>>29480353
OP here, bump limit reached in last thread
>>29492968
>>29493836
Speed: The Saab 39 Gripen has a top speed of Mach 2.0 with the ability to supercruise at Mach 1.2 with an air-to-air loadout. Meanwhile, the F-35 cannot reach any speed above Mach 1.6 and it cannot supercruise at all. It should also be noted that the F-35's top speed is limited by fixed-geometry inlets so even if it were given a more powerful engine it still would not be able to exceed 1.6 M.
Ease of Maintenance: The Gripen is designed for ease of maintenance. It is possible for a team of 4 people to completely swap out the engine in less than 60 minutes. Basic inspections and servicing can be completed within a 10 minute window that also includes rearming and refueling the aircraft.
Avionics: The new Gripen NG E/F is packed with cutting edge systems and sensors. The update incorporates an all-weather "Raven" AESA radar and an infrared search-and-track system. This advanced sensor package is able to track stealth aircraft, negating the F-35's stealth advantage.
Availability: The Gripen is fitted with a Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) that monitors the performance of various systems, and provides information to technicians to assist in servicing it. This allows maintenance crews to resolve issues quickly with minimal downtime so that the Gripen is ready for action when you need it.
Reliability: The F-35 has a whole laundry list of documented issues that won't be fixed anytime soon. Some of these issues are minor, others are potentially fatal to both the aircraft and the pilot! The F-35 likely will not even be cleared for combat until after 2020. The Gripen has accumulated over 143,000 flight hours without a single engine-related failure or incident
>>29493836
>>29493855
Maneuverability: The Gripen uses a delta-wing with canards: the perfect aerodynamic shape for high maneuverability. The Gripen's body is also very lightweight, weighing less than half compared to the F-35A with a higher thrust/weight ratio and a lower wing loading. Reports from F-35 test pilots and the Pentagon's chief of testing (Michael Gilmore) suggest that the F-35 has inferior maneuverability.
Deployability: A core design requirement for the Gripen was that it must be able to take off and land from a runway less than 800 meters in length. Actual numbers are about 650 meters for take-off and 550 meters for landing. In contrast, the F-35A requires a runway that is no less than 2400 meters long for take-off.
Firepower: The Gripen NG is armed with a 27x145mm cannon. This is more powerful than the gun used by the F-35, and most versions of the F-35 do not have a gun included in the design. The Gripen NG is also able to use the MBDA Meteor, the world's most advanced air-to-air missile. The F-35 cannot use this missile because it cannot fit inside the weapon's bay. It must use a smaller, weaker version instead.
>>29493867
>The F-35 cannot use this missile because it cannot fit inside the weapon's bay.
Except it can you dumbass. The UK's F-35's will be using Meteors.
>>29493980
>My computerized image proves me correct!
>>29494006
MBDA and Lockheed are officially integrating the same missile on the F-35
http://www.mbda-systems.com/air-dominance/meteor/
Just because you don't like the hole it blows in your barely researched arguement doesn't mean its false.
>>29493867
>>29493855
delta wings are very good at going fast, however they're not so good at maneuverability. and the longer takeoff distance smacks of bullshit.
the F-35's minimum runway distances are honestly the same as every other fighter-type aircraft these days and i don't understand why it's supposedly such a huge detriment.
not talking about the F-35's designed ease of maintenance in light of the Gripen's is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
>>29494090
*longer takeoff distance vs landing
F-35 is going to be a standard NATO aircraft.
Training, maintenance, parts, weaponry and updates are going to be ready and available.
Mission integration with NATO forces will be seamless.
F-35 beats Gripen in almost every dynamic.
F-35.
>>29494090
>the F-35's minimum runway distances are honestly the same as every other fighter-type aircraft these days
actually no, F-35 A does indeed require that much runway, B can take off from much shorter runways because of its' design, but it also has shortest range and greatest weight of the three versions, Gripen's canards are a huge help in shortening the runway requirement for both takeoff and landing.
Finland certainly couldn't afford to operate F-35B so the version that matters in this case is F-35A.
>>29494129
This. The F35 will be the new F16, it's already been decided.
>>29493867
>Firepower: The Gripen NG is armed with a 27x145mm cannon. This is more powerful than the gun used by the F-35, and most versions of the F-35 do not have a gun included in the design.
And the only model the Finnish would get is the A, which comes with that internal canon. To say nothing of how the 'firepower' of a fighter-borne gun is absolutely negligible in every way.
>>29494167
no, 8000 ft is a pretty standard runway restriction for fighter aircraft.
source: i fly fighter aircraft.
and the canards bullshit is something you can do with stabilators too. like in every modern fighter aircraft that doesn't have canards.
Gripen doesn't have any sort of stand-off cluster effect area munition like JSOW
How are you supposed to fry Russian armored columns that are coming across the border from outside the range of the SHORAD if you don't have a heavy, cluster type standoff weapons?
>>29494204
Strike Eaglebro?
>>29494228
By flying at or below treetop level.
>>29494254
possibly.
>>29494090
>the F-35's minimum runway distances are honestly the same as every other fighter-type aircraft these days
No, they honestly are not. The recommended minimum airstrip to operate F-35s from is 8k feet and 10k is recommended minimum for training. The Super Hornet requires less than half that, the Eurofighter needs less than 2500 feet, the Gripen less than 2,000, apples-to-apples numbers.
>and i don't understand why it's supposedly such a huge detriment.
Well take Canada as an example. There are 11 military airbases and 3 of them do not have a single strip long enough to operate F-35s at all, and even in the other cases a lot of expensive work would need to be done to realistically base any significant number of them. And very minor damage to a strip could effectively ground planes.
The Gripen, on the other hand, can operate from every field at every base without any extra expense and with a little bit of work you could easily add hundreds of small improvised bases like this to the 11 installations mentioned, making the task of airfield destruction monumentally more difficult and unlikely to succeed.
>>29494265
How about you use proper punctuation like an officer you fucking tool.
>>29493855
>It is possible for a team of 4 people to completely swap out the engine in less than 60 minutes.
That's actually pretty impressive.
>>29494265
I'm sorry to derail slightly, but i've heard conflicting stories about corrective vision surgery for pilots. Is it an immediate disqualification?
>>29494291
Yes, but that's under ideal conditions with ideal manning and ideal training, with ideal equipment.
>>29494284
no.
>>29494282
what runway numbers are those? are they doctrinal? can they be waived with arresting gear? are they takeoff? are they landing? heavyweight wet landings? what sort of payload?
doctrinal restrictions (which are usually "worst case scenario plus 20%") get you 8000 ft runways.
>>29494311
no. talk to a recruiter. PRK and Lasik aren't necessarily disqualifying, but talk to somebody before you have your eyes done.
>>29493836
Finland will buy F35C instead and theres nothing you can do about it :)
>>29494264
but normal GBU bombs and AGM-65s dont have the necessary area effect
also going in at treetop level against modern Russkie SHORAD will get you a faceful of Pantsir jizz
>>29494332
Yes to the best of my knowledge they are doctrinal numbers, I checked that myself in the case of the F-35 and the Gripen.
I don't doubt you can manage to operate an F-35 with less than 8k feet in a pinch but that's completely not the point. You don't plan military bases around what you can do in a pinch, do you? And you can operate that Gripen from a smaller strip in a pinch as well.
>>29494349
That's why you fly below treetop level
>>29494384
then you're going to have to fly along lines of communication, which is tactically unsound.
>>29494204
take a look at this picture, that's a stretch of highway in Finland that's designated as a highway base for servicing fighters among other aircraft, that stretch is 7200 feet at best, would you be confident landing on that stretch in an F-35A?
>>29494398
it depends. i honestly don't know how the F-35 flies. but if i practiced it, sure. maybe they've got those expeditionary arresting cables or something.
>>29494337
They haven't decided shit yet.
Going with the gripen or another cheap option would seem logical. Finland couldn't buy a sufficient number of F35's to replace the Hornets.
Besides, looking at their military tech history with sweden, they'd probably get a great deal too.
Update your algorithms, Finland. Gives you more time to make a choice.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australian-algorithm-extends-life-of-classic-horn-423803/
>>29494425
Nope sorry, theres nothing you can do about it. F35Cs :)
>>29493855
Speed: Good luck achieving Mach 2 in any realistic combat scenario. The F-35 can also "supercruise" at Mach 1.2 with an air-to-air or air-to-ground loadout for 150NM (10 minutes). Not that Mach 1.2 should be considered supercruise though. The F-22 also has fixed geometry inlets and goes faster than the Gripen.
