Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Planetís Best Stealth Fighter Isnít Made in America
Daily Beast ^ | March 24, 2014 | Bill Sweetman

Posted on 03/24/2014 7:04:13 AM PDT by C19fan

In 2005, Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35, the stealthy new jet they were building for the Pentagon, as a “fifth-generation” fighter. Ironically, it was a term that they had borrowed from Russia to describe a different stealthy fighter, the F-22. But the term caught on. Some of Lockheed’s rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable—whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab—yes, that Saab—can argue that it has built the first such aircraft. The Swedish plane has got a mouthful of a name: the JAS 39E Gripen. But it could well be the future of air combat.

(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: griffen; stealth; sweden
The person at the Daily Beast who came up with the headline is ignorant. There is nothing stealthy about the Swedish Gripen. That is why these and similar fighters, for example, the Eurofighter Typhoon, are called 4.5 generation aircraft. There is a good point about the Gripen being a viable cheaper alternative for most of the world's air force's needs given the costs of the F-35.
1 posted on 03/24/2014 7:04:13 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C19fan

External hard points and stealth do not work well together.


2 posted on 03/24/2014 7:08:30 AM PDT by edpc (Wilby 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Here 'tis.

3 posted on 03/24/2014 7:10:01 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

There’s been increased talk in recent years about active stealth (ie active radar cancellation measures). Most of it focused on the Rafale, but the small (F-5 sized) Gripen would be an excellent platform for such ...


4 posted on 03/24/2014 7:12:16 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Thanks, have been wanting to see one for a while now.


5 posted on 03/24/2014 7:14:48 AM PDT by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Why spend untold billions on stealth technology when Boeing obviously with the 777 has built a commercial aircraft totally invisible to radar and visual detection. Maybe Boeing could just build a smaller version for the stealth fleet. /S


6 posted on 03/24/2014 7:18:43 AM PDT by redcatcherb412
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

I see it , Oh wait it’s a F-35 ,LOL


7 posted on 03/24/2014 7:20:16 AM PDT by molson209 (Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
There is a good point about the Gripen being a viable cheaper alternative for most of the world's air force's needs given the costs of the F-35.

Yeah, like a block 52 F-16.

8 posted on 03/24/2014 7:20:54 AM PDT by zipper ("The Second Amendment IS my carry permit!" -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

I was wondering about the problem of the “unexplainable blank place” actually pointing out where the plane is.

“Look at that moving ‘hole’ on the radar! That ‘nothing’ thing is coming right for us!”

There’s a similar thing I’ve run into with email failure reporting. Due to various spam related reasons, email providers can’t tell me me that ‘X’ reason is why they won’t deliver an email. However, they can tell me every OTHER reason it can’t be delivered. I think you can deduce how that’s going to work out.


9 posted on 03/24/2014 7:22:44 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Shamelessly stolen from JRios's post on last Friday's silliness thread:

 photo MalaysianStealth_zps66842f54.jpg

10 posted on 03/24/2014 7:24:09 AM PDT by mykroar (We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again. - Nathanael Greene)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Given the overall cost structure of modern combat aircraft VS the lowering of cost of miniturized components and software processing capability, I’m surprised that some entity hasn’t pitched stealth and speed aside for bulkier non-stealth platforms containing close engagement defense systems that are designed to defeat AA missiles on their terminal approaches.


11 posted on 03/24/2014 7:26:52 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I’m probably being naive, but I’m still not sure why we even need the F-35, especially given the incredible cost. Aren’t they over a BILLION dollars EACH? We just simply can’t afford that!

Are our existing fighters not good enough? Do we even have any real air-to-air engagements anymore in the first place? Wasn’t Korea the last war we had where there were frequent ‘dogfights’? I know there were occasional air-to-air engagements in Vietnam, but it was nothing like Korea.

To me, the f-35 seems to be nothing more than a grand ‘Make Work’ Project. At least the money is being spent to produce something, assuming it would otherwise be wasted elsewhere anyway.


12 posted on 03/24/2014 7:35:46 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
I’m surprised that some entity hasn’t pitched stealth and speed aside for bulkier non-stealth platforms containing close engagement defense systems that are designed to defeat AA missiles on their terminal approaches.

They have. Is this bulky enough for you?


13 posted on 03/24/2014 7:37:03 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
....nothing stealthy about the Swedish Gripen.

Of course not. Those Third World customers like to see what the heck they are buying.

BTW, although not much stealth here, The Gripen is beautiful in a hip mod-av-design sort of way, a cross between French, NATO, Russki, Murkan, ideas and with one engine, probably gets good fuel mileage. (Yo Sven, make the canard bigger, and think about a racing stripe?)

