Spanish Air Force

[Aussie Digger]

But the F-18 (the fighter which would replace) is a twin-engine
For replacing a twin-engine I want another one.

It's been demonstrated plenty of times that a twin-engine is much more reliable than a plane with just 1 engine.

Tell that to the residents of San Diego California...

Anyway, actually it hasn't. The most reliable modern fighter jets in-service are the USAF current F-16s...

And if you use all those hard points the stealth capability goes down .
And if a F-35 is not stealth (and remember that our version wouldn't be as stealth as the american one) then .... what's the good point about the F-35? It's like another F-16 (well, with several electronic improvements and so).

1. The radar cross section of the F-35 will increase if it carries weapons, that is true. However, it's frontal RCS will still be lower than any other fighter (bar the F-22) and the LO treatments in relation to IR signature and it's emcon (emission control) features will not be affected in the slightest by external weapons carriage. It's "stealth" as you call it, will still be greater than any other fighter, even carrying external weapons.

ANY other fighter Spain can operate however in the next 20 years, can not operate in a VLO configuration. F-35 can. No other STOVL fighter will be developed in the next 20 years.

Interesting tactical opportunities present themselves when operating a "stealth/legacy jet" force with "sleepers" operating in full VLO condition operating alongside "visible" jets...

Such a tactic is impossible without the VLO...

I know, and that's why I prefer to buy a plane at 100 % of capabilities, like the EF-2000 or another one.

Unfortunately such generic statements are meaningless. We are not talking about mathematical equations here, but combat aircraft.

What percentage of the US capability will Spain get?

How does that percentage compare to the known capability of Spain's in-service aircraft and potential threats?

What are the costs involved?

Preferences are all well and good, but it is a silly way of measuring potential combat capability...

If I want a plane for replacing our F-18 I want it to be more capable in all characteristics.
And yes, the F-35 is more capable than the F-18 ... but not enough in my opinion.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the US Government GAO report on F-35 effectiveness, compared to legacy US Navy aircraft (including the F/A-18)?

It's available here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

In short the GAO, a known F-35 critic, rates the F-35 as:

- 9 times more capable than AV-8B Harrier II

- 5 times more capable than F/A-18A+ (USMC variant) and F/A-18C/D (USN variant)

- 50% more capable than F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet.

I tend to think it might be capable enough... (Page 11, this information can be found).

If we want a fast plane which can carry more weapons and we don't focus in the stealth capability the option is the EF-2000, not the F-35.

But that's half the problem right there. Planes that HAVE to carry external stores, generate enormous amounts of drag, which affects performance, speed and agility.

A Eurofighter Typhoon, loaded up with the same amount of fuel (it needs external tanks to match the F-35's internal fuel load) as the F-35 and the usual weapons load of 2x 2000lbs and 2x AMRAAM will not be any "faster" because of parasitic drag.

And in fact I consider more important the speed and weapon capabilities than the stealth (If the F-35 carries all the weapons loses its stealth capability).

Reality doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

Large external stores create drag, which decreases potential performance. (Drag directly affects acceleration and top speed). Carrying your weapons and fuel internally means you have less overall drag, even though internal weapons and that much fuel, forces a "boxy" airframe design, the drag penalty of the "boxy design" is FAR less than the drag penalty on external stores.

Large external stores, limit your agility, because of vibration and "G force limits" on the carriage of external stores. A clean Typhoon might be a more agile aircraft than the F-35, and I say "might" because virtually no-one actually knows for sure and those that might are unlikely to say so, but clean performance is irrelevant when discussing combat, because no aircraft will enter combat "clean".

Because of this, a Typhoon loaded up with 3x external tanks (what it needs to match the F-35's internal fuel load), 2x 2000lbs weapons and 2x AMRAAM, plus a targeting pod, all carried externally will not be more agile than the F-35 carrying the same load, internally.

Yes, one can argue that the Typhoon can "punch off" it's external stores and regain the possible performance and agility advantage it possesses, however that option has a name. It's called a "mission kill" which means the Typhoon is prevented from conducting it's mission.

I'm not sure that is a sound method of achieving one's aims on a regular basis...

Maybe, but I still think that developing a new plane is a good option, as we design what exactly we want, and of course it's good for our industry.