Ease of maintenance: those basic inspections and services are practically meaningless and are more comparable to a pilot walkaround than a proper maintenance procedure. The F-35 on the other hand has ALIS (once it works) to tell you what's wrong before the jet even lands.
Avionics: Anything can track a stealth aircraft from 10m away; good luck doing the same anywhere near as soon as the F-35 detects you.
Availability: welcome to yesteryear
Reliability: The F-35's already cleared for combat.
Maneuverability: Congrats, you've completed your hand-to-hand combat training, now here's a rifle.
Deployability: 2400m refers to how long an F-35 with no brakes and maximum bring-back needs to roll to a halt. Watch a video of an F-35 landing and see how short it stops.
Firepower: The F-35 has more gun ammunition than the Gripen (as if the gun even matters). The 2 seater Gripen also has no gun. The F-35 as of Block 4 will also capable of using the Meteor; it won't be a "weaker" version, it'll be a version with modified fins.
>>29494398
Hell yeah.
>>29494337
>>29494450
>C
Oh you cunt, I just noticed now.
>>29494332
>PRK and Lasik aren't necessarily disqualifying
That's it. I'm doing it. F-35 here i come.
>>29494484
the highway base in operation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1piR6LPJ6I
>>29494533
the first UPT grad got assigned to the F-35 last month, and supposedly it's in this year's FAIP drop. good luck
>>29494548
another one (same place):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1piR6LPJ6I
>>29494548
wait, that's different place,
>>29494560
is from the highway base in the satellite picture.
>>29494560
FFS why doesn't my Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V work when it's supposed to...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pXKeyNeYs
>>29494610
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtFc0Z44m8
>>29494282
>The recommended minimum airstrip to operate F-35s from is 8k feet and 10k is recommended minimum for training. The Super Hornet requires less than half that, the Eurofighter needs less than 2500 feet, the Gripen less than 2,000, apples-to-apples numbers.
You are now aware that 'recommended minimum airstrip' is a safety precaution distance that allows the aircraft to coast to a stop while landing in case of emergency, not what is actually needed in normal operations.
You are not making an apples to apples comparison.
>>29494423
using cables for "normal" landing is a bit counter-intuitive when the airspace is contested & the landing fighter isn't the only one using that highway base
>>29494708
Goddamn man we just go around in circles I know you aren't all the same anon but can't the noobs be bothered to read the thread before replying?
That IS doctrinal length, that's what you need to have a safe operation, so obviously it is more than you need to land the airplane under ideal conditions. There's good reason to use that length, and it's doctrinal length in each case, so that IS an apples to apples comparison.
>>29494734
landing on a highway isn't "normal".
and cables are pretty much always going to be at a fighter base. just a fact of life with the approach speeds they fly at.
>>29494550
>Be AFROTC.
>Have a bunch of pilot slots, PPL holders and even half of our cadre have worked the F-35 program at some point.
>None of these people have any real qualms with the F-35, with most of it coming from the acquisition side and mismanaged contracts.
>Our detachment commander helped write part of the SEAD manual for the F-35, adores the aircraft.
>But it's always the kids who are going into personnel or LROs who fling their fucking shit at the very mention of it.
>>29494708
and most Finnish highway bases more than likely fall short of that precaution, meaning the pilots wouldn't be allowed to practice landing on or taking off of them during peace time.
>>29494750
2400 meters is probably based on its ability to accelerate to rotation speed, have a catastrophic engine failure, a few seconds to react and deploy speed brakes/aerobrake/step on the brakes when below hot brakes and still come to a stop by the end of the runway. actual takeoff roll, if 2400 m is the minimum for doctrinal purposes, is likely about 1/3 of that.
>>29494753
in Finnish doctrine it is, since this thread is about replacement for F/A-18C/D in Finnish service the Finnish doctrine is what matters, not your "8000 feet runways are the standard so everyone must have 8000 feet runways so that they can buy our planes!" -line of thinking
>>29494798
see >>29494788 for what i mean by doctrinal. you can try to takeoff on a shorter runway, but if something goes wrong you're probably going to take the cable.
>>29494469
No. This is bullshit. The F-35 cannot supercruise. The F-35 can "dash" to give itself a temporary speed boost by using the afterburner to get up to supersonic speeds and then cruising until your speed goes down to subsonic and then using the afterburner to get back to supersonic. But any fighter jet can do that.
>>29494750
Sorry but no, the question was whether the F-35 could operate from 800 meters. All you are doing is trying to keep your 8-10k feet number for the F-35 valid despite it being apples to oranges.
>>29493855
>This advanced sensor package is able to track stealth aircraft, negating the F-35's stealth advantage.
What sort of power at what band are we talking about?
>>29494822
Except that's fucking wrong. The F-35 doesn't need to use afterburner. The engine CAN supercruise, but it's just not designed to sustain that sort of speed.
Either way, the utility of supercruise is questionable at best, especially because it still drastically lowers your combat radius, just not as badly as relying on afterburners.
>>29494548
If a Hornet can land there, I have no doubt an F-35 can as well.
Here's a bit of autismo investigative work - in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fbHMRBJ0aE
At the 1:17 mark, an F-35 is taking off and is airborne by / before you see the black, chevron covered tarmac appear in the background. Considering the background and staggered positioning of the taxiways, that is the pre-strip of Runway 21R at Luke AFB. That means that the F-35A was airborne in around 1200ft (possibly less).
At 3:36 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZAGfZXP_80
The F-35A drops onto its nose gear about 1200ft from the end of the runway. That indicates that it could stop in less than 2000ft or about 600m.
>>29494864
>The engine CAN supercruise
Doesn't matter if it can't do it when actually attached to the fucking aircraft.
> it's just not designed to sustain that sort of speed.
So in other words, it cannot supercruise. Supercruise means sustained supersonic flight without using the afterburner to accelerate.
>>29494753
>landing on a highway isn't "normal".
Yes, it is.
>and cables are pretty much always going to be at a fighter base. just a fact of life with the approach speeds they fly at.
Nope.
2/2 want to try again?
>>29494788
>2400 meters is probably based on its ability to accelerate to rotation speed, have a catastrophic engine failure, a few seconds to react and deploy speed brakes/aerobrake/step on the brakes when below hot brakes and still come to a stop by the end of the runway. actual takeoff roll, if 2400 m is the minimum for doctrinal purposes, is likely about 1/3 of that.
So fucking what?
Doctrinal length is doctrinal length for a reason.
"Oh fuck doctrinal length a good pilot can easily do this 7000 if nothing goes wrong, so we'll just assume that nothing will ever go wrong and use 7000 foot runways instead, what could go wrong?" are you really that fucking retarded?
>>29494853
The F-35 cannot safely operate from 800 metres. In fact I doubt it could operate from 800 metres under ideal conditions, and assuming ideal conditions is obviously not safe in the real world.
In contrast the Gripen CAN operate safely from 800 metres. Does it every day.
>>29494822
The only person who's said that (that it's how long it takes to slow down to subsonic) is the retard blogger picard. The actual quotes state that it maintains Mach 1.2 for 150NM.
>>29494769
If your brakes are not working in a Gripen and you have to land on an 800 meter runway, you are fucked.
>>29494911
>In contrast the Gripen CAN operate safely from 800 metres. Does it every day.
That's just their doctrine; it doesn't mean that a Gripen can roll to a stop in that distance if things go wrong.
>>29494911
>The F-35 cannot safely operate from 800 metres.
Because you say so.
>>29494818
the point here is that we can't choose a plane that has a recommendation of 8000 feet minimum when the runway length in most of our highway bases most likely falls short of that, thinking "we have cables so it's ok", especially when we have alternatives that *don't* have a recommeded minimum runway length of 8000 feet.
>>29494911
every fighter base i've been at has had approach and departure cables.
do the finns launch and land daily sorties from those highways? if not, then it's not normal.
and doctrinal restrictions mean "oh, if you land here and you screwed it up it's your fault and we're not paying out your life insurance/possibly holding you criminally liable."