Speaking of which, being sort of well ...small...isn't it going to need lots of external tanks and frequent refueling for those long trips? OK, but again, not "stealth."

14 posted on 03/24/2014 7:45:09 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk ( The Republican Party is very sick . Hold all contributions until we see who picks up the patient..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

Crap Won’t it shoot?


15 posted on 03/24/2014 8:17:17 AM PDT by frithguild (The warmth and goodness of Gaia is a nuclear reactor in the Earth's core that burns Thorium)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

I am no fan of the F-35, more of a F-22 guy.

Nonetheless, when you say “ Aren’t they over a BILLION dollars EACH?” I have to let you know, no, they are not that costly. Not even close.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140310-041.pdf

Click on Comptroller Exhibit P-1, go to P-1 Line 1, page1 of 26. This budget document for FY14 reports current cost at $149.715M (million) per jet.

There are previous years listed and out-year estimates and they list different cost-per-jet prices. This has to do with suppliers and production costs and the number of jets.

You can also see the cost-per-jet is projected to drop to $104.883M per-jet by 2019, ending at an average of $121.125M per-jet.

At any rate, as you can see, the cost-per-jet is no where near the “billion dollars each” mark.


16 posted on 03/24/2014 8:34:39 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Oh, and “Do we even have any real air-to-air engagements anymore in the first place? Wasn’t Korea the last war we had where there were frequent ‘dogfights’? “. . .no. Gulf War I we had a few engagements and most kills were via the F-15.

The strength of stealth is the fact you can see and shoot the bad guy and he never sees you. You try and avoid a “dog-fight” if you are flying a fighter. Why close to the merge when you don’t have to, and if you do close to the merge, you want to remain ‘invisible’ as long as possible in order to give you the advantage.

The question I think is this; do we want to produce jets as good as the bad guys, or do we want to produce jets as good as we can make them?

Modern A/A warfare is not like it was in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or even Gulf War I.


17 posted on 03/24/2014 8:39:34 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

SAAB ought to include stealth tech in their autos. Being invisible to police radar is a plus!

;^)


18 posted on 03/24/2014 8:57:44 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Great gif!


19 posted on 03/24/2014 9:13:13 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (I live in NJ....' Nuff said!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
The strength of stealth is the fact you can see and shoot the bad guy and he never sees you. You try and avoid a “dog-fight” if you are flying a fighter.

If your goal is to fly around and shoot down other fighters than I'd agree with this. However I'd say most missions would be to put weapons precisely on targets which are otherwise inaccessible. To do so, you need to fly past the enemies' air defense network of radars and surface to air missiles. You don't want the ground radars seeing you, and if they do, you don't want the missiles to be able to hone in on you. Hence stealth.

If our only potential enemies were third world nations with archaic defense networks, well then we don't need good new planes, just planes that are better than theirs (and their missiles). But if you want to be prepared to go against China or Russia or rogues armed by them, then you need something better.

20 posted on 03/24/2014 9:49:36 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

21 posted on 03/24/2014 10:51:50 AM PDT by JRios1968 (I'm guttery and trashy, with a hint of lemon. - Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
Won’t it shoot?

It shoots fine. Phalanx CIWS is a great weapon system. It's just kinda bulky. And heavy. And draggy (if used on an aircraft). And you need several of them to get full coverage. This is the current US solution to what the poster recommended. I don't really think that an active shoot-down defense even if you allowed 'bulkier, non-stealth systems' is the way for aircraft to go.
22 posted on 03/24/2014 11:26:33 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
You try and avoid a “dog-fight” if you are flying a fighter. Why close to the merge when you don’t have to, and if you do close to the merge, you want to remain ‘invisible’ as long as possible in order to give you the advantage.

During the operational test and evaluation of the F-22, they asked one of the F-15 pilots how hard it was to fight an F-22 with an F-15. Now you have to remember, all fighter pilots think they fly the greatest aircraft ever, and besides, even if it wasn't their skill would make them the winner. So you could expect an F-15 pilot to talk about how he could beat even an F-22. In fact, he said, "It's easy."

The rest of his comment was, "You go up. You die. You hit the tanker and refuel. You die. You hit the tanker again. You die again. And that's a sortie."
23 posted on 03/24/2014 11:33:54 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

To clarify your point, fighter are designed to shoot down other fighters and stealth allows a level of ‘sneakiness’ to do so.

Strike aircraft are the ones that drop bombs, if the platform can also be used as a ‘fighter.’ The F-15E is an excellent fighter/bomber (’strike’) aircraft.