A project like this woulkd take us about 15 years to develop, so I consider it's a fair period of time for replacing our F-18.


Cheers

Design is always a compromise. Even the F-22 has compromises which effect overall capability.

The budget available to Spain, Germany and France combined, does not begin to approach the budget the USA has invested in it's 5th Generation fighter aircraft, and whilst this method of assessment is simplistic, it's rather arrogant to believe, in my opinion, that achieving or exceeding what the US has achieved, can be done so on a massively smaller budget...

 

[Aussie Digger]

if you use all these points to bear arms loses much stealth capabilities, "the main attraction of this airplane."

Much but not all and no-one ever said that EVERY fighter in a fighter package has to carry external weapons...

Some "sleeper" aircraft with "full stealth" and some with less "stealth" but more weapons, will be a VERY dangerous combination to try and fight...

 

[Alonso Quijano]

Much but not all and no-one ever said that EVERY fighter in a fighter package has to carry external weapons...

Some "sleeper" aircraft with "full stealth" and some with less "stealth" but more weapons, will be a VERY dangerous combination to try and fight...

many people believed so, I found this on a forum:

is an airplane that is very young, the countries that have contributed to it have done so only with money, the U.S. technology shares, and when they will arrive safely to the aircraft many bugs and polishing things. If you buy after you arrive later, OK, but you have already tried a product with fewer bugs.

Then there is what its supposed stealth, the F-35 takes very little of arms, and you will most ultilice that most of the time outside with weapons, so all you have paid for the stealthy, is to shit.

The plane will not stop gaining weight (and price), was initially assumed that was going to be a lightweight fighter, F-16, but is becoming an obese, like the F-16 also, the difference is that the F-16 was doing as they grew, that allowed the engine (had a bestial drive), but the F-35 and comes directly obese, and not change the engine will hold little more = money yet.

 

[ROCK45]

Lightweight

I would not classified an F-16 a lightweight fighter anymore not since the Block-40 stage, it's grown.

Alonso Quijano
was initially assumed that was going to be a lightweight fighter,

Why would assume a F-35 would to be a lightweight fighter for?

Alonso Quijano let them finished making it first maybe you'll change your mind once a more finished product is released?

My two cents I think the F-35 will be used basically like a F-16/18 bomb truck and not in a stealth mode most of the time. That 40,000 lbs thrust plus engine will haul a lot of iron to the target. Or used in a mixed role first clear any air threat and then bomb the the hell out it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

many people believed so, I found this on a forum:

is an airplane that is very young, the countries that have contributed to it have done so only with money, the U.S. technology shares, and when they will arrive safely to the aircraft many bugs and polishing things. If you buy after you arrive later, OK, but you have already tried a product with fewer bugs.

Then there is what its supposed stealth, the F-35 takes very little of arms, and you will most ultilice that most of the time outside with weapons, so all you have paid for the stealthy, is to shit.

The plane will not stop gaining weight (and price), was initially assumed that was going to be a lightweight fighter, F-16, but is becoming an obese, like the F-16 also, the difference is that the F-16 was doing as they grew, that allowed the engine (had a bestial drive), but the F-35 and comes directly obese, and not change the engine will hold little more = money yet.

What is this supposed to prove? The poor english aside, it shows little to no comprehension of anything to do with air combat whatsoever.

The F-35 is hardly "obese". Obese compared to what?

For instance your F/A-18A's current specs are:

Length: 17.1m.

Span: 12.3m.

Height: 4.7m.

Empty weight: 10,810kgs. (23,782lbs)

Maximum takeoff weight: 25,401kgs. (55,035lbs).

Internal fuel load: 4926kgs. (10732lbs. Internal and external max fuel - 17,553lbs of fuel).

Maximum payload - (external fuel, weapons sensors): 20521lbs (9372kgs).

Weapons payload if max external fuel carried - 4446kgs (9781lbs).

Thrust: 35400lbs.

Here are the specifications of the F-35A:

Length: 15.4m.

Wing span: 10.7m

Height: 4.6m.

Empty weight: 9980kgs (21956lbs).

Maximum takeoff weight: 22,680kgs. (60,000lbs)

Internal fuel only (not even bothering to count external, it's unlikely to ever need it): 8409kgs (18848lbs).

Payload capacity (weapons and external fuel): 18863kgs (41500lbs).

Thrust: 43,000lbs with F-135. F-136 has not yet demonstrated" operational" thrust figures.

What this means is:

1. F-35 is a physically smaller and lighter fighter than the F/A-18A when empty.

2. It has much greater thrust (7600lbs more).

3. It carries more fuel internally than the F/A-18A can even carry in total. (18484lbs versus 17700lbs) and the F-35A has 4 of it's 6 external hard points "plumbed" for external fuel, meaning it could carry 4x external fuel drop tanks if needed.

4. It has a greater capacity to carry weapons than F/A-18A. (18863kgs v 9372kgs). More hard points and ability to carry a greater weight of weapons.

5. The F-35A is at the beginning of it's developmental lifespan. Assuming the F-35A has no "room for growth" is arrogance personified and is plainly wrong in many different respects.

There is absolutely no comparison, between the capabilities of the two aircraft, without even considering the stealth, advanced avionics etc, the F-35 has.

 

[swerve]

...
F-18
Empty weight: 10,810kgs. (23,782lbs)
Maximum takeoff weight: 25,401kgs. (55,035lbs).
Internal fuel load: 4926kgs. (10732lbs. Internal and external max fuel - 17,553lbs of fuel).
Maximum payload - (external fuel, weapons sensors): 20521lbs (9372kgs).
Weapons payload if max external fuel carried - 4446kgs (9781lbs).

Here are the specifications of the F-35A:
Empty weight: 9980kgs (21956lbs).
Maximum takeoff weight: 22,680kgs. (60,000lbs)
Internal fuel only (not even bothering to count external, it's unlikely to ever need it): 8409kgs (18848lbs).
Payload capacity (weapons and external fuel): 18863kgs (41500lbs).

[pedantic mode]
All those conversions are wrong, to some degree. The last is the least bad, just being a conversion from a round figure, using a rounded conversion ratio, to s puriously precise figure. The others, though . . .

Apart from the 22680/60000, where there's obviously been some finger trouble (22680 kg is approximately 50000 lb - 60000 lb is 27215 kg), they're mostly the product of a conversion from round numbers (e.g. 22000) of pounds to kg using a pretty exact conversion ratio (about 2.205 or 2.2046), then converted back using a rounded (2.200) ratio. Some don't even match that.

Tut-tut.
[/pedantic mode]

 

[Alonso Quijano]

calm the F-35 is a big plane, I just put some comments that said many people in other forums ...

Many people in Spain want the F-35 but there are always skeptics who criticize.

My personal opinion is that F-35 is an aircraft that is still not well and tried to do well in Spain to await future results to qualify for purchase.
for now our future is a fleet of typhoons combined with modernized F-18.
It is enough to control our only possible threat, "Morocco."
to a lesser extent Algeria.:nutkick

 

[Aussie Digger]

calm the F-35 is a big plane, I just put some comments that said many people in other forums ...

Many people in Spain want the F-35 but there are always skeptics who criticize.

My personal opinion is that F-35 is an aircraft that is still not well and tried to do well in Spain to await future results to qualify for purchase.
for now our future is a fleet of typhoons combined with modernized F-18.
It is enough to control our only possible threat, "Morocco."
to a lesser extent Algeria.:nutkick

A lot of people believed the world was flat for a long time too. Belief alone didn't make them correct...

Swerve,

Yep, there is a lot of difference in the measurements around. Each of those I took off various sites...

There is no doubt in my mind however that the F-35 is smaller physically and lighter (when empty) than the F/A-18A fighter aircraft.

This if nothing else, disproves the "obese" tag that is commonly given to the platform.

Of course it is heavier when fully loaded, but IF an F/A-18 COULD carry as much fuel and ordnance, then it too would be similarly heavier...

 

[swerve]

...
Swerve,

Yep, there is a lot of difference in the measurements around. Each of those I took off various sites.....

Actually, I wasn't querying the weights themselves (as you say, a lot of variation - and I don't know which ones to believe) but the relationship between the Imperial & metric weights.

 

[Alonso Quijano]

Now Brazil is considering the purchase of 36 new fighters, and this can be extended till buy 100 new fighter jets.
the Brazilian Air Force to select 3 different planes to assess:

F-18 Super Hornet, Dassault, which offered the French Rafale, and Saab, the Swedish Gripen NG offers.
Brazil also has aircraft carrier purchased from France.
Why not evaluate the F-35?, Are the Brazilian people who think the earth is flat?, Or simply the F-35 does not meet your expectations?