>>29494955
some US F-15E's took off from Bagram AFB in "everyday" sustained operations from a runway that with the combination of heat and altitude were less than the doctrinal minimums. they got around that by having cables at the departure end of the runway.
so why can't you do the same?
>>29494911
I'm sure the F-35 can land anywhere a gripen can land
>>29494955
The point you are missing, is that its just a recommendation, it can manage on less.
Theres just less safety margin
>>29494856
The F-35's stealth paint actually generates a lot of heat. The Gripen NG's IRST can lock onto that heat and the plane can use it to generate a firing solution for a BVR missile. The BVR missile (most likely a missile) will home in on the approximate location until it gets close enough that the F-35's stealth is irrelevant, at which point the missile's own internal radar takes over and guides the missile straight into the target for a knockout punch.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/gripen-sensors-claim-counter-stealth-performance
>>29495009
>I'm sure the F-35 can land anywhere a gripen can land
Can the F-35A land on a runway less than 610 meters in length? The Gripen can do that.
>>29495016
>until it gets close enough that the F-35's stealth is irrelevant
Except we've seen that these fighters can't even lock onto the F-22 from gun range
Why do you think a missile could lock onto an F-35?
Pretty sure that IRST has serious limitations too.
>>29494955
The difference is not in the aircraft though, it's in the operators. If the Gripen was made by Boeing or Lockheed, it'd have a similar ~8000ft minimum runway length. If the Swedes built the F-35A, they'd say it can safely operate from 800m.
>>29495016
If an F-35 end up close enough that a Gripen can spot it on IRST, something has gone very wrong. The Gripen has no way of spotting the F-35 first at BVR ranges.
>>29494955
Is it that hard to comprehend that '800 meters' does not include a safety margin for rolling stops?
>>29495038
Well, >>29494894 seems to demonstrate that.
>>29495016
>stealth paint
>generates a lot of heat
>>29495041
Most IRST only has a max range of 50 nmi, in ideal conditions.
>>29494989
tell me, if there'd been an accident where an Eagle plowed through the cables ripping them off, how long would it have taken to replace the cables & resume normal operations? An hour? More?
while the highway bases have cables when they are in operation, they can't be a reason to get around other safety precautions any more than a car manufacturer can say "we won't be installing seat belts because this car has airbags"
>>29495112
It doesn't really generate heat, but it acts as an insulator to prevent the heat from escaping. This makes the F-35 (and other stealth aircraft) far more visible on IRST than traditional aircraft. This is also the reason why the F-35 has so many different problems involving overheating. (The weapons bay overheats, the computer overheats, the fuel overheats)
>>29494962
>every fighter base i've been at has had approach and departure cables.
In which country is that? Do their runways serve the public as highways when not in use by the Air Force?
>do the finns launch and land daily sorties from those highways? if not, then it's not normal.
I gather they do, using highway bases with runways over twice as long as the Swedish ones, using F/A-18s.
My personal experience is in Sweden, not Finland. In Sweden they routinely operate from these highway bases, 800m runways with a weapons cache at either end, they are all over the place and I have more than once pulled the car over to let them land, then watched as they refuelled and launched again. Less than 10 minutes every time.
>>29494989
DUDE does the concept of doctrinal restrictions really make no contact at all in your brain?
Yes during the rigors of combat people exceed doctrinal restrictions all the time. That's not the point. They provide a baseline around which you plan basing and deployments, and they leave margins for safety. You should never PLAN to exceed them - that way there is something left to play with when you have no choice.
>>29495009
>I'm sure the F-35 can land anywhere a gripen can land
And I am sure you are the biggest moron I have come across all week.
>>29495073
It's not hard to comprehend it's just wrong. There's at least 200 metres of play in that 800 meter doctrinal limit. In reality more. It's just as much of an overestimate as the figure given for the F35,
>>29495016
>The F-35's stealth paint actually generates a lot of heat.
Now you're just pulling shit out of your ass; the paint isn't made of radioactive materials. If you flew 10m away from it and beamed kilowatts into it, it will get warm, but that's not reality.
>The BVR missile (most likely a missile)
You don't say?
Do tell me though, how do you know the range to the target? How do you know that what you're aiming at isn't an afterburner some 300km away?
>>29495158
half an hour maybe? i watched a jet take a cable the other week and it took about that long.
>>29495171
>overheat overheat overheat
Is this the new meme?
>>29495174
and i'm saying that you're not comparing apples and oranges. the minimum runway for the f-35 of 2400m is based on it doing >>29494788. the 800m is likely its takeoff roll based on my experience flying fighters for a living.
>>29495182
>The BVR missile (most likely a missile)
What I meant to say was:
>The BVR missile (most likely a MBDA Meteor)
I screwed up and I apologize.
>how do you know the range to the target?
The Gripen NG's IRST is smart enough to figure that out. Obviously it is not as good as radar targeting but it is good enough for the plane to give the Meteor an approximate firing solution. Then once the missile gets close enough to see the target on its own, internal guidance takes over and KA-BOOM!
>>29495248
*you are comparing apples and oranges.
>>29495171
>it acts as an insulator to prevent the heat from escapng.
>This makes the F-35 (and other stealth aircraft) far more visible on IRST than traditional aircraft.
Choose one.
The heat that gets insulated in the F-35 gets thrown out the rear as burnt fuel (the fuel is preheated) and in bypass air / engine nozzle active cooling.
That does mean the exhaust will be warmer, but that's just a form of directional IR stealth. The heat generated by the avionics and heat leaking out the side of the engine, etc is also quite insignificant compared to the megawatts of heat being generated by the engine's normal operation.
>>29495253
Except IRST has vastly shorter range than radar. How is it seeing the F-35 first? What stops the F-35 spotting it via EODAS or Barracuda and firing a missile of its own? The Gripen has zero stealth features to impair the F-35s detection capabilities.
>>29495269
>The IRST is capable of detecting low-RCS targets at distances compatible with a beyond-visual-range missile launch, Mason says. “We have seen them,” he responds when asked if Selex IRSTs have tracked low-RCS targets. “We are looking at very small delta-Ts [temperature differences between the target and the background]. Some infrared absorbent paints cause more friction than standard surfaces, and that causes kinetic heating that the IRST will pick up.” Skyward-G does not depend on a supersonic target—“skin heating at 300-400 knots is significant”—and detects heat radiating through the aircraft's skin from the engine, as well as skin friction and the exhaust plume.
As long as the F-35 is moving faster than 300 knots, it will be visible for IRST.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/gripen-sensors-claim-counter-stealth-performance
>>29495189
a half an hour during which the runway is closed would not sit well with our air force as they operate by the same rules during peace time as during war, F-35A requires 2400m to come to a rolling stop, using the highway base in the satellite picture as the yard stick that requirement has 200m too much, cables are supposed to be a precaution for when everything else has failed, not an excuse to ignore other precautions.
>>29495248
And you're still wrong.
If nothing goes wrong the Gripen can land in less than 500 metres. The doctrinal requirement leaves an additional 300 metres of play.
>>29495291
Ah, but the Gripen NG has the manoeuvrability necessary for avoiding long-range missiles. Long-range missiles are not agile enough to reliability hit a small, maneuvering target such as the Gripen. You need to realize that BVR missiles are mostly for killing bombers. Against a fighter-sized target, they are more likely to fail, and that is especially true when you're trying to hit a small target like the Gripen NG.
>>29495253
If the gripen is seeing the F-22 or F-35 on IRST
Then they saw the gripen 10 minutes before
And missiles are on the way
>>29495347
except for Bagram where -220 motor Strike Eagles literally could not safely abort with fairly standard combat loads and warm weather.
>>29495367
i seriously doubt those numbers are what you say they are.
>>29495331
But at what distance? "Compatible with a BVR missile launch" is pretty obtuse language and sounds to me more like "outside of WVR, but not by much".
>>29495367
I'm sure the Gripen lands in a shorter distance than the F-35 (it's a lighter aircraft); but the point is that it doesn't give it some super unique capability that other fighters can't also achieve.
>>29495377
Bullshit; if a jet pulls a max instantaneous turn, the missile just has to adjust course a couple of degrees. When you also factor in the fact that the missile only has to get close and fire it's frag warhead and you're in for a bad time. It may miss, but the chances of having 2 miss are very much against you.
>>29495377
If you're talking about old ass Phoenix missiles, sure. Modern BVR missiles are a different matter.