The F-22 can be used to blind the enemy because they can do so without being seen, rush in, drop a JDAM or SDB and never be seen, thereby opening the door for the non-stealthy F-15E to run in and drop bombs in great numbers and with great effect.

Strategic strike like the B-1’s and Next Gen Bomber are something else.

Other nations are buying 4th-gen fighters from Russia and China and that is what we build against. . .the platform.

To be sure, a third-world camel jockey pilot is still a third-world camel jockey pilot even if he is flying a first world advanced jet. See Iraq in Gulf War 1 for example.

While we produce the best pilots in the world, along with the RAF and RAAF, we must always be prepared to fight those that might not be camel jocks. That is why we build to the fighter. There is no guarantee we will NOT end up fighting a capable enemy behind the stick. We should not bet our national security that all we will ever face is some third-world camel jock.


24 posted on 03/24/2014 11:40:49 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Modern A/A warfare is not like it was in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or even Gulf War I.

The problem with your statement is ignoring the role of EW in denying the stand-off weapon advantage. There will never be 100% hits regardless, missiles are just not that good and never will be.

25 posted on 03/24/2014 12:14:01 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
To clarify your point, fighter are designed to shoot down other fighters and stealth allows a level of ‘sneakiness’ to do so.

The F-35 is a Strike Fighter (the SF in JSF) and it's not really designed to slug it out with other fighters, it's designed to deliver air to surface strikes. You don't want your $100+M JSF getting hit by a lucky shot from some old fashioned and otherwise obsolete 25 year old Russian military surplus jet. Evade, get the to the target, deliver the goods then disappear.

26 posted on 03/24/2014 12:26:28 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

LOL!


27 posted on 03/24/2014 12:30:42 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I was wondering about the problem of the “unexplainable blank place” actually pointing out where the plane is.

“Look at that moving ‘hole’ on the radar! That ‘nothing’ thing is coming right for us!”

LOL! Isn't that how Kirk and his crew spotted Romulans and Klingons that were cloaked?

28 posted on 03/24/2014 2:07:15 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

Didn’t mention the JHMCS either.

Was speaking about the environment.


29 posted on 03/24/2014 2:23:47 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

Wasn’t talking about JSF. Was talking about F-22.

JSF isn’t worth a darn in A/G configuration.

Should have focused on F-22 and let the F-15E carry the mail for A/G.


30 posted on 03/24/2014 2:25:34 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer
The Aircraft as a bulkier, non stealth platform. Bearing small on board anti missile systems.
31 posted on 03/25/2014 8:05:19 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
Bearing small on board anti missile systems.

Powered, no doubt, by pixie dust. In the real world, things are not so simple.

The reason Phalanx is so big is not just because they wanted it to be bulky. It takes a good sized shell to have a reasonable assurance of a kill on the incoming target. It takes a good sized radar to track the target and (in the case of Phalanx) also track the outbound shells to correct aim. It takes a fair sized magazine to have a chance at multiple targets in the same sector. It takes a good field of regard, which means azimuth-elevation movement, and multiple units in order to provide coverage over a meaningful sector (consider all the turrets on a B-17).

The bottom line is that providing active anti-missile defense is analogous to providing active anti-fighter defense for a WWII bomber. It's heavy, draggy, and consumes a lot of volume/power. Before you get to the point where you have a fair confidence you have an effective defense, you're no longer a 'fighter' or 'attack' aircraft. You're a "Flying Fortress" and cost as much as a (new-build) B-1, yet with the payload/range of an F-35.

My point in the post was that it's not as easy as you assume. The physics/engineering shows that reducing incoming missile probability of kill can be done more effectively with stealth and/or countermeasures such as chaff and flares than with active kill-the-attacking-missile defense. Perhaps that will change some day when particle beam weapons or other 'death rays' mature, but not in the near future.
32 posted on 03/30/2014 12:58:25 PM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

I’m not assuming it’s easy, and I also assumed increased weight and drag, but missiles are frail, and another vulnerability of theirs is that they have a package designed to go boom.

many of them are going to terminal in on heat. Your anti missile device could target a narrow probability cone for any given one unit and fire flechette clusters or something along that line.

You know, when you think about it, a low tech force fielding a lot of prop aircraft could probably kick ass on a lot of current high tech forces, through numbers and creative means of getting the enemy to waste their very finite SAM capacity.

It’d be interesting to game it out...


33 posted on 03/30/2014 5:00:06 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
Your anti missile device could target a narrow probability cone for any given one unit and fire flechette clusters or something along that line.

More pixie dust.
34 posted on 03/31/2014 4:15:06 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

Whatever, condescending asshat...


35 posted on 03/31/2014 7:36:24 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson