aircraft and transmitter can catch some of these reflections; perhaps enough, designers think, to track a stealthy target.

Some U.S. tacticians say the radar would need at least two reflections to plot a course, and the stealth aircraft would be moving too fast for a single radar to gather enough data. However, complex bistatic radar systems with several transmitters and receivers could overcome such limitations.

The bistatic fence uses a square of four radars sometimes acting in monostatic (transmitter and receiver together) and other times in bistatic modes. Every radar is linked to each of the others. In bistatic mode, the radars cooperate with one another to find a stealthy target. The bistatic pairs offer four chances to pick up reflections from a stealth aircraft flying though the box. Once a target is spotted, the radars switch to monostatic mode to track the targets by combining the faint signal as seen from four directions. With the radars set up in a square 100 km. (62 mi.) on a side, the system could monitor a 10,000-sq.-km. area.

Researchers also point out that semiactive radar homing missiles are part of a bistatic radar system. The transmitter is on the launch aircraft and the receiver is on the missile, an arrangement that could be exploited against stealth aircraft. In another variation, two AWACS aircraft could operate as a bistatic system if properly modified.

The emergence of wide-bandwidth radar also could force stealth operators into redesigns or new tactics. The use of wider ranges of wavelength could produce exaggerated returns like those from curved edges and conical tips at long wavelengths and flat surfaces and cylinder shapes at short wavelengths. A space-based radar system, because of its overhead perspective, could see the vulnerable top side of stealth aircraft and missiles and possibly provide a full 360-deg. look at the stealthy target aircraft. In addition, a series of "hitchhiker" bistatic radar tests have been conducted using communications satellites in geostationary orbit as the transmitter.

Another radar anti-stealth technique is to use the massive computing power available today to filter out noise and clutter--such as from ocean wave action, towns and other cultural features, or mountains and valleys--that would hide the faint signals from a stealth aircraft.

Two other possible clues to finding stealth aircraft are their aerodynamic wakes and exhausts, neither of which can be eliminated.

A possible counterstealth system could detect the wingtip vortices and the products of boundary layers from wing and body surfaces that form a trailing wake. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already developed short-range radar to detect and track such vortices as a way of warning aircraft of dangerous wind conditions near airports. "Both turbulence and mass density variations due to the high-speed flow within the vortices cause a change in refractive index that scatters electromagnetic radiation [to create a radar echo]," Fuhs said. In addition, laser radar (ladar) can detect the movement of particles, a technology that has also been tested at airports.

As an aircraft flies, the vortex drops so it can be seen by a radar or ladar looking from directly ahead of an aircraft. It is thereby exposed in any direction from the aircraft. If systems are developed that can see vortices at longer ranges, it could jeopardize the existing stealth fleet, Fuhs said.

Engine exhaust is another area of potential stealth vulnerability.

"By careful choice of radar or laser frequency, anomalous dispersion [a band where refraction increases] can be exploited to create an electromagnetic 'hole' in the atmosphere with the exact location and size of the aircraft exhaust," Fuhs said. "Electromagnetically, the 'hole' has features of a vacuum but with extremely high absorption. These features cause scattering of radar waves," and preliminary calculations estimate a radar reflection of between 0 and +10 dBsm. Research suggests that ladar might be the best choice for detection of engine exhaust anomalies.

If technology developments are speeding into operational use, it could be tough for U.S. stealth aircraft to maintain their invulnerability. However, defense analysts suggest that U.S. and global defense budget cuts mean more money will be spent to protect existing aircraft, and that translates into the development of more infrared and electronic countermeasures. With available funding spent elsewhere, they expect a slowdown in the rate of introduction of new radar and infrared sensors that could threaten stealth. That will likely give the U.S. a "breather in the ongoing rush of technology," Fuhs said.
The effectiveness of stealth will be reduced over time, but it will still be a tremendously important asset for any combat aircraft for a very long time to come. To sum up I have a quote from Malcolm Davis, lecturer in defence studies at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, Shrivenham...

Other counter-stealth techniques are widely known, including bistatic and multistatic radar systems, low-frequency radar, electro-optic and infra-red detection and even tracking atmospheric vortices produced by the aircraft as they pass over a sensor. Even given these capabilities, stealth will continue to remain important, and improvements in stealth technology are leading to a continuing 'stealth versus counter-stealth' race.

As for radars I was referring to a project that's not official yet. The discussion was about long term potential and therefor I mentioned it.
Do you mind providing more details?

[Uninen]

As I see it: More fighters for less money. And it will also maybe get us Nordic countries closer to military cooperation.

Yeah, we should form a "Axis of Evil" and take over the world.. :)

Seriously, isnt there already deals and projects directed to this end? For closer cooperation? IE CV90 and AMOS..... and others.... also the helicopter "deal" was one..... at least a try... :(

[-Max2-]

The Rafale is rated much lower rated when compared to the Eurofighter, the "french Weapons only" of the Rafale makes it significant less capable at all ranges.....



Wrong. The Rafale is fully NATO compatible and can carry the majority of NATO weapons: Meteor (French Air Force will use it for its Rafales), AMRAAM, ASRAAM, Sidewinder, Maverick, GBU-12/16/24 Paveway, etc...