And this is assuming the Gripen is even aware of the F-35 approaching. Plus the Gripen really isn't any more maneuverable than an F-16.
>>29495331
Note how the designers cleverly word their report so they never actually say how far it's actually effective. Just that it's "compatible with BVR missiles" which can literally mean anything.
>>29495410
Name three other modern fighters that can take-off and land safely on less than 800 meters of runway.
>>29495456
Finland doesn't have any problem using Hornets and they're much heavier than Gripens.
>>29495514
So? Why not get a fighter that is easier to use? If the country is attacked, then being able to get the planes into the air quickly is critical. An airport may only have 1 or 2 runways long enough for the F-35 to use. With the Gripen, you can use more runways to get more planes in the air faster.
How long does it take to get an F-35 fueled, armed, and ready for take-off? For the Gripen that is a 10-minute process for a team of 5.
>>29495598
What makes you think you couldn't operate an F-35 off an 800m runway
>>29495598
because why does it matter unless the aircraft can do something in the air? and once again, you're comparing two different sets of TOLD, configured in two different ways.
>>29495514
the question is: does Hornet require 2400 meters to come to a rolling stop like F-35?
>>29495598
There's no concrete data since the F-35 is still going through trials. But as some anons have previously shown in this thread, F-35As can take off and land within 1200 feet, so it's certainly possible.
And capability wise, the Gripen is practically a dressed up F-16. Maybe all the Finns need is a short range, low tech air defense fighter for their needs, but don't try to pretend the F-35 is less capable than it.
>>29495660
Gripen NG is going to cost more than the F-35
It's not low tech
>>29495648
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME.
TWO.
DIFFERENT.
METRICS.
2400m gives you the ability to get to rotation, lose an engine, and come to a stop.
NOT TAKEOFF ROLL YOU FUCKING SPERG.
>>29495410
>I'm sure the Gripen lands in a shorter distance than the F-35 (it's a lighter aircraft); but the point is that it doesn't give it some super unique capability that other fighters can't also achieve.
It gives it an ability to operate from hundreds of bases that the F-35 cannot operate from, even in a small nation like Finland. Is that a super-trump-card? Of course not. But I'm sick of idiots claiming it's not true, or it doesn't matter. It's true and it could definitely matter.
Could another plane be designed to do the same thing? Of course. But it would do it by adopting many of the same design features. It would wind up looking very much like the Gripen.
>>29495514
The Finnish Hornets take a little over twice the runway as the Gripen. This limits the Finnish road-base locations considerably, but it still leaves them with a lot more than the F-35, which could not effectively operate from that sort of base at all.
>>29495625
The word of the manufacturer and of every single damn military that has evaluated it isn't enough for you?!?!
Holy shit some people are dense!
>>29495625
The RAAF manual specifies a minimum of 8000 feet and recommends using a runway no less than 10,000 ft for safety purposes.
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100
>>29495625
you can, the question is can it operate from Finnish highway bases with enough safety margin?
>>29495694
>>29495693
For safety purposes
If they were operating the Gripen, they would want an 8000 foot runway for it too
>>29495673
WHERE DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TAKEOFF ROLL?
>>29495706
There is literally nothing unsafe about operating the Gripen from an 800 meter runway.
>>29495693
>It gives it an ability to operate from hundreds of bases that the F-35 cannot operate from
Except that only a small fraction of those bases are inaccessible for the F-35, because as already established a million times, an F-35 can land and takeoff in almost the same distance as a Gripen.
The Gripen's one advantage is simply that it's going to be cheaper to maintain.
>>29493836
>Sufficient runway length is required to ensure the safety of pilots
operating the F-35A. The key safety consideration is the reaction time which a pilot has available to abort a take-off and safely stop the aircraft within the runway length. Considerations used to calculate the safety margin include runway length, whether afterburners are used to accelerate the aircraft to take-off speed faster, and the weather. The F-
35A requires a minimum runway length of 8,000 feet to safely operate. At RAAF Base Williamtown, because there is no two-seat version of the F-35A to allow trainee pilots to practice under direction supervision, a runway length of 10,000 feet is required to provide trainee pilots with an additional safety margin compared to that afforded to experienced pilots. Further, a 10,000 foot runway is required at RAAF Base Williamtown to support Air Force’s strategy for noise mitigation.
It's right here: straight from Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).
>>29495693
EXCEPT THAT TRADITIONAL FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACE FIGHTERS USE THEIR STABS THE SAME WAY THE GRIPEN USES ITS CANARDS YOU COCKMONGLING SHITGOBBLER
>>29495721
WHEN YOU QUOTED THE WRONG GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING FIGURE YOU INCANDESCENT RETARD.
>>29495728
DIFFERENT FORCES HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ACCEPTABLE RISK AND THEREFORE DIFFERENT TOLERANCES YOU SHITHEEL CUNTFLAPPER.
>>29495728
Except for the part where if the brakes fail it's not going to stop in 800m.
>>29495673
I dont give a flying fuck if I am using correct terminology, what ever you want to call it there's a recommendation of 8000 feet of runway for F-35, what is the equivalent recommendation for F/A-18, that's what I was asking, now please either pull your head out of your ass and act in a civilized manner & provide an answer to an honest question, or if you can't be civilized/can't provide the answer, shove your head a bit further up so that I can't hear your whining.
>>29495753
>an F-35 can land and takeoff in almost the same distance as a Gripen.
Not even close.
>>29495761
I didn't say takeoff roll, nor was it what I meant.
>>29495809
NO.
FUCK YOU.
GO DO YOUR OWN GODDAMN RESEARCH TWATWAFFLE.
>>29495728
>There is literally nothing unsafe about operating the Gripen from an 800 meter runway.
There is literally nothing unsafe about operating the F-35 from an 800 meter runway.
>>29495761
The butt-hurt levels are off the fucking charts.
>>29495815
You have no clue about the capabilities of the F-35, all you have is a standard recommendation which is likely aimed at trainee pilots since its a brand new aircraft
>>29495819
Then try reading this thread because the 2400m takeoff distance figure includes certain safety pads.
>>29495829
Or maybe some of us are tired of using logic and experience and being responded to with memes and PR quotes.
>>29494282
the f-35 has vertical take off?
>>29495825
Except the RAAF says that the F-35 requires a minimum runway of 8000 ft and recommends a runway of at least 10,000 ft for safety reasons.
Do you think they just make this shit up or something?
>>29495672
Compared to the F-35, it is. All the NG is really getting is a newer radar and a few more avionics and that's it. It's a 4th gen plane trying to maintain parity with more advanced neecomers.
>>29495753
NO IT FUCKING CANNOT YOU FUCKING MORON.
READ THIS:
>>29495758
The airstrip length required for *safe* F-35 operation is 8,000 feet. That's just over 2400 metres. The airstrip length required for *safe* Gripen operation is 800 metres.
This is because the Gripen is much lighter and it's an explicitly STOL design with dozens of different features that help reduce it's needs in this regard. The F-35A is much heavier, has much lower thrust-per-pound, and only an absolute idiot would even think for a minute it would have the same STOL capabilities despite all that.
And EVEN such an idiot would still realize he was wrong when pointed to accurate sources.
>>29495815
Luke AFB has ~3050 meter runways.
>>29495854
>>29495863
See >>29494788 whereas 800m is just a takeoff roll.
>>29495847
only B model which most customers aren't going to buy because it's the most expensive one, has lowest fuel capacity, highest weight, and that special feature uses more fuel than conventional takeoff; only the customers who need it are buying it, those who don't need it buy something else.
>>29495854
Now you get to explain why 800 meters does not include the same safety requirements.
>>29495863
RAAF doesn't even have F-35's yet
Nor has anyone tested what sort of minimum runway they can be operated off of
>>29495863
>The airstrip length required for *safe* F-35 operation is 8,000 feet. That's just over 2400 metres. The airstrip length required for *safe* Gripen operation is 800 metres.
This is 100% accurate.
>>29495866
It damn well better because they need at least 2400 meters to safely use the F-35.
>>29495845
>Or maybe some of us are tired of using logic and experience and being responded to with memes and PR quotes.
I gave you a link to an instruction manual that the RAAF gives to pilots. That's not a meme or PR quote.
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100
8000 feet. That is what it says. Very formal. Very official.
>>29495847
Huh?
The F-35B can do vertical take-off with no weapons and near-empty fuel tanks. It can't do anything useful afterwards, and it melts anything underneath it, but hey!
We're talking about the F-35A, however, which is the one the Finns have actually been offered, which can't do any of that anyway.
>>29495882
You're pointing me to a shitpost that didn't even pretend to be doing anything more than talking out his ass ("probably" blah blah blah.) I've given definitive numbers from reliable sources over and over.
800m is required for the Gripen to *take off* with a full load. It can land in only 500. Both distances include margins for safety. Both are FAR beyond anything the F-35 can do.
And you know this is ridiculous. That's just obvious verifiable facts. It's not even anything bad on the F-35. This was NOT one of the design goals for the F-35, no one should be surprised it can't do it. The shocking thing is just how many of you fucking morons can't bear to believe there is ANYTHING your beloved JSF can't do better than anything else.
>>29495882
>>29495927
10,000 ft is for noise abatement (presumably non-AB takeoffs) and student pilots. If you've ever been around military training, you know how much more students are restricted.
8,000 ft includes >>29494788
800m is a takeoff roll.
It's like comparing 0-60 and 60-0 times.
this conversation has gone to Hell, let's start over with "how much do X, Y and Z require for safe operations", shall we?
RAAF says F-35 requires 8000 feet for safe operations, what does RAAF say about F/A-18? This is relevant because we are trying to establish whether FiAF could operate F-35As from the same highway bases it currently uses to operate F/A-18C/Ds.
>>29495944
Except you have no numbers at all for what minimum runway an F-35 with dragchute can operate off of
All you have is a standard runway number based off being safe on a brand new aircraft.
>>29495927
>It damn well better because they need at least 2400 meters to safely use the F-35.
Read that post again, but this time actually look at the picture.
>>29495944
I can't say what the exact basis for the F-35's runway restrictions are. But given my experience with fighter jet operations, it's usually:
Accelerate, suffer catastrophic lack of thrust, 2 seconds to recognize the situation, 3 seconds to react and apply max braking/deploy speed brakes. Plus about a 20% pad. Mixed with a bunch of various MAJCOM standards, service-wide standards, waiver letters, base waivers, exceptions when using TOLD software vs the old charts...
>>29495944
>Both distances include margins for safety.
800 meters does not include margin for safety, it is the minimum distance needed to function.
>>29495902
>>29495955
Keep in mind when I say that the Gripen can take-off and land with less than 800 meters of runway, I'm not kidding. The Gripen can do both with signficantly less than 800 meters. The only situation why the Gripen might need almost the entire 800 meters to take off is if it is loaded all the way to maximum take-off weight.
>>29495983
So wait, you're counting just those to points as the entire take-off? Take-off begins with a motionless plane and ends when the plane is 15 meters off the ground.
>>29495993
And you keep right on talking as if you are completely incapable of understanding that every point you bring up about how padded the requirements for the F-35 are are completely beside the point when the figures for the Gripen include the exact same padding.
And even beyond that, you hate facts, ok, fine, fuck facts. Try logic.
You have the F-35A which had numerous design goals to juggle, without STOL being one of them, which weighs MUCH more, which has LESS thrust to weight; versus the Gripen, designed from the ground up for STOL, weighing MUCH less, with HIGHER thrust to weight, and you really think the Gripen is not going to be able to operate from shorter strips?
Holy shit I can't grasp the mental process here, I really cannot.
>>29495983
I approximate about 800m takeoff provided the starting point is around the white stripes before the black area at the end of the (assumed) north-east end of the runway
>>29496033
Pretending to be retarded is not a good form of damage control.
>>29496052
Gripen lacks stealth and costs more than the F-35
Probably inferior on electronics in all regards
I'd say its a nobrainer what to buy, you work out what sort of minimum runway needs the F-35 has later on.
Can always bring arrestor cables with you.
>>29495944
>The shocking thing is just how many of you fucking morons can't bear to believe there is ANYTHING your beloved JSF can't do better than anything else.
This is the exact reason I never venture into these shitfests. No one tells the truth when it comes to the F35, just their own jaded point of view.
Still, its pretty bad that it costs $1.5trillion and the faggots actually love that it costs that much..... over xx years. Funny how projected costs are usually more than actual costs 99.99999% of the time. Then they try to figure in inflation and future inflation in an attempt to bring it down further.
>FYI, the F15/16/18 do just fuckin fine for blowing up mudhuts. Unless there are aliums invading, there is no need for a multirole plane, which china has over 50% of the classified data for already.
>>29496033
Basically, you shole argument boils down to "The Gripen totally lands within 800m with no need for an extra safety buffer because I say so! F-35 is shit because I'm sourcing a completely out of context article!"
>>29496024
>800 meters does not include margin for safety, it is the minimum distance needed to function.
But that's objectively wrong. The Saab 39 Gripen does not need 800 meters to take-off or land safely. It can accomplish both tasks with less runway with that.
You realize that this is a dumb point to argue for the F-35 right? You could talk about the F-35's stealth capabilities, its superior sensors, its further range, higher max payload. Instead, you're spending all this effort arguing about perhaps the one metric where the Gripen is objectively superior.
>>29496033
And to take off safely in case of an engine failure (say a bird flies down the intake) requires all the stuff talked about in >>29495993 and >>29494788. Actual distance for rotation is 1200-ish ft/300m as some anon figured out earlier.
I'm throwing the bullshit flag so hard because 800m including engine failure and max braking and reaction times is just that... bullshit.
>>29496078
>Gripen lacks stealth
Not even him, but what does the F35 carry in stealth mode? 500miles range and 4 bombs? or 6 missles?
>>29493855
>>29493867
>Gripenfags desperately attacking the F-35 to protect their Swede-16: The Thread
>>29496081
Go to bed, Sprey.
>>29496081
It's ok anon, we know you are clueless and desperate.
>>29496107
What does the gripen carry? oh nothing because its not stealth so its seen 500 miles away
>>29496102
The point is that you don't understand how fighter operations work if you can't understand the difference between a doctrinal restriction based on several safety pads, and the capability for the aircraft to have a much shorter takeoff roll.
>>29495377
>You need to realize that BVR missiles are mostly for killing bombers.
>canards
lol
>>29496107
Fuel to fly 600NM, dogfight, bomb a target and fly home. Default internal payload is 2x 2000lb bombs + 2x BVR (AMRAAM only for now) missiles, but that can be altered to 8x 250lb SDBs and 2x BVR missiles. Block 4 intends to add a dual missile rail for two of the internal hardpoints as well, allowing them to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally.
>>29496107
The F-35 can hold 2 bombs and 2 missiles in stealth mode for air-to-ground or 4 missiles in stealth mode for air-to-air. That's it. For this reason, the F-35 will end up relying on external stores for most missions. Stealth will only be used occasionally.
>>29496139
The sad part with canards is that if you want your jet to also be statically unstable, canards have to create downforce / reduce your lifting area. Elevons on the other hand add to the lifting area.
>>29496078
>Can always bring arrestor cables with you.
so FiAF should buy what at this time seems to e a Lemon, then spend countless millions to improve the highway bases so that F-35 can safely operate from them/alternatively would have to throw current safety precautions out the window and use arrestor cables as an excuse for not making the highway base runways long enough for safe F-35 operations, accepting that if (or rather when-) something goes wrong in a highway base, the runway will be out of service for some time while there might be fighters in the air that absolutely have to land on that strip & do it right then and there?
>>29496107
More like 700 miles, roughly 50% more than a Gripen-C while carrying a comparable payload.
>>29496175
apparently you're not familiar with day-to-day fighter operations. because what you're describing is quite literally what happens every day with a relatively safety-obsessed force: the USAF.
>>29496152
Maybe, but not necessarily; the F-35 primarily replaces the F-16 and 2 bombs, 2 missiles is a pretty typical payload for them. Same for the Hornet, except that they generally carry 2 Sidewinders instead of AMRAAMs, with 1 AMRAAM on the hip, opposite the targeting pod.
>>29496121
We understand the difference. You seem to be incapable of understanding that these are comparable figures from comparable sources with comparable amounts of safety padding so your objection is just inaccurate.
