The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America

Daily Beast ^ | March 24, 2014 | Bill Sweetman

[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.

[C19fan]

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.

[edpc]

External hard points and stealth do not work well together.

[martin_fierro]

Here 'tis.

[tanknetter]

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 ...

[Quick Shot]

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

[redcatcherb412]

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

[molson209]

I see it , Oh wait it’s a F-35 ,LOL

[zipper]

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.

[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!”

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.

[mykroar]

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

[Axenolith]

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.

[KoRn]

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.

[Phlyer]

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?

[Kenny Bunk]

....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."

[frithguild]

Crap Won’t it shoot?

[Hulka]

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.

[Hulka]

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.

[JimRed]

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

;^)

[Focault's Pendulum]

Great gif!

[pepsi_junkie]

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.