[cold0]

AMRAAM, ASRAAM, Sidewinder,

Dead wrong. The Rafale isn't compatible with these weapons and, until today Dassault never worked to integrate these weapon systems in the new french fighter (and Armee de Air doesn't have any interest in these missiles).

It' cleary possible integrate these weapon in the Rafale but the semi-conformal points under the french fighter are builted only to carry the french MICA.

Just remember that MICA was developed, apart as an answer to Armee de Air requirements for a new IR/Active radar missile, even to offer in the international maket an alternative fighter/weapon system (Rafale/MICA family) for all the air forces that can't or don't want "buy American".

[bloddyaxe]

Is it for certain that all future actions will be against terrorists and non advanced forces?

The F-35, albeit I understand what you are saying, is not a Russian aircraft and nor are UK carriers of USMC origin.

The harriers and carrier machines we see today were perfected by the British to begin with.

If I understand correctly what you have written, you should read what I wrote a few more times....

For one thing, it is of course possible that Norway will be attacked in the near future by Sweden, Denmark or the USA or something, but it isn't likely...

I didn't say the UK carriers were of USMC origin, I said it would be fascinating to see those vessels carrying planes, which use russian technology in such big manner.

And I think most people would know of the Harriers origin.

And since Norway would buy either buy a russian plane full of american gizmos, or a swedish plane full of american gizmos.. it doesn't really matter that much.

As for stealth, it can be fairly well utilized as of now, but still, remember the rocket planes designed around WWII, are many of these still around and are they still manufactured.. Modern american stealth technology might be a dead end and soon defeated, then a plane with compromised aerodynamics isn't very nice to have...

[tooms]

"And yeah, of course the VTOL has less storage..its a VTOL after all isnt it hehe...... But it sacrifices that for a great capability....... Remmember how well the British harriers used thier VTOL systems in combat in the Falklands to defeat French Mirages and Super Entendards.............."

Actually, any super etentard has been shot down in this war.
2 Mirage III made by dassault ( i don't speak about eh IAI Dagger )have been shot.


"The Rafale is rated much lower rated when compared to the Eurofighter, the "french Weapons only" of the Rafale makes it significant less capable at all ranges.....

The Typhoon is even 0.2 Mach faster than Rafale, just show me one Source theat states the Rafale is better....

The Gripen weights only a bit more than half of the Typhoon or Rafale, but its the best light single engine Fighter available. And with the Meteor it outranges the Rafale too."

Helex, who rated the Rafale and the Eurofighter? You surely found a study which tries to show that "mine is bigger".

0.2 Mach difference is not huge. And the priority for the new generation of planes is not the speed... If we follow your logic,does the F22 sux because it is slower ?

The Meteor missile is made by MBDA a merge between english, italian and french companies, French air force will have them too...

[Helly]

As for stealth, it can be fairly well utilized as of now, but still, remember the rocket planes designed around WWII, are many of these still around and are they still manufactured.. Modern american stealth technology might be a dead end and soon defeated, then a plane with compromised aerodynamics isn't very nice to have...

What makes you think that the JSF's got "compromised aerodynamics"? The JSF's low-observability is not due to sacrifices in shape and aerodynamics like that of the F-117A. And even if you take away the stealth part, the JSF still has a lot of aces up its sleeve.

As it stands right now, the JSF's integrated avionics architecture is way more advanced than that of the Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen, etc. Of course, the Eurocanard fighters' avionics can always be upgraded later on, but upgrades always mean added cost.

The JSF's internal payload capacity is roughly similar to that of the Eurocanards carrying external stores. Internal fuel capacity is also much more than that of the Eurocanards. The Eurocanards will have to carry external fuel tanks to match the combat radius of a JSF flying completely on its internal fuel load. External stores = added drag.

The JSF's radar is not as advanced as that of the F/A-22 Raptor, but it's still pretty good. The JSF doesn't really have that big an advantage over the Eurocanards in terms of raw radar performance, but it's in no way inferior. Coupled with the JSF's advanced avionics suite, the big advantage will be in the added situational awareness for the pilot.

It's not a "lightweight and cheaper" F/A-22 as some say it is, but it's gonna do pretty well (I dare say excel) in its envisioned role, that of an advanced, low-cost next-gen multirole fighter.

[-Max2-]

Dead wrong. The Rafael isn't compatible with these weapons and, until today Dassault never worked to integrate these weapon systems in the new french fighter (and Armee de Air doesn't have any interest in these missiles).

It' cleary possible integrate these weapon in the Rafael but the semi-conformal points under the french fighter are builted only to carry the french MICA.

I know, but if a foreign customer want American-made weapons (like AMRAAM and Sidewinder) for the Rafale, i am pretty sure it will be easy to integrate those weapons. If the Rafale can carry the Meteor, it can surely carry the AMRAAM. And the Sidewinder is easy to integrate...

[cold0]

Dead wrong. The Rafael isn't compatible with these weapons and, until today Dassault never worked to integrate these weapon systems in the new french fighter (and Armee de Air doesn't have any interest in these missiles).

It' cleary possible integrate these weapon in the Rafael but the semi-conformal points under the french fighter are builted only to carry the french MICA.

I know, but if a foreign customer want American-made weapons (like AMRAAM and Sidewinder) for the Rafale, i am pretty sure it will be easy to integrate those weapons. If the Rafale can carry the Meteor, it can surely carry the AMRAAM. And the Sidewinder is easy to integrate...