Posting this image again if it's expired, look at this. I have personally sat and watched the Gripens take off and land from these things on more than one occasion. That's 800 metres from the eastbound pocket to the westbound pocket. If coming eastbound they will set down just a little east of the westbound pocket and be slowed down to a dignified taxi speed while still nearly 200 metres from the eastbound pocket. When they take back off they often hotrod it and get airborne in ~300. I am guessing they are not fully loaded but they are definitely not empty either - you can see hardpoints occupied.
>>29496152
2 2k/1k bombs, 4 500 pounders, or 8 SDBs, stop being stupid.
Honestly at this point I hope FiAF selects the F-35 just so >800m can become a new meme.
>>29496033
The STOL has 2 primary, completely different purposes for 2 completely different situations.
1. The "winning", on the offensive situation. You can use ad-hoc, ersatz landing strips to press the attack, extending your area of air support/denial further into the enemy's boundaries. This is the best case scenario.
2. On the defense. As a last resort. The "losing" scenario. This is only used by countries who plan on losing airfields or who have not prepared enough for the defense of their nation. These countries are used to multikulti and getting keked by immigrants.
In scenario 1, the same result can be had with an aircraft with longer legs, such as the f-35a, which outright destroys Gripen NG in fuel range with internal fuel only. That means they can extend into the enemy's rear, probing and attacking... and loving, quivering,
I don't want to talk about scenario 2. It's a loser's strategy.
>>29496201
>with comparable amounts of safety padding
You can stop lying any time.
>>29496121
the point here is that the 800m for Gripen includes the exact same safety pads as the 2400m for F-35, period.
>>29496201
did you miss the part where the F-35A gets airborne in a hot desert in about 1200 ft?
>>29496102
which F-35? Certainly not the B.
>>29496201
for image see >>29494282
>>29496175
The only lemon idea is buying a 4th gen plane when 5th gen exists, and is cheaper
>>29496224
show me where it says the pads are, because based on what >>29496201 said, it seems the F-35A and the Gripen have similar takeoff performances to pretty much every western fighter and the "Gripen is a STOL monster" meme is based on misunderstandings and PR.
>>29496225
Did you miss the part where unlike the Gripen, the F-35 typically needs more strip to *land* on than to take off from?
>>29496214
2 isn't losers strategy
2 is what will happen when fighting a real war.
Which will always feature artillery/cruise missile/ballistic missile/aircraft strikes against your airbases.
>>29496152
>4 internal AMRAAMs
>6 after IWB upgrades
>Stealth will only be used occasionally.
"No."
>>29496255
That's the same as pretty much every fighter ever.
And once again, there are safety pads in minimum landing distances.
>>29496102
>The Saab 39 Gripen does not need 800 meters to take-off or land safely.
When everything is working properly. If your engine shits out you are fucked, which is why other nations operate with a safety buffer for their aircraft.
>>29496224
>the point here is that the 800m for Gripen includes the exact same safety pads as the 2400m for F-35, period.
No, it doesn't. 800m for Gripen does not have any safety buffer.
>>29496285
I don't know how long Sweden's runways actually are. (Except that I do know that the testing runway for Saab is intentionally made to be exactly 800 meters) But being able to take-off and land safely within 800 meters was alway's one of the Gripen's key performance goals. Arguing that it doesn't have that ability is just fucking dumb.
>>29496257
1. Airfields are important assets. The most important to any air force. You aren't going to see major airfields within artillery range of an enemy unless something has gone very, very wrong. Meaning you are losing.
2. Cruise missiles can be shot down by aircraft and SAM's. Which, during war, you should have patrolling to protect your important assets. See: 1.
3. Ballistic Missiles: there is no surefire way of stopping a ballistic missile. If it is nuclear, you can pretty much count on a nation-level worldwide devastation, meaning your little roadside airplane gas station isn't going to do you one bit of good. Also, some military installations may be hardened to these effects, especially if they are valuable assets. See: 1.
4. Aircraft strikes: you also want to have a fighter that is superior in A2A combat. What helps is a fine sensor suite to detect and destroy the enemy, and also an ability to avoid detection. The Gripen has arguably one of those things. F35 has both.
The f-35 would be for a better long-term strategy. If a conflict goes hot, they definitely will have better survivability than the Gripen, especially against potent foes such as the great bear in the east that seeks to subjugate the west.
>>29496305
>>29496285
actually guys the MINIMAL takeoff weight with an A2A config Gripen NG is 500-600m. So i'm guessing the extra 200m is wiggle room for safety.
source:
http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-for-brazil/pdf-gripen-ng/gripen-ng-brochure.pdf
OP here, this conversation has gone to Hell, let's start over with "how much do X, Y and Z require for safe operations", shall we?
RAAF says F-35 requires 8000 feet for safe operations, what does RAAF say about F/A-18? This is relevant because we are trying to establish whether FiAF could operate F-35As from the same highway bases it currently uses to operate F/A-18C/Ds.
pic unrelated but necessary to draw your attention to this post
>>29496335
This is where you cite 800 meters including safety buffers.
>>29496353
If the engine failed at 500m down the runway, it would be able to safely recognize that & brake in the last 200-300m?
I don't think so
Which his why the recommended operating runway for the F-35 is so much longer
>>29496353
That is true. However, for an A2G loadout, the Gripen will use almost the entire 800 meters. I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm just saying there would be a good safety margin.
>>29496335
There's a difference between safely taking off and landing in 800m and being able to perform all types of emergency procedures within 800m. The former is easy to believe; I'm 100% certain the Gripen can, but I also believe the F-35 can as well. For the latter, I and others here have serious reservations, simply because trying to stop 10+ tons of aerodynamic materials in half that distance, with non-functioning brakes is pretty damn unlikely.
>>29496353
200 meters is wiggle room for pilot ability, not safety.
>>29496361
It shouldn't be a problem at all.
>>29496353
>>29496384
>>29496385
>>29496377
The figure listed is "Minimal takeoff distance." Given the size of that figure, I have no reason to not believe that's takeoff roll.
>>29496385
what is 200 meters in respect to time for an aircraft travelling at take off speed?
Guys, we can figure this out. I think we're on to something.
>>29496402
based on what?
>>29496427
Nowhere in the memo do they recommend lengthening runways to accommodate the F-35. All they're saying is that it should be operated from existing runways that are at least 8000 feet long.
>>29496410
Sure, but (as the autismo investigator) I'm certain that's not the absolute minimum distance for the take-off roll. An F-35 can do it in less than 800m and the Gripen is lighter.
>>29496448
They do, but only for RAAF Williamtown (note the explanation too):http://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/WAG_minuts_11-Oct-2012-adopted_19-nov-2012.pdf
>The baseline runway option is an extension from 8,000ft to 10,000ft, mainly for operational
safety and training efficiency reasons, keeping the runway within the current Base boundary.
This was also the basis for modelling the current ANEF. The translation and duplication are
public suggestions, and will be assessed by the EIS for environmental impacts, including
noise. Any subsequent decision on runway options will include consideration of the EIS
assessment.
>>29496448
what memo? Are you saying that Finnish Air force has published a memo about what to do if F-35 is bought?
>>29496418
so that would give them roughly 5-10 seconds of wiggle room, assuming around 200 kph takeoff speed, and also assuming attempts were made to slow the aircraft down after realizing there was a fault/malfunction.
Is that the standard time for a pilot to react to an equipment malfunction/fault? Would it be enough time to at least eject if there was a catastrophic failure?
Assume we're dealing with relatively experienced pilots and not rookies.
>>29496418
2-3 seconds with some rough napkin math. 170 knots (NM/hr) is a pretty typical rotation speed, so that's about 250 ft/sec. 200m is ~650 feet
>>29496448
because most fighter-type aircraft are based at airfields that are 9000-12000 ft long
>>29496459
Also: http://www.defence.gov.au/aircraftnoise/Williamtown/NoiseMitigation.asp
As part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the flying operations of F-35A, the runway at RAAF Base Williamtown will be extended which will allow the majority of F-35A take-offs to be conducted without the use of afterburners reducing noise impacts to surrounding communities.
>>29496305
And this is where the F-35 shills abandon the final shredded pretense of objectivity here, claiming with a straight face that SWEDEN, the nation on Earth that is the most obsessively safety conscious, to the point they are quite rightly mocked for it world around, do not include a normal margin for safety in their figures.
