4 ms·
The V280 is designed to be cheap (a very relative term here). Reading between the lines, I suspect "fast, but also expensive" was a design option that popped u
by cucumber3732842 8mo ago
The V280 is designed to be cheap (a very relative term here).
Reading between the lines, I suspect "fast, but also expensive" was a design option that popped up and was not chosen earlier in the V280 program and now Darpa wants to pay to see where it goes.
- Zigurd 8mo agoHard to be more expensive than F-35B.
- XorNot 8mo agoThe F-35 is cheaper then some new production 4th generation fighters at this point.
- Zigurd 8mo agoThe sticker price is competitive but the cost per flight hour and the availability factor is pretty horrifying. Factoring in the cost of flying and the availability makes the Grippen about half the cost. I wonder if the flight hour cost of F 35 includes the maintenance it's undergoing when it's not available.
- bigyabai 8mo agoThe Gripen is a fantastic jet, but you're basically describing the difference between a fourth and fifth generation platform. When Saab and Embraer roll out their own fifth-generation jets, they will also have to contend with expensive RAM coating and complex internal hardpoints. Putting aside the export market, it's a small miracle that the F-35 turned out as well as it did. Having a mostly-common fighter airframe shared between the Navy, Marines and Air Force was a pipe dream in the 90s. America is lucky the program didn't collapse entirely.
- jandrewrogers 8mo ago4th generation platforms like Grippen are not survivable in a modern air defense environment without complementary 5th generation platforms to establish air superiority. You can't avoid having a fleet of something like F-35 to gain control of the airspace.
- sofixa 8mo ago> modern air defense environment Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.
- XorNot 8mo agoPresuming that state of affairs will persist though is fraught. It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
- sofixa 8mo ago> It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy. That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough. > WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun. But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.
- UltraSane 8mo agoThe Grippen is incredibly vulnerable to anti air missiles.
- throwaway2037 8mo agoAre there any non-stealth fighter jets that are not "incredibly vulnerable to anti air missiles"?
- UltraSane 8mo agoNo which is why they are kind of obsolete.
- simonh 8mo agoI've had to eat some humble pie and moderate my assessment of the F-35. It still does have a lot of issues, for sure, but it turns out if you divide an eye wateringly large number by another impressively large number, the result can be a lot better than I thought it would be. It's lot more about operational costs and project deliverables than plain sticker shock, and it is turning out to be a capable platform.
- rootusrootus 8mo ago> I've had to eat some humble pie and moderate my assessment of the F-35 Same for me. I was surprised to hear that it actually competes favorably on price. And aside from early griping that it couldn't beat an ancient F-16 in a dogfight, it seems pretty capable in that regard too. Saw a demo at the last airshow I went to and that plane was defying physics. I love the 16, always will, but I definitely don't think it would hang with an F-35.
- esseph 8mo agoIn a real fight, the F-35 smokes the F-16 beyond visual range before the F-16 even knows there is a problem. The radar and electronic warfare capabilities are incredible.
- dylan604 8mo agoIsn't modern tactics to not use onboard radar but to be driven in by airborne radar from AWACs? Or is it used once in the furball as the jig is up at that point?