The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 9, 3:28*pm, Mike wrote:
The Weekly Standard

The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM

Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
Generation Gripen"
(Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.

As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
configuration.

The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
on the front end.)

But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
own modifications and integration of weapon systems.

But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
based.

There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
(A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
the "MiG-35,"
although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
configuration.)

Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
nations that are also part of the program.

Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.

Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
million per copy.
This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
Gripen purchase instead.)

The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
the U.S.
dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."

The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.

(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)

F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.

Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
combat or air defence environment.

There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.

The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
similarly truncated service lives?

(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
much more advanced F-22A.)

On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.

The JAS-39, ...

read more »

Oh, weekly standard, surely they know how to build a fighter.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is
disgusting.

?!? They built a canard airplane. It flew. What is "disgusting" about that?

The article was a review article that supports a contention. The US policy is
to not use canards. This was one of my contentions in one reply in this
thread.

The article does NOT support that contention. If you think it does, post the
appropriate citation.


It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of behavior
of all canards.

It does NOT! It discusses the Wright Flyer as ONE example in a "Historical
Overview"! Post the specific citation that you claim supports your statement.


And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability to
tumble.

It did NOT! It cited the behavior of a SPECIFIC DESIGN -- the XP-55!


And tumble as a benefit was ignored. A canard can overcome this shortfall by
a properly sized rudder and vertcial stabilizer. And perform one of the
manuvers I suggest without failing. A 45 degree banked Condor maneuver.

Say what?!? How does a rudder and vertical stabilizer relate to a pure PITCH
response?!?

Also, how can a canard "overcome this shortfall" if you believe a canard CAUSED
this "shortfall?!? You're again talking absolute NONSENSE!

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can beat
nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but stall.

NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!

I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
characteristic of their centers of gravity.

The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge of the
envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not do anything
but loose the aircraft.

One more time... You are attempting to generalize to ALL canard airplanes a
performance parameter that is [maybe] specific to a specific design. We cannot
even assume your performance assessment is correct for any specific design,
because most of it is utter nonsense.


I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT safe in
rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense. Why not just say
what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear stabilizer fighters are
safe."

Your point is nonsense simply because it makes no sense whatsoever! You claim
that a recoverable inverted stall is a "safe place" in a dogfight, but there is
NO REASON any pilot would want to be in an inverted stall in a dogfight! That
is even beyond your [false] baseline assumption that all canard aircraft are
equal.

I do not allude to that statement about rear stabilizer fighters anywhere. The
ONLY thing I might "allude to" is that inverted stalls in SOME fighters may be
recoverable. Again, it is a SPECIFIC DESIGN performance factor!

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.

Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?

Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
after him.

I do believe you're ONTO something!

"JR Weiss" wrote in message
news
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
beat
nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but
stall.

NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!

I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
characteristic of their centers of gravity.

The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge of
the envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not do
anything but loose the aircraft.

One more time... You are attempting to generalize to ALL canard airplanes
a performance parameter that is [maybe] specific to a specific design. We
cannot even assume your performance assessment is correct for any specific
design, because most of it is utter nonsense.


I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT safe
in rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense. Why not
just say what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear stabilizer
fighters are safe."

Your point is nonsense simply because it makes no sense whatsoever! You
claim that a recoverable inverted stall is a "safe place" in a dogfight,
but there is NO REASON any pilot would want to be in an inverted stall in
a dogfight! That is even beyond your [false] baseline assumption that all
canard aircraft are equal.

I do not allude to that statement about rear stabilizer fighters anywhere.
The ONLY thing I might "allude to" is that inverted stalls in SOME
fighters may be recoverable. Again, it is a SPECIFIC DESIGN performance
factor!


JR, you are wasting time and electrons arguing with a psychotic bot.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f...AlphaNotes.pdf

Here is a study that mentions a critical aspect of the issue of canard flight.
High angle of attack allows for very fast roll rates in general. A wing
designed for high angle of attack becomes a superior wing in general.

Where does it say that? What was the max roll rate of the Wright Flyer? AJ-37
Viggen? A-4E Skyhawk? F-5E Tiger?

Several transport aircraft and a few tactical aircraft have been tested using
the Coanda effect to allow flight at very high AoA. However, that high AoA
capability sacrificed considerable capability at low AoA / higher speed. Show
me where a high AoA capability has added to overall wing performance...

On page 9-10, regarding the general case, it says:

"Control effectiveness tends to diminish as the angle of attack increases."

It follows with a SPECIFIC DESIGN case:

"Here, differential canard is used to make up for the loss of rudder
effectiveness."

Note that NOTHING is said about a lack of horizontal stab, or inherent
superiority of any general scheme! Note also that several aircraft (e.g., F-14)
use differential horizontal stab to augment roll rate, so a canard has no
inherent advantage there.

Please show me a roll rate vs AoA chart for ANY fighter airplane (or ANY
airplane, for that matter, that has higher roll rate at higher AoA!


Also, it specifically supports my contention that performance characteristics
are DESIGN SPECIFIC! On page 9-5, specifically referencing lateral and
directional control of canard aircraft, is:

"One of the complications associated with canard aircraft is the wide
variation in these characteristics with canard setting. The trailing vortex
system from the canard interacts with the leading edge vortices of the main
wing, forebody vortices and also the vertical tail. Thus the lateral/directional
characteristics of canard configurations play a large role in deciding if a
canard configuration is practical."


A f-22 uses a special thrust vectoring to achieve high angles of
attack, it does not use a superior wing design. A major fact shown
was the roll rate as angle of attack is varied. Reliance on thrust
vectoring to compensate for a wing design reduces the roll rate.

Roll rate is a speed to turn in. And the degree of roll appear
amendable to only a f-16 challenge.

In dogfights it has a deficiency. In stealth it likely has
superiority. Maybe a tradeoff was accepted. As long as pilots know of
this limitation they may alter tactics to overcome lower performance
ability.

In decision making many factor appear and my guess is it is to be
termed a fourth generation dog fighter and a fifth generation stealth
fighter.

Roll rate is another envelope variable and the lack of speed to turn
appear to make another maneuver available to be considered. A basic
cork screw as a prelude to turn is either to be followed or not
followed by the attacker, say an F-22. A leading enemy can expect the
F-22 to not follow.

An F-22 cannot keep up.

As a result all acts to avoid the US fighter can be successful break
off maneuvers. If you do not match the cork screw, you also loose. A
whole class as a basic dogfight disappears.

It is a huge compromise design, the non-canard F-22.

"Roger Conroy" wrote...

JR, you are wasting time and electrons arguing with a psychotic bot.

Got nothing better to do right now than review a bit of aerodynamics...

On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:22:55 -0400, "Dean A. Markley"
wrote:

Well Ed, I was half expecting a blonde babe from the posting title.

I kind of like thinking about Elin Nordegen too but what she has to do
with military or naval matters is beyond me.

(Anyone who doesn't know who she is can Google)

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:28:11 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
around, at any rate.

I dunno - I think of a deviant compsci instructor getting his students
to write Eagleson Eliza-bots with dread....

How about a nice game of chess!

On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:05:45 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.

Oh so could Eagleson - except his machine wouldn't blow - it would
suck.

It would be amusing to talk about canards on a Sopwith Camel and see
how the bot would respond...