No, it's much worse than that even, They aren't just operating military bases with airstrips that are only sufficient if little goes wrong, no, they are doing this on CIVILIAN HIGHWAYS! OPEN highways, with traffic going up and down them, with no warning at all. They stick an aistrip out there anywhere there is 800m of straight and level, with two docks one at each end, they take off and land from these regularly, year round, and yet that is only enough of a strip *if nothing goes wrong* so it's surely just an accident waiting to happen.
Wait, they've been doing this since the 90s?
How many accidents have they had? How many lives lost?
What's that? One accident you say? An early prototype?
Something here does not make sense anon.
>>29496495
And it turns out the 2400m recommended runway length is merely to not disturb the locals.
>>29496448
what Royal Australian Air Force does has little to do with how FiAF does things, we have untold number of strips of highway to be used as highway bases, I know for a fact that at least one of them is 7200 feet long at best & is used by F/A-18s.
>>29496518
No it's to permit the F-35s to take off without dumping large quantities of fuel via afterburners just to get aloft.
Do you even read what you wrote before you hit post? You make this way too easy.
>>29496508
or maybe these 500-800m figures are for takeoff roll, and that they're accepting doing things dangerously because if you have to land on a highway instead of your airfield things suck and you're going to have to get it done and you're either going to stick the landing or punch out if you're not doing it in training.
also volvo is not the swedish military.
>>29496508
>By November 2010, the Gripen had accumulated over 143,000 flight hours without a single engine-related failure or incident
They do not keep a safety margin for engine failure because it doesn't happen
There is a big difference of what minimum size of runway is it physically possible to operate off of
And which is SAFE assuming a castatrophic failure + rookie pilot + not using afterburners for takeoffs.
>>29496470
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2b1ed75-dc16-447a-a878-b8670edb674d&subId=254100
I was wrong, the memo actually does endorse lengthening certain runways upon closer inspection. And this is from the RAAF but they also use Hornets so it should be the same thing.
>>29496532
it takes longer to get up to speed when you're not putting out as much thrust. AB is noisy. mil thrust is less noisy.
>>29496530
cool, that's about the same as the 8000 ft minimum runway.
>>29496533
>because if you have to land on a highway instead of your airfield things suck
No they take off and land from the roadways daily, it's part of their overall doctrine, fucking hell you aren't even trying.
>>29496553
HAVE TO.
you practice for things but if things look dicey in everyday operations i'd bet that they'd divert and take a cable.
>>29496566
But they don't look dicey in everyday operations.
>>29496543
the memo actually does endorse lengthening certain runways upon closer inspection.
there you go, lenghtening the strenghtened & widened area used as runway is something that can't be done easily in our highway bases.
>>29496586
But look at why they're lengthening them.
>>29496508
>they take off and land from these regularly, year round
Not since the cold war ended.
>>29496584
If the brakes or engines failed and it slid off the runway, then it would look dicey
>>29496584
as in, if i've got a hydraulic problem, i'd go divert to a normal airbase and take a cable. in wartime who gives a fuck i'll put it down on the nearest piece of concrete.
>>29496553
>they take off and land from the roadways daily
No, they don't.
So much for your objectivity.
>>29496550
>cool, that's about the same as the 8000 ft minimum runway.
minus 200m but what is a measly 200 meters when dealing with planes weighing 31.8 metric tons fully loaded & carrying all kinds of dangerous shit while flying at supersonic speeds?
>>29496604
4chan is an 18+ website
>>29496635
just pointing out that the F-35 NEEDS EXTRA LONG RUNWAY meme is based on a poor understanding of fighter ops.
fighter jets need long runways.
the F-35 is a fighter jet.
it needs a long runway.
the long runway it needs isn't really appreciably longer than any other fighter jet-length runway.
>>29496600
They did when I lived there and that was long after the end of the cold war so try again.
As much blatant bullshit as I've seen in this thread I'm going to need a reference before I'm going to believe they've stopped doing so in fact.
>>29496661
so what are you doing here?
>>29496662
Fighter jets need long runways for safety reaasons & to not use afterburners & for carrying the heaviest load possible
I'm sure you could operate an F-35 off 800m runways with lower payload/fuel loads, and skipping certain safety margins
>>29496679
and because approach speeds are high. Cat E mins for everybody.
but yeah, you get it.
>>29496361
This site: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
Says that the F/A-18C has a minimum take-off run of 1,400ft (427m).
This Yahoo Answers (I know) page: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070915090101AAjzjjN
has a supposed F/A-18C pilot (does actually seem legit to me though) who says that:
>Typically the takeoff distance with a standard load ( one centerline fuel tank) here in Lemoore is 2600 feet, a little more when hot and less when cold. This being said, if we max perform the jet we can get in the air in around 1500 feet Obviously on a carrier we get airborne within 250 feet or so.
>For landing we can stop when light on fuel and stores within around 2700 feet however the "required" ( by our higher ranking officers) distance is 7000 feet waiverable by the boss to 6000. good to know that we can stop in under 3000 feet though in a dire situation. For landing on the boat we stop in 200 feet or so with the aid of a hook and arresting wire.
To repeat that;
>For landing we can stop when light on fuel and stores within around 2700 feet however the "required" ( by our higher ranking officers) distance is 7000 feet waiverable by the boss to 6000.
7000ft by regulation by the USN
>>29496147
>Fuel to fly 600NM
oh, so it can only really go 150miles then, if it wants to return home and have a safety buffer?
I read about the rotating mini missle launcher.... too bad that wasnt in the original budget either and is gonna cost more than projected costs were. They ever fix the minigun with 300rds of ammo yet? Last I heard, it wasnt gonna be functional until a projected date of at least 2018.
>>29496109
>>29496116
>using your phone browser AND your computer so you can shitpost at twice the speed!
fuck off faggot. Not everyone jerks it to F35 pics and manga porn that personifies it. Some of us are just regular non-delusional taxpayers who are disappointed in the whole farce of a program, all while further driving the US Economy into further debt, essentially doubling it. Does your projected costs graphs include interest that comes along with US Debt?
>>29496186
I dont have sides in this race. However, I do feel the Gripen is more near a realistic price for what it is, an advanced plane that can drop bombs on its intended target. Air-to-air is pretty much limited by missles and radar, and guess what, radar has been around for more than a few decades.
>>29496201
These delusional fanbots will literally never understand us. I wake up every morning to the roar of F35's and on occasion, F22's flying over my house. I see ospreys flying in formation at least once a week during my time working outside. C7's literally make me go deaf, which I just wanted to add: there is no way in fuck that those faggets recording the 9/11 attacks didnt hear that fuckin thing before it hit the tower. Im talkin bout the video where its some guy standing in the street and doesnt get bewildered until it fuckin explodes. Nigger woulda been grabbin his ears or lookin for that fucker long before it hit. esp with the echo that comes with all those tall building around him.
>>29496679
>Fighter jets need long runways for safety reaasons & to not use afterburners & for carrying the heaviest load possible
So, the F-16s using afterburners every take-off 24 hours a day in Iraq was my imagination? Kind of a disturbing revelation about disruptions to my sleep regardless of shift.
>>29496717
>9/11 truther
I was 15 on 9/11. I don't know what the fuck you're implying but planes hit those towers. And you don't need to melt steel to weaken it enough to cause structural collapse.
>>29496733
You can takeoff in mil power. But in a hot environment the safer option is to take off in AB.
>>29496700
so, FiAF seems to follow the 7000 feet rule, that would probably translate as spending millions to extend the highwaybases by another 1000 where possible & making new ones to replace highway bases that can't be extended to 8000 feet (our leaders certainly seem to like to copy other countries' ideas, but add a Finnish twist to it, a twist that often comes with a price tag of millions of euros)
>>29496717
Being angry is not an excuse for being ignorant.
>>29496766
>>29496717
>troofer
Oh for fucks sake, all the idiocy makes sense now.
>>29496773
*should the F-35 be chosen, with Gripens there'd be no need to do anything
>>29496717
>oh, so it can only really go 150miles then, if it wants to return home and have a safety buffer?
F-35A/C's COMBAT RADIUS is ~610 NMI, buddy. That's 610nmi out, then back, and still enough fuel for safety margin. On just the internal tanks. Plus somewhere around 5500-6000 pounds more in the optional drop tanks to extend it past 1000nmi.
>rest of your post
pic related.