 

[Sea Toby]

While the British and the Australians hope to have enough Lightning IIs within ten years, Spain and Brazil know they won't receive any within ten years. If they need aircraft within five years, their only solution if to buy now. They can't afford to wait much longer.

Look at the Australians, they couldn't wait to replace their F-111s another five to ten years and bought a similar number of Super Hornets. But they are waiting for the Lightning IIs to replace their legacy Hornets.

 

[Alonso Quijano]

I read once that Australians were very goats with the delivery of F-35, not even able to saw a F-35 to cope successfully against a Sukhoi 30 or 35 ...
These delays forced you to buy an super hornet and then continue to spend money on F-35.
Spain till within about 10 years will not need a replacement for the F-18, but because Brazil needs it and does not have the F-35, I guess that is why the U.S. refuses to make any transfer of technology.

 

[Templario]

Tell that to the residents of San Diego California...

Anyway, actually it hasn't. The most reliable modern fighter jets in-service are the USAF current F-16s...

But mate, we're not talking about the US Air Force requirements, we're talking about Spanish Air Force requirements, which are very different from the american ones.

Ask the norwegians about their F-16, because they have crashed about the half of the total F-16 they had. Why? I don't really know :unknown, but I assure you that if those planes had been twin-engines they wouldn't have crashed in such number ...

Americans already have many twin-engines, with F-18, F-15 (a fighter I love ) and now F-22 .... they have a huge air force, so they just don't care if they have some fighters with 1 engine. If they crash or something they can afford to replace it without problems.

But Spain? Spain has a small Air Force, so we need a 100 % reliable fighter, and a twin-engine is much more reliable than a 1 engine fighter

(We also have they experience of the Mirages F1, we had about 75 ... now we have 55).

1. The radar cross section of the F-35 will increase if it carries weapons, that is true. However, it's frontal RCS will still be lower than any other fighter (bar the F-22) and the LO treatments in relation to IR signature and it's emcon (emission control) features will not be affected in the slightest by external weapons carriage. It's "stealth" as you call it, will still be greater than any other fighter, even carrying external weapons.

ANY other fighter Spain can operate however in the next 20 years, can not operate in a VLO configuration. F-35 can. No other STOVL fighter will be developed in the next 20 years.

Yes, you're right, the F-35 has many virtues, and that's why we're going to buy it for our Navy .... but I think that's all.

I think it's more probable to buy some Superhornets to replace the older non upgraded hornets than buying F-35.

We still have to wait and see the F-35's performance, and maybe our thoughts change and we decirde to buy it, who knows ... :lol:

Cheers



Ps: By the way, I have updated the photo's thread: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=171250#post171250

Hope u like it

 

[ASFC]

Yes, you're right, the F-35 has many virtues, and that's why we're going to buy it for our Navy .... but I think that's all.

Why, exactly, would any self respecting air force allow its countries naval aviation to own a better fighter aircraft than it does?

If your Navy buys F-35, I suspect that your air force will want some of the action aswell, or at least another platform which is as advanced as it.

That sort of competition does exist between National Air Forces/Service, and shouldn't be discounted quickly. I have watched the Competition between the RAF and FAA here in the UK practically destroy the FAAs fighter/carrier capability.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Now Brazil is considering the purchase of 36 new fighters, and this can be extended till buy 100 new fighter jets.
the Brazilian Air Force to select 3 different planes to assess:

F-18 Super Hornet, Dassault, which offered the French Rafale, and Saab, the Swedish Gripen NG offers.
Brazil also has aircraft carrier purchased from France.
Why not evaluate the F-35?, Are the Brazilian people who think the earth is flat?, Or simply the F-35 does not meet your expectations?

There concern, just like the RAAF with it's acquisition of Super Hornet, is schedule.

I am a fan if the F-35, I don't think there is much doubt about that around the place, but one thing it will not do is provide a combat capability in the 2010 - 2012 timeframe.

In Australia's case, the Super Hornet is an interim choice until F-35 IS able to 'step up'. In Brazil's case, they need a new fighter before they could ever get the F-35. However the current tender for 36x aircraft is only the first phase of their fighter replacement project...