Well it's possible but it's costly; just remember that, if you would make the Rafale AMRAAM conpatible, you must find the space even for the uplink guidance system (midcourse guidance) and modified the Thomson CSF-Detexis RBE-2 radar (cleary more costly that integrate the -winder, for example). It's possible to launch the Aim-120 only in PITBULL mode, but it's far better and less expensive to use the new Israel Derby.
Another point: you could made the Rafale compatible with all these missiles but it could carried them only on the underwing pylons; the semiconformal are projected only to carry the MICA and are not compatible with any othe rmissile. So if you buy a Rafale and don't want the MICA you have 4 semiconformal pylons that are... useless!

[Helly]

Dead wrong. The Rafael isn't compatible with these weapons and, until today Dassault never worked to integrate these weapon systems in the new french fighter (and Armee de Air doesn't have any interest in these missiles).

It' cleary possible integrate these weapon in the Rafael but the semi-conformal points under the french fighter are builted only to carry the french MICA.

I know, but if a foreign customer want American-made weapons (like AMRAAM and Sidewinder) for the Rafale, i am pretty sure it will be easy to integrate those weapons. If the Rafale can carry the Meteor, it can surely carry the AMRAAM. And the Sidewinder is easy to integrate...

Well it's possible but it's costly; just remember that, if you would make the Rafael AMRAAM conpatible, you must find the space even for the uplink guidance system (midcourse guidance) and modified the Thomson CSF-Detexis RBE-2 radar (cleary more costly that integrate the -winder, for example). It's possible to launch the Aim-120 only in PITBULL mode, but it's far better and less expensive to use the new Israel Derby.
Another point: you could made the Rafael compatible with all these missiles but it could carried them only on the underwing pylons; the semiconformal are projected only to carry the MICA and are not compatible with any othe rmissile. So if you buy a Rafael and don't want the MICA you have 4 semiconformal pylons that are... useless!

Rafael = Israeli defence contractor.

Rafale = French fighter made by Dassault

[-Max2-]

Well it's possible but it's costly; just remember that, if you would make the Rafale AMRAAM conpatible, you must find the space even for the uplink guidance system (midcourse guidance) and modified the Thomson CSF-Detexis RBE-2 radar (cleary more costly that integrate the -winder, for example). It's possible to launch the Aim-120 only in PITBULL mode, but it's far better and less expensive to use the new Israel Derby.
Another point: you could made the Rafale compatible with all these missiles but it could carried them only on the underwing pylons; the semiconformal are projected only to carry the MICA and are not compatible with any othe rmissile. So if you buy a Rafale and don't want the MICA you have 4 semiconformal pylons that are... useless!



OK. Didnt know that it was so difficult to integrate foreign weapons...

Thanks for the info... :)

[Pégase]

"The Rafale can carry payloads of over nine tons on 14 hardpoints for the Air Force version, and 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles; and Exocet/AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. For a strategic mission, the Rafale can deliver the MBDA (formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP stand-off nuclear missile. Main weapons are expected to be the MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) MICA air-to-air missile, MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile and the MBDA (Aerospatiale) AS 30 laser-guided missile"

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/

btw the AASM is not mentionned here

in the future, the Rafale F4 is planned to integrate the meteor and the ASMP-A

[cold0]

"The Rafale can carry payloads of over nine tons on 14 hardpoints for the Air Force version, and 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles; and Exocet/AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. For a strategic mission, the Rafale can deliver the MBDA (formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP stand-off nuclear missile. Main weapons are expected to be the MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) MICA air-to-air missile, MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile and the MBDA (Aerospatiale) AS 30 laser-guided missile"

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/

btw the AASM is not mentionned here

in the future, the Rafale F4 is planned to integrate the meteor and the ASMP-A

Pure BS. The Rafale can carry, sure, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, ALARM, HARM, Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, but it isn't integrated with them. So, until today, the Rafale doesn't have the software to use these weapons and, in many cases like the AIM-120, it doesn't have even the compatibile pylon to launch the weapon.

Use a more capable source of information or just ask on these forums:

http://www.acig.org/

or

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=5

[Pégase]

"The Rafale can carry payloads of over nine tons on 14 hardpoints for the Air Force version, and 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles; and Exocet/AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. For a strategic mission, the Rafale can deliver the MBDA (formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP stand-off nuclear missile. Main weapons are expected to be the MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) MICA air-to-air missile, MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile and the MBDA (Aerospatiale) AS 30 laser-guided missile"

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/

btw the AASM is not mentionned here

in the future, the Rafale F4 is planned to integrate the meteor and the ASMP-A

Pure BS. The Rafale can carry, sure, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, ALARM, HARM, Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, but it isn't integrated with them. So, until today, the Rafale doesn't have the software to use these weapons and, in many cases like the AIM-120, it doesn't have even the compatibile pylon to launch the weapon.

Use a more capable source of information or just ask on these forum:

http://www.acig.org/

or

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=5

I know these sources and use them at some extent , and forums are always more constructives than manufacturers websites and averts, though this ones are sometime too much definitely biased to my taste too

you'll never find things like this for example :

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7995/rafaleemport.gif


I use http://www.vectorsite.net also

[cold0]

"The Rafale can carry payloads of over nine tons on 14 hardpoints for the Air Force version, and 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles; and Exocet/AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. For a strategic mission, the Rafale can deliver the MBDA (formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP stand-off nuclear missile. Main weapons are expected to be the MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) MICA air-to-air missile, MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile and the MBDA (Aerospatiale) AS 30 laser-guided missile"

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/

btw the AASM is not mentionned here

in the future, the Rafale F4 is planned to integrate the meteor and the ASMP-A

Pure BS. The Rafale can carry, sure, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, ALARM, HARM, Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, but it isn't integrated with them. So, until today, the Rafale doesn't have the software to use these weapons and, in many cases like the AIM-120, it doesn't have even the compatibile pylon to launch the weapon.

Use a more capable source of information or just ask on these forum:

http://www.acig.org/

or

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=5

I know these sources and use them at some extend though they are sometime too much definitely biased to my taste

you'll never find things like this for example :

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7995/rafaleemport.gif


I use http://www.vectorsite.net also

Perfect! As you can see in the image that you have posted none of the Rafale hardpoint is compatible with the missiles that I have quoted.
Cleary, you can made an aircraft compatible with every air-launch weapons in the world, but it required an extensive work for software, pulons, cable ect.
During the '60, when the weapons are no so sophisticated, it was more simple. Fox example the Isreal Mirage/Nesher were compatible with Russian Atoll and America AIM-9B/D; but today, even integrating an IR A2A missile (especially if you want to made it compatible with a DASH-style helmet) is a complex and costly operation.

[Midav]

Is it for certain that all future actions will be against terrorists and non advanced forces?

The F-35, albeit I understand what you are saying, is not a Russian aircraft and nor are UK carriers of USMC origin.

The harriers and carrier machines we see today were perfected by the British to begin with.

If I understand correctly what you have written, you should read what I wrote a few more times....

For one thing, it is of course possible that Norway will be attacked in the near future by Sweden, Denmark or the USA or something, but it isn't likely...

I didn't say the UK carriers were of USMC origin, I said it would be fascinating to see those vessels carrying planes, which use russian technology in such big manner.

And I think most people would know of the Harriers origin.

And since Norway would buy either buy a russian plane full of american gizmos, or a swedish plane full of american gizmos.. it doesn't really matter that much.

As for stealth, it can be fairly well utilized as of now, but still, remember the rocket planes designed around WWII, are many of these still around and are they still manufactured.. Modern american stealth technology might be a dead end and soon defeated, then a plane with compromised aerodynamics isn't very nice to have...

How do you figure that Swden, Denmark or the USA will attack Norway?

All I said was "Is it for certain that all future actions will be against terrorists and non advanced forces?"

If one NATO nation gets attacked, all get involved, or so the creed is supposed to be.

Also, how do you get that the JSF is a Russian plane? Yes, it utilizes some Russian tech, but to say it is Russian would be equating all SAM's being German ie Wasserfall SAM and the like....

To the rest, that is best a guess on your part that "modern American stealth may be a dead end and soon defeated".

Even with manned aircraft, stealth or non stealth, what can you do with a 20 G+ aircraft if the human all along is the limiting factor?

That's where the X-45 comes in.

[Pégase]

Perfect! As you can see in the image that you have posted none of the Rafale hardpoint is compatible with the missiles that I have quoted.
Cleary, you can made an aircraft compatible with every air-launch weapons in the world, but it required an extensive work for software, pulons, cable ect.
During the '60, when the weapons are no so sophisticated, it was more simple. Fox example the Isreal Mirage/Nesher were compatible with Russian Atoll and America AIM-9B/D; but today, even integrating an IR A2A missile (especially if you want to made it compatible with a DASH-style helmet) is a complex and costly operation.

of course they are not on this schema, this isn't the export version !
and Mica IR is well integrated, meteor being integrated for the Rafale F4, believe me this would't be a big deal for Dassault to integrate this weapons, for the Singapor deal for example :D


now for Norway, yes, I think that the JAS-39 Gripen would be a better choice, I've always found the JSF too short ranged, and the project seems to cost more and more, as we have to wait ... wait ... wait ... to see it into service

now if the US technology transfer doesn't follow and that the JSF is destined to doom the european military industry since the beginning ...

[cold0]

of course they are not on this schema, this isn't the export version !
and Mica IR is well integrated, meteor being integrated for the Rafale F4, believe me this would't be a big deal for Dassault to integrate this weapons, let's say, for the Singapor deal for example

Ok give me a link, a page or something that cleary demostrate that the weapons that I have quoted are integrated (present day) in the Rafale.

For MICA IR is the weapon of choise for Rafale so I have no doubt that it has been integrated with Rafale. And Meteor will be the future long range for Rafale (as for Gripen and EuroFlubber), but not until 2008.
For the other weapons (mostly US/UK) are today no-compatible with the Rafale, expecially the AMRAAMs!!!

And here an useful link:
http://www.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/index.htm

It's official magazine of the Rafale join-venture: you can read the Rafale development month after month and all the weapon integration 'til today.

Regards,

[Pégase]

Ok give me a link, a page or something that cleary demostrate that the weapons that I have quoted are integrated (present day) in the Rafale.

For MICA IR is the weapon of choise for Rafale so I have no doubt that it has been integrated with Rafale. And Meteor will be the future long range for Rafale (as for Gripen and EuroFlubber), but not until 2008.
For the other weapons (mostly US/UK) are today no-compatible with the Rafale, expecially the AMRAAMs!!!

for the air to air missiles, the ASRAAM of the Rafale, the Magic II is perfectly integrated, same for the BVR Mica EM and Mica IR which are the AMRAAM of the Rafale ( plus the Mica IR can also perform ASRAAM !) as you know, this is for France

now I don't work for Dassault, but for the export, other weapons are available for foreign customers as you can see in this other link :

http://www.rafale-marine.com/fiches/armement.php

[cold0]

ASRAAM is not integrated with Rafale; the other are all french missiles so it's pretty clear the Rafale can use them I never say that it can't do (see my posts).

The weapons for the export market are "integrable on request for the customers". As I have said, you can put every thing on an aircraft but you must pide the price.

If you don't trust me, no problem! Just ask at AFAcadet or DLodge on this forum or, even better, send an e-mail directly at Dassault using the link on Fox-3 magazine.

Regards,

[Helly]

I'm with cold0 on the AMRAAM/Rafale issue. Currently, the AMRAAM is not integrated with the Rafale.

That's exactly one of the reasons why South Korea chose the F-15K over the Rafale. The US won't authorize the technology transfer that will allow the integration of the AMRAAM (and most probably the AIM-9X) with the Rafale should South Korea go for the French fighter.

[Parzival]

They should choose Gripen. A better fighterplan. :D

[Pégase]

ASRAAM is not integrated with Rafale; the other are all french missiles so it's pretty clear the Rafale can use them I never say that it can't do (see my posts).

The weapons for the export market are "integrable on request for the customers". As I have said, you can put every thing on an aircraft but you must pide the price.

If you don't trust me, no problem! Just ask at AFAcadet or DLodge on this forum or, even better, send an e-mail directly at Dassault using the link on Fox-3 magazine.

Regards,

the Mica IR can perform ASRAAM, so it has been integrated
for the rest, I don't say the contrary, all the weapons I listed before are ever integrated or planned "integrable" for export by Dassault and this is what really matter to me (see my posts)
and yeah lol, thx but I know Fox-3 mag


EuroFlubber

it is Eurofighter

[Pégase]

I'm with cold0 on the AMRAAM/Rafale issue. Currently, the AMRAAM is not integrated with the Rafale.

That's exactly one of the reasons why South Korea chose the F-15K over the Rafale. The US won't authorize the technology transfer that will allow the integration of the AMRAAM (and most probably the AIM-9X) with the Rafale should South Korea go for the French fighter.

it wasn't a big issue in this deal, because the contrary was also true with the Mica,

but for the offsets, some have more $$$ than others for sure :D

[Helly]

I'm with cold0 on the AMRAAM/Rafale issue. Currently, the AMRAAM is not integrated with the Rafale.

That's exactly one of the reasons why South Korea chose the F-15K over the Rafale. The US won't authorize the technology transfer that will allow the integration of the AMRAAM (and most probably the AIM-9X) with the Rafale should South Korea go for the French fighter.

it wasn't a big issue in this deal, because the contrary was also true with the Mica,

I disagree. It's actually a big issue in the South Korean FX project since the country already has a substantial inventory of AMRAAMs for its existing F-16s and the AMRAAM is a key weapon for South Korea. Do note that South Korea already has a huge inventory of American weapons and nearly zero for the equivalent French weapons. Having two different aircraft types using two incompatible weapons suite (for the F-16 and Rafale tandem) will result in a logistical nightmare. And it's not just the AMRAAM. South Korea also won't have access to JDAMs, JSOWs, AGM-130, etc. etc. if it went for the Rafale.

There's also the issue of the integration of encrypted communication systems as well as IFF which the US also won't approve (and for good reason from a military standpoint).

Dassault can always say that it can integrate this and that weapon system with the Rafale, and I don't doubt Dassault's capability to accomplish those things. However, Dassault can't do squat if the US (which "owns" the AMRAAM) doesn't give the approval.

[bloddyaxe]

How do you figure that Swden, Denmark or the USA will attack Norway?

It might do good if you read what I wrote completely, otherwise you'll no doubt misunderstand my meaning.


Also, how do you get that the JSF is a Russian plane? Yes, it utilizes some Russian tech, but to say it is Russian would be equating all SAM's being German ie Wasserfall SAM and the like....

It doesn't just utilize some russian technology. Its complete layout and engines are based on the Yak 41/141. You know they bought everything to know about that plane from Yakovlev OBK. Just look at them and compare, the F-35 is certainly more advanced, but it is still just a "modernized" Yak. Not that its bad.

[mustamato]

Also, how do you get that the JSF is a Russian plane? Yes, it utilizes some Russian tech, but to say it is Russian would be equating all SAM's being German ie Wasserfall SAM and the like....

It doesn't just utilize some russian technology. Its complete layout and engines are based on the Yak 41/141. You know they bought everything to know about that plane from Yakovlev OBK. Just look at them and compare, the F-35 is certainly more advanced, but it is still just a "modernized" Yak. Not that its bad.

You are right, I have never thought of it that way, but well:

http://airbase.ru/cache/hangar/planes/russia/yak/yak-141/img/800x600/yak141s.jpg
Yakovlev

http://www.pmargage.com/images/aero_pics/jusaf_f.jpg
And the JSF, the F-35 has more "round shapes", but the l
layout is certainly similar

[Pégase]

I disagree. It's actually a big issue in the South Korean FX project since the country already has a substantial inventory of AMRAAMs for its existing F-16s and the AMRAAM is a key weapon for South Korea. Do note that South Korea already has a huge inventory of American weapons and nearly zero for the equivalent French weapons. Having two different aircraft types using two incompatible weapons suite (for the F-16 and Rafale tandem) will result in a logistical nightmare. And it's not just the AMRAAM. South Korea also won't have access to JDAMs, JSOWs, AGM-130, etc. etc. if it went for the Rafale.

you forget US is reluctant to transfer its tech to the purchaser, look at the last Bresilian FX program for example, why the F-16 was discarded since the beginning ?

as you said, South Korea already had a huge inventory of American weapons, but South Korean pilots prefered the Rafale during the trial
it seems you underestimate the importance of the offsets and of the politics in in this kind of deals

for the rest, look at the air force inventory of India for example which use French and Russian airplanes and weapons, which plans to acquire 126 Mirage 2000-5s, or Greece and Taiwan for the Mirage 2000-5 and F-16 tandems, the weapons you don't want to mention seem to fit them well

now, Rafale for Singapor ?
wait and see p-)

[Pégase]

Posted on Apr. 2004
F-35's price tag balloons again

Lockheed Martin's joint strike fighter program, already the largest weapons program ever, has become $45 billion, or 23 percent, more expensive since June, the Pentagon said.

The program jumped in cost to $244 billion -- including research, development and procurement of 2,457 aircraft -- from $199 billion.

The increase stems from new Lockheed estimates of direct labor and overhead rates, extension of the current development phase by at least a year and delay of first procurement by one year, the Pentagon says in a listing of the costs of major weapons systems.

The newly disclosed price tag may increase scrutiny of an aircraft program that's already under examination by Congress and the Pentagon because of increased costs and an increase in weight in the most complicated version of the three aircraft being developed for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and the British Royal Navy.

"Lockheed Martin is still under the original $18.9 billion system development and design contract," company spokesman Tom Jurkowsky said. "There are no production negotiations completed or signed. The Pentagon document is a planning document to lay out total program budget over the life of a program -- in this case approximately 40 years."

Almost $14 billion of the new costs is attributable to revised labor and overheard rates, and $7.5 billion to extend to 12 years from 11 the ongoing system development and design phase announced this year.

The delay in the first delivery to 2007 from 2006 to allow more time for weight reduction efforts and reduction in aircraft quantities through 2009 will drive up costs by $5.5 billion, the Pentagon says.

The program is intended to build three models of an aircraft with 80 percent common parts. The Pentagon spent $9 billion through Sept. 30 to develop and purchase 2,457 aircraft.

The new figures were disclosed in a semiannual compilation of acquisition costs for the top 78 systems, which stands at $1.33 trillion, up $73 billion from last year.
By Tony Capaccio

Bloomberg News

[Parzival]

Why aren't they buy Eurofighter?

[Adri]

well I hope we buy the SU-37 :D
just cause it can do does fancy manuvers p-)

but, I was quit disapointed to hear that the export version of the F-35 will be downgraded, I was looking forward to seeing norwegian marks on that bird but now....what's the point of having a airplane wich looks like a very good air plane but isn't better then any thing els....

for the gripen, it is a very cappable plane wich can carry many diferent weapons and it will be the best buy for norwegian industri...also for the swedish industry..

when I first saw this topic i though, oh **** those damned politicians !
but after some thinking....
this is a great chance to create a strong scandinavian weapon industry, NAMO is allready producing amunition wich is state of the art and in sweden they have some of the best tanks in the world, over here in norway we produce ships to our modern viking fleat....we are missing some flying vikings !

[bloddyaxe]

ee Flying Vikings... we have them
http://www.verslo.is/baldur/640/TF-SYN_b_640.jpg
OK, its a Fokker F27 with extra fuel tanks and some equipment, but still, vikings onboard if needed...high tech

[Midav]

It might do good if you read what I wrote completely, otherwise you'll no doubt misunderstand my meaning.


Ditto :)


It doesn't just utilize some russian technology. Its complete layout and engines are based on the Yak 41/141. You know they bought everything to know about that plane from Yakovlev OBK. Just look at them and compare, the F-35 is certainly more advanced, but it is still just a "modernized" Yak. Not that its bad.

I beg to differ. The idea of lift + lift/cruise originated with several aircraft from the 1960's.

http://208.56.150.96/wheel/images/VSTOLWheel/pics/30.jpg


The supersonic VJ 101C, built by the German EWR ("Consortium") of Messerschmitt, Heinkel and Bölkow, employed a lift plus lift/cruise propulsion concept, powered by six Rolls-Royce/MTU RB.145 turbojet engines. Two of these engines were mounted in tandem aft of the cockpit; the other four engines were in pairs in wingtip swivelling nacelles. On the second of the two experimental aircraft, the VJ 101C X2, the wingtip mounted engines were equipped with afterburners which increased their available thrust from 2,750 to 3,650 pounds each. The first VJ 101C hovering flight occurred on 10 April 1963, and the first horizontal takeoff was accomplished on 31 August 1963. A double transition (vertical takeoff through conventional flight followed by a vertical landing) was achieved on the sixth flight on 20 September 1963. The non-afterburning X1 became the world's first supersonic V/STOL aircraft in July 1964 when it broke the sound barrier in a shallow dive. This aircraft was lost in an accident on 14 September 1964. This occurred when the aircraft became uncontrollable immediately after a horizontal takeoff. The pilot ejected at an altitude of ten feet during an uncommanded roll. He survived but suffered crushed vertebrae. The accident was found to have been caused by a roll-rate gyro which had been installed with reversed polarity. Prior to its loss, the VJ 101C X1 had completed 40 aerodynamic flights, 14 full transition flights and the Hannover Air Show presentation on 3 May 1964. The VJ 101C X2 flew its first hovering free flights on 12 June but did not attempt to use its afterburning capabilities for vertical takeoffs until 10 October 1964; within two weeks, the VJ 101C X2 demonstrated complete transitions from vertical to horizontal flight and back to a vertical landing using afterburning. It suffered from high temperature and erosion issues, and crashed when it ingested hot exhaust gases and suffered a significant thrust loss while attempting to land on an elevated platform. The rotating nacelle design was abandoned, and the proposed follow-on, the VJ 101D, dispensed with the wingtip-mounted engines but retained the lift plus lift/cruise propulsion concept. Its use of RB.162 five lift engines and two aft fuselage RB.153 lift/cruise engines (with internal thrust deflectors) was very complex and the VJ 101D was canceled after engine testing had begun.

http://208.56.150.96/wheel/images/VSTOLWheel/pics/32.jpg


In 1964, when the XV-4A (#38) proved unsatisfactory, the remaining Hummingbird was modified with four General Electric J85-GE-19 lift engines (3,000 lb thrust) for hover. Two additional J85 engines provided thrust during horizontal flight. During hover, large diverter valves directed the cruise engine exhaust on each side through the fuselage to a nozzle between the lift engines for additional vertcal thrust. In transition, one lift/cruise engine was diverted, while the other provided forward thrust. Pitch and yaw jets at the nose and tail provided control in hover. Maximum vertical take-off weight was 12,600 lb. The Hummingbird II had a fly-by-wire dual channel autostabilization system. It was rolled out on 4 June 1968 but was destroyed in a crash during a conventional flight on 14 March 1969, without ever making a hover.

http://208.56.150.96/wheel/images/VSTOLWheel/pics/31.jpg


The German Dornier Do 31 project was begun in the early 1960s as a 50,000 lb gross weight vertical take-off and landing military transport plane, capable of lifting 6,000-8,000 lb. It was 68 ft long, with a two pilot crew sitting side by side. It could load 1,470 cubic ft of cargo through the rear loading ramp. It used two 15,500 lb thrust Bristol Pegasus 5-2 engines and eight 4,400 lb thrust Rolls-Royce RB.162-4D engines. The powerplants were divided into four wing-mounted pods - a Pegasus pod and a pod of four lift engines on either side of the fuselage. The lift engine pods were located at the ends of the 59 ft span wing. The lift engine exhaust could be vectored backward or forward 15° for take-off and landing, respectively. The Pegasus could vector exhaust from 30° forward to 80° back. Differential vectoring and thrust levels were used for control in roll and yaw; pitch was affected by a puffer jet in the tail. After almost four years of hover rig tests of increasing size and realism to develop the autostabilization controls, three Do 31 aircraft were built: one each for conventional flight trials, ground testing, and hover and transition research. The first aircraft made a conventional flight without the lift engine pods on 10 February 1967. The third aircraft made the first hover on 22 November 1967. First transition from vertical was on 16 December, and first transition to vertical 6 days later. It continued to fly until it was canceled in April 1970: the large drag and weight of the engine pods reduced the useful payload and range compared to contemporary conventional transports.

A history:

http://www.vstol.org

The basic layout of the F-35 is that of the F/A-22. However, yes, the rear looks similar to the Yak-131.

However, it is not a Russian aircraft. And no pun intended against any Russian posters here.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/november/photos/nov03_frontiers10101_lg.jpg

http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/web/040405-F-0000S-007.jpg

Example: Notice how similar the F/A-22 looks to an F-15?

It's not a McDonnel Douglas aircraft though (again, just as an example).

However, I will agree that the F-35 is a Russian aircraft if you agree that all SAM's are German.

http://www.skyrocket.de/space/img_lau/c2w5_wasserfall_2.jpg

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/mim-104.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/images/pantsyr7s.jpg

[Midav]

Another example:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-111_1.jpg

F-111

http://www.waffenhq.de/flugzeuge/tornado18.jpg

Panavia Tornado

Swing wings, twin engine, single vertical tail. They are not the same aircraft.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/images/b-1b_10s.jpg

US B-1

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/images/tu160_12s.jpg

Russian TU-160

Very much similar as above, just bigger and more engines.

Yes, they look alike, but not the same aircraft.

[AFACadet]

LM did buy all the plans on the Yak-141 and used many design aspects in the F-35.




Does that mean its even in the same universe in regard to technology? No, the Yak-141 doesn't even come close to the F-35 in anything other than flight performance.


At least we bought the plans *coughTu-4cough* *coughSA-7cough* *coughAA-2cough* :lol:

[Midav]

LM did buy all the plans on the Yak-141 and used many design aspects in the F-35.




Does that mean its even in the same universe in regard to technology? No, the Yak-141 doesn't even come close to the F-35 in anything other than flight performance.


At least we bought the plans *coughTu-4cough* *coughSA-7cough* *coughAA-8cough* :lol:

I never denied that. Many of those ideas came from previous endevours, such as lift fans etc...

However, all I am trying to say, the F-35 is not a Russian aircraft.

That idea is a fallacy.

[bloddyaxe]

Sure the F-35 is made in the US, uses american avionics and american stealth technology. But the important part of making it possible to go supersonic is a russian invention. Now which part is most important to the plane, which part could it do without.

In a sence the relationship between the F-35 and the Yak-41/141 is probably more like Sturmgehwer 44 and AK 47.
Except of course financially...

[Midav]

Sure the F-35 is made in the US, uses american avionics and american stealth technology. But the important part of making it possible to go supersonic is a russian invention. Now which part is most important to the plane, which part could it do without.

In a sence the relationship between the F-35 and the Yak-41/141 is probably more like Sturmgehwer 44 and AK 47.
Except of course financially...

I can agree with that to the most part.

However, it also uses British systems, years of trial and error to get it's STOVL tech to work, but, that's another story :)

[Helly]

I disagree. It's actually a big issue in the South Korean FX project since the country already has a substantial inventory of AMRAAMs for its existing F-16s and the AMRAAM is a key weapon for South Korea. Do note that South Korea already has a huge inventory of American weapons and nearly zero for the equivalent French weapons. Having two different aircraft types using two incompatible weapons suite (for the F-16 and Rafale tandem) will result in a logistical nightmare. And it's not just the AMRAAM. South Korea also won't have access to JDAMs, JSOWs, AGM-130, etc. etc. if it went for the Rafale.

you forget US is reluctant to transfer its tech to the purchaser


The US won't authorize the technology transfer that will allow the integration of the AMRAAM (and most probably the AIM-9X) with the Rafale should South Korea go for the French fighter.

Guess you misunderstood one of my previous posts. Nowhere in that post did I say that the US is not authorizing the technology transfer to France (although that's also true) and not South Korea. Since my post deals with South Korea's FX program, everything I posted there is applicable to South Korea, the "purchaser",



as you said, South Korea already had a huge inventory of American weapons, but South Korean pilots prefered the Rafale during the trial
it seems you underestimate the importance of the offsets and of the politics in in this kind of deals

Huh? You seem to be confused. If I'm the one underestimating "the importance of the offsets and of the politics in this kind of deals", whatever that means, I would have supported the Rafale since the "South Korean pilots prefered the Rafale during the trial", right?

But the fact that I'm all for South Korea going for the F-15K completely points to the opposite. Maybe you're the one doing the underestimating and is completely relying on the Rafale's technical merits instead of the whole picture.



for the rest, look at the air force inventory of India for example which use French and Russian airplanes and weapons, which plans to acquire 126 Mirage 2000-5s, or Greece and Taiwan for the Mirage 2000-5 and F-16 tandems, the weapons you don't want to mention seem to fit them well

What are you talking about? Weapons that I don't want to mention seem to fit them well? Say again? In case you forgot, the original issue is about the lack of AIM-120 AMRAAM integration with the Dassault Rafale. Not about the availability of an equivalent AAM for French fighters like the Rafale. But then the same thing also applies to "weapons". A French equivalent to say, the GBU-24 LGB that can be carried on say, the Mirage 2000 doesn't mean that the Mirage 2000 can carry the GBU-24.

Again, you seem to be confused, especially about what exactly the AMRAAM is. One of your previous posts states that:



for the air to air missiles, the ASRAAM of the Rafale, the Magic II is perfectly integrated, same for the BVR Mica EM and Mica IR which are the AMRAAM of the Rafale ( plus the Mica IR can also perform ASRAAM !) as you know, this is for France

The Mica EM/IR and the AMRAAM (AIM-120) are two completely different missiles! Saying that the Mica EM/IR is "The AMRAAM of the Rafale" is inaccurate. It should be "the Mica is the French equivalent to the AMRAAM". Seems like you're confusing AMRAAM/Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile with the terms "medium-range missile" or "BVR/Beyond Visual Range missile". "AMRAAM" is the designation of a missile system, not a term that is interchangeable with "media-range missile" or "BVR/Beyong Visual Range missile".

Same goes for the Magic II and ASRAAM comparison you made. The term ASRAAM is not interchangeable with the terms "short-range missile" or "WVR/Within Visual Range missile".

[Adri]

when I first saw the F-35 on a picture I though it looked like ****....but now, it's damn nice ! (but I still like the SU-37 cause of it's manuvers....and the JAS-39 still looks like....well.....)

and ALL the planes you have noticed is a ripoff from Germany ! ;)
(me-282...or was it 182...doesn't remember)

[Adri]

btw does someone have some REALY good movies which showes F-35, SU-37 or JAS-39 (or any other plane....)

[cold0]

cold0 wrote:
EuroFlubber


it is Eurofighter

Sorry, it's a joke. :D

It's the denigratory surname given by Kurt Plummer to the Eurofighter on agig.org board.