>>29496662
>All fighter jets need long runways, F-35 is normal.
Eurofighter is specified to operate on 500m runways but in the fine specs that's with minimal loadout. Actually needs 2300 ft to takeoff with full loadout. Gripen needs less. Rafale needs less still. The F/A 18 needs more than those but still much less than F-35A. The F/A18 requirement is around 7k, much more than the Gripen, still well under the F-35A. The best you can say for this meme is it's not completely and totally wrong. Just mostly wrong and applied deceptively.
>>29496679
Maybe you can, but you can operate a Gripen from an 800m strip with full loads, no afterburners, no compromises.
>>29496796
>>29496766
and the next 8 posts ITT are going to be you faggots self-validating and pointing fingers at a fuckin anthill while ignoring the fuckin mountain behind your bullshitin ass.
![der_page_004[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/toAuKxN.png "der_page_004[1].png")
>>29496717
>oh so it can only really go 150miles then, if it wants to return home and have a safety buffer?
1200NM if you don't want to come home (eg, you can make it to an aerial tanker). Those distances are under combat conditions too. If you're happy to fly slower you can do closer to 2000NM, possibly more.
>I read about the rotating mini missle launcher
It doesn't rotate; it's just a matter of fitting something like the bottom half of this pylon (see pic) into the bay.
>They ever fix the minigun with 300rds of ammo yet? Last I heard, it wasnt gonna be functional until a projected date of at least 2018.
The gun is functional (and carries more ammo than the Gripen's gun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-OyE45DEac
Note that the video is of a 60 round burst.
>>29496766
>You can takeoff in mil power. But in a hot environment the safer option is to take off in AB.
Combat profile takeoffs, especially if there's any risk of MANPADS, is to do a steep ascent as well so you clear the danger zone quickly.
>>29496825
>>29496820
for the billionth time, takeoff roll is not minimum runway length for takeoff.
if you watch fighters take off, they ALWAYS take off about 1/3 to 1/2 way down the runway.
>>29496843
true, and you deselect AB for IRMD.
>>29496820
The F/A-18 can safely take off and land in less than 800m as per the quote. 7000ft is a regulatory limit, same for the F-35's 8000ft.
>>29496825
or maybe some of us were old enough to live through 9/11.
>>29496861
Careful, he might tell his mom on you
>>29496812
Tell me, does the helmet work? They say it does, but tell me how you get HUD to show on a crystal clear eyecover?
>>29496831
>1200NM, slower you can do closer to 2000NM, possibly more.
>that whole post
thanks for enlightening me, without shitting a brick like the other faggots who think I'm supposed to know this stuff by osmosis.
And I thought it was originally supposed to be 8 round 'kill' bursts?
>>29496857
FiAF follows the 7k limit for F/A-18, so would probably adopt 8k rule for F-35A, then infuriate the government with demands to extend the 7k strips of our highway bases into 8k strips.
>>29496883
>Tell me, does the helmet work? They say it does, but tell me how you get HUD to show on a crystal clear eyecover?
Holy shitballs, really? The same optic principle as how a HUD works, just in front of your face instead of a wedge of glass in front of you.
>thanks for enlightening me, without shitting a brick like the other faggots who think I'm supposed to know this stuff by osmosis.
You could always do even a little research instead of showing your ignorance.
>And I thought it was originally supposed to be 8 round 'kill' bursts?
Programmable bursts. The pilot can set the burst count to whatever he needs, and the sensor suite can calculate optimum POA for the ground target.
>>29496854
And for the billionth time, the 800m for the Gripen not the minimum takeoff length either. That's the statutory operational limit that's built around, with generous safety padding.
Rough figures I'm not going to look it up again right now but the Gripen is roughly 30% lighter, has roughly 37% less wing-load and 25% better thrust per pound, plus the largest total air brakes on any modern fighter, much larger than the F-35. It was specifically designed to operate safely off 800m.
How can it really be so hard for you morons to grasp that it does what it was designed to do, and the F-35 does not do what the F-35 was never designed to do?
>>29496883
Functionally, the helmet does now work fine, but as a side effect it's gained helmet weight from 4.7 to 5.1lb. That's been part of the new ejection seat issue, where pilots that are super light and weight <136lb currently can't fly the jet (same goes for Super Hornets though).
The HUD however works simply by having a thin reflective layer on an inner visor - like a 1-way mirrow. Projectors bounce the image off that layer, but otherwise the layer is practically invisible.
>And I thought it was originally supposed to be 8 round 'kill' bursts?
It can be programmed by the pilot to shoot any size burst; chances are the bursts will be more like 20-50 round bursts. Guns are a last-resort weapon (like the pistol of someone armed with a rifle), so you shouldn't need to have to fire all that many bursts.
>>29496913
Possibly, but it shouldn't be that much of an issue; 1000ft isn't nothing, but t's not much.
>>29496954
Unless the Gripen is made of magic, I guarantee you that 800m is not the same regulatory limit. If you have evidence otherwise, then bring it forward. Remember, you're not just saying the Gripen requires significantly smaller runways than an F-35, but also F-16s, F/A-18s, etc.
>>29496954
you're not reading your sources. the F-35's takeoff roll is in line with most other fighters out there, including the Gripen. the doctrinal runway limit is based on all the shit i outlined multiple times. it's the same as every other fighter. i'm not arguing for F-35 exceptionality, I'm saying it's comparable to ever other fucking fighter in existence in regards to runway restrictions/take off roll.
how is this so hard to get through your skull.
>>29496923
>You could always do even a little research
I tried that before. Every time I did and used it to back up things I said, faggots here would laugh and say it wasnt true and state their sources. It got to the point where no matter what the source, even a .mil website, they would denounce it in some way, saying "oh well, thats just in the babby stages, its gunna b mo betta!!! just you watch!" So I stopped caring. Its almost as bad as going to HKPro or HKtalk and asking about the false reset on a USP.
>Nah man, its just the way you holding it
>Why dont you just let the trigger out faster
>Muscle memory where it actually resets instead of the first click and just remember where that is
It was literally "No way something negative with pistol(plane), gotta be you"
come to find out, there have been numerous reports of out-of-spec trigger bars.
>Same shit, different thread.
>sensor suite can calculate optimum POA for the ground target.
wait.... so its still not functional for A2A?
>>29496956
>like a 1-way mirrow
>pointing towards you
sounds like a great idea!
I remember reading an article somewhere that there is no way possible to emit am image onto a completely clear piece of material, unless it is with a fastmoving laser and the material is micro-etched. It basically said, if the F35 enhanced helmet came out with a clear visor, it was basically a publicity lie to try and gain positive traction with public approval/opinion.
>>29496989
>Possibly, but it shouldn't be that much of an issue; 1000ft isn't nothing, but t's not much.
the base I have been using as an example (>>29494398) can't be extended that much (and it was only built few years ago), at the north-western end there's a rather steep downward slope starting right where the road narrows down, there are almost certainly other highway bases with similar situations.
>>29497029
ground or air target. not sure how it works on the F-35 specifically, but you generally put the aircraft in the appropriate master mode for air to air or air to ground, and the computer uses range finding to compute lead and deflection for air to air or air to ground gunnery.
>>29497029
>I am completely out of my depth, don't parse the relevance or validity of my sources, and don't take to heart new facts that debunk my opinions
On 19 May 2015, a two-seater JAS 39 D number 42 from the Hungarian Air Force overran the runway at Čáslav Air Base, Czech Republic. Both crewmen (Bg.Gen Ugrik and Maj. Grof) ejected safely with no injures. The aircraft was heavily damaged with the nose section separated.
clearly needed more runway
baka
>>29497077
It can do A2A, but they could've just stuck with the M61 Vulcan 20mm PGU-28A/B SAPHEI instead of the GAU-22/A 25mm APEX, which is clearly a ground attack load, while the former is optimized for anti-air.
>>29497029
>I remember reading an article somewhere that there is no way possible to emit am image onto a completely clear piece of material
It's not completely clear, but the difference isn't perceivable.
Attached pic shows the outer (sunblocking) visor and the inner helmet display visor.
>>29497148
>but they could've just stuck with the M61 Vulcan 20mm PGU-28A/B SAPHEI instead of the GAU-22/A 25mm APEX, which is clearly a ground attack load, while the former is optimized for anti-air
ask yourself: what is this gun going to be used for?