 

[Vivendi]

There concern, just like the RAAF with it's acquisition of Super Hornet, is schedule.

I am a fan if the F-35, I don't think there is much doubt about that around the place, but one thing it will not do is provide a combat capability in the 2010 - 2012 timeframe.

In Australia's case, the Super Hornet is an interim choice until F-35 IS able to 'step up'. In Brazil's case, they need a new fighter before they could ever get the F-35. However the current tender for 36x aircraft is only the first phase of their fighter replacement project...

AD, I think it's more than timelines that caused F-35 to drop out of the race.

Some sources claim that the reason was issues with technology transfer:

http://www.forecastinternational.com/abstract.cfm?recno=151424

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Lockheed Martin has just decided not to enter its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Brazil's Project FX-2 fighter requirement. According to the company, the decision was based on the requirement for technology transfer.

Other sources suggest a combination of reasons:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/

F-35 industrial partnership and technology transfer issues proved too difficult to overcome, so Lockheed is offering an F-16BR instead.
...
Unfortunately, technology transfer issues were not the F-35’s only problem. Other barriers to an F-35 win included questions surrounding air-air performance against Venezuela’s SU-30MKs, the low likelihood of deliveries before 2016, and its single engine design.

Of course I disagree with the view that there are any questions around F-35 a2a performance against SU-30MKs (or any other 3. or 4. gen a/c) for that matter. Tech transfer, offsets, and perhaps issues with timelines could have been contributing factors is my guess.

Also, if we look at past Brazilian tenders, perhaps one should not discount the possibility that F-35 will be ready by the time Brazil is ready to order ...


V

 

[Alonso Quijano]

of any similarity with the F-35 Yakovlev Yak-141's 87 years, is it pure coincidence?

 

[Templario]

Why, exactly, would any self respecting air force allow its countries naval aviation to own a better fighter aircraft than it does?

If your Navy buys F-35, I suspect that your air force will want some of the action aswell, or at least another platform which is as advanced as it.

That sort of competition does exist between National Air Forces/Service, and shouldn't be discounted quickly. I have watched the Competition between the RAF and FAA here in the UK practically destroy the FAAs fighter/carrier capability.

Well, the fact is that only our Navy wants the F-35B.
At the moment our Air Force is not interested in the F-35.
We will see what happens when we have to replace the F-18 ...

 

[Salty Dog]

AD, I think it's more than timelines that caused F-35 to drop out of the race.

This is the only valid reason the F-35 didn't make it into the F-X2 competition. AFAIK the FAB was keen to acquire the F-35, however it would not meet their acquisition time table. Lockheed Martin offered the F-16BR along with a transition plan to the F-35. The F-16BR was cut in the 1st round.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, I think it's more than timelines that caused F-35 to drop out of the race.

Some sources claim that the reason was issues with technology transfer:

http://www.forecastinternational.com/abstract.cfm?recno=151424

http://www.forecastinternational.com/abstract.cfm?recno=151424

See Salty's reply below...

Other sources suggest a combination of reasons:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/


Of course I disagree with the view that there are any questions around F-35 a2a performance against SU-30MKs (or any other 3. or 4. gen a/c) for that matter. Tech transfer, offsets, and perhaps issues with timelines could have been contributing factors is my guess.

Also, if we look at past Brazilian tenders, perhaps one should not discount the possibility that F-35 will be ready by the time Brazil is ready to order ...


V

If the F-35 struggles against SU-30, then F/A-18E/F, Rafale and Gripen are going to be absolutely useless.

Seems the Brazilian Air Force doesn't agree with this idea however, given it evaluated the Sukhoi jet extensively a few years back, when Sukhoi announced it was "90% certain" it had won the F-X competition with the SU-30.

As is the case with Brazil's fighter program, DID, being a firm advocate of the Air Power Australia cult, struggles to comprehend reality at times...

I even had to pull a photo off Wikipedia once to convince them that the upgraded FFG frigates in RAN service, were keeping the Mk 13 launcher and gaining Mk 41 VLS. They argued extensively with me, that the Mk 41 VLS HAD replaced the Mk 13 and thus the FFG's were dangerously "ill-equipped" for their air warfare role...