Skip to comments.The Planetís Best Stealth Fighter Isnít Made in America
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 Lockheeds rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that fourth-generation was just as capablewhether 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. Saabyes, that Saabcan 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 ...
External hard points and stealth do not work well together.
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 ...
Thanks, have been wanting to see one for a while now.
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
I see it , Oh wait it’s a F-35 ,LOL
Yeah, like a block 52 F-16.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Crap Won’t it shoot?
I am no fan of the F-35, more of a F-22 guy.
Nonetheless, when you say “ Arent they over a BILLION dollars EACH?” I have to let you know, no, they are not that costly. Not even close.
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.
Oh, and “Do we even have any real air-to-air engagements anymore in the first place? Wasnt 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.
SAAB ought to include stealth tech in their autos. Being invisible to police radar is a plus!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Didn’t mention the JHMCS either.
Was speaking about the environment.
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.
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...
Whatever, condescending asshat...