A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 9th 08, 09:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Mike[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

The Weekly Standard

The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM


Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
Generation Gripen"
(Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.

As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
configuration.

The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
on the front end.)

But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
own modifications and integration of weapon systems.

But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
based.

There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
(A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
the "MiG-35,"
although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
configuration.)

Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
nations that are also part of the program.

Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.

Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
million per copy.
This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
Gripen purchase instead.)

The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
the U.S.
dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."

The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.

(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)

F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.

Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
combat or air defence environment.

There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.

The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
similarly truncated service lives?

(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
much more advanced F-22A.)

On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.

The JAS-39, because of its reasonable cost and the many improvements
made in the Gripen N/G configuration, is one of the odds-on favourites
in this competition. Eurofighter, the MiG-35, Rafale, F-16, and F/A-18
are all in the bidding, but the Swedish bid is considered by some to
be the one proposal that will meet all of India's requirements.
(Gripen's India-based team were carrying the shrink-wrapped proposal
in their cabin baggage on the flight back to New Delhi after this
week's rollout ceremony.)

How India decides will say a lot about how the future military
aircraft business develops worldwide. If New Delhi's decision makers
opt for the Gripen, the whole concept of teaming and multinational
program needs to be re-examined - as does the heavy US emphasis on RCS
as the primary design criteria. With other future military programs
starting to form up as more "team" projects, such as the USAF Next
Generation Bomber (NGB), these are considerations that need to be
addressed now rather than later.

Reuben F. Johnson is a contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
  #2  
Old May 9th 08, 09:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Douglas Eagleson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike wrote:
The Weekly Standard

The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM

Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
Generation Gripen"
(Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.

As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
configuration.

The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
on the front end.)

But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
own modifications and integration of weapon systems.

But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
based.

There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
(A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
the "MiG-35,"
although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
configuration.)

Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
nations that are also part of the program.

Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.

Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
million per copy.
This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
Gripen purchase instead.)

The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
the U.S.
dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."

The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.

(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)

F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.

Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
combat or air defence environment.

There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.

The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
similarly truncated service lives?

(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
much more advanced F-22A.)

On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.

The JAS-39, because of its reasonable cost and the many improvements
made in the Gripen N/G configuration, is one of the odds-on favourites
in this competition. Eurofighter, the MiG-35, Rafale, F-16, and F/A-18
are all in the bidding, but the Swedish bid is considered by some to
be the one proposal that will meet all of India's requirements.
(Gripen's India-based team were carrying the shrink-wrapped proposal
in their cabin baggage on the flight back to New Delhi after this
week's rollout ceremony.)

How India decides will say a lot about how the future military
aircraft business develops worldwide. If New Delhi's decision makers
opt for the Gripen, the whole concept of teaming and multinational
program needs to be re-examined - as does the heavy US emphasis on RCS
as the primary design criteria. With other future military programs
starting to form up as more "team" projects, such as the USAF Next
Generation Bomber (NGB), these are considerations that need to be
addressed now rather than later.

Reuben F. Johnson is a contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.


This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.

A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.

It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.

And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.

  #3  
Old May 9th 08, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Douglas Eagleson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 9, 1:48*pm, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike wrote:



The Weekly Standard


The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM


Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
Generation Gripen"
(Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.


As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
configuration.


The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
on the front end.)


But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.


What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
own modifications and integration of weapon systems.


But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
based.


There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
(A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
the "MiG-35,"
although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
configuration.)


Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
nations that are also part of the program.


Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.


Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
million per copy.
This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
Gripen purchase instead.)


The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
the U.S.
dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."


The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.


(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)


F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.


Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
combat or air defence environment.


There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.


The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
similarly truncated service lives?


(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--


...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Another manuever the canard allows is form straight and level, roll to
a 45 degree bank, full back on the stick, as vertical is passed FULL
forward on the stick. A type of stall that the canard can recover
from easily.

Inverted stability control is way a ok.

  #4  
Old May 9th 08, 10:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:


This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.


You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?

A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.


You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?

It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.


Speed is speed. Up, down or level.

And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.


And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?

Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org
  #5  
Old May 9th 08, 11:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dean A. Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:

This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.


You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?
A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.


You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?
It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.


Speed is speed. Up, down or level.
And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.


And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?

Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

Well Ed, I was half expecting a blonde babe from the posting title.

Dean
  #6  
Old May 9th 08, 11:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Douglas Eagleson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 9, 2:45*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:

This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. *As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.


You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?



A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.


You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?



It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.


Speed is speed. Up, down or level.



And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. *A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.


And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?

Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org


A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
appears to be flying.

WWWWWWCGWWW WWW

WWW is the canard winglet.

The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
the direction of stall always.

And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
a fundamentally unstable design. If you stall, then it is
recoverable.

If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.
  #7  
Old May 9th 08, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Douglas Eagleson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 9, 3:27*pm, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On May 9, 2:45*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:





On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson


wrote:


This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. *As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.


You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?


A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.


You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?


It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.


Speed is speed. Up, down or level.


And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. *A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.


And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?


Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org


A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
appears to be flying.

WWWWWWCGWWW * * * WWW

WWW is the canard winglet.

The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
the direction of stall always.

And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
a fundamentally unstable design. *If you stall, then it is
recoverable.

If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I meant a mig-35 with its true canard. It needs to be addressed
because USA designers fail to understand the lack of certain maneuver
capability in combat.

It should not be hard to test the two. And then add the manuever the
uSA designs can nOT perform.
  #8  
Old May 9th 08, 11:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
eyeball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 9, 6:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On May 9, 2:45 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:



On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson


wrote:


This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.


You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?


A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.


You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?


It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.


Speed is speed. Up, down or level.


And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.


And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?


Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org


A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
appears to be flying.

WWWWWWCGWWW WWW

WWW is the canard winglet.

The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
the direction of stall always.

And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
a fundamentally unstable design. If you stall, then it is
recoverable.

If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.


Such a critical failure that the US is the only real super power...
  #9  
Old May 9th 08, 11:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Richard Casady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?


I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
for many years.

Casady
  #10  
Old May 10th 08, 12:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
snip


The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.


The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
long time to recover.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LETS BUILD A MODEL PLANE adelsonsl Aviation Photos 1 May 16th 07 11:10 PM
Swedish! Owning 3 March 3rd 06 01:44 AM
The end of the Saab Viggen - The legendary Swedish jet fighter Iwan Bogels Simulators 0 April 19th 05 07:22 PM
The Very Last Operational New German Fighter Model Of WW2 Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 13 January 13th 04 04:31 PM
RV Quick Build build times... [email protected] Home Built 2 December 17th 03 04:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.