JAS 39 Gripen is growing up....

[Butters]

The F-35 Aardvark Too is simply carrying on the Lockheed Martin tradition of big promises and lousy bang for the buck. As witnessed by the $350 M F-22 and the JSSM (13 yrs development and a 40% success rate at $700,000+ a pop...)

To say that the Golden CALF has feet of clay is an understatement. FBJ made reference to a recent flight of the B model, but failed to mention that the program has only completed 3% of the originally scheduled flight test program. And it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be getting an operational F-35 of any kind for the low, low price of $140 million. It is years behind schedule,and its purported invincibility is based on little more than conjecture, hype, and a wilful disregard of both the laws of physics and the known capabilities of near-peer adversaries.

JL

 

[Maximowitz]

^^^
So, not a fan then?

 

[Lucky13]

Right now I show about $140 million for the F-35, $65 million for the Grippen



Depends what the operator wants - I think more smaller countries will go with the Grippen. I think you're going to see your larger countries go with the F-35, especially if they have received a contract to build a portion of the aircraft.

This is how the current NAVAIR F-35 procurement will go

Year Aircraft Average unit cost/aircraft

FY2008: 6 $184.2 million
FY2009: 8 $200.2 million
FY2010: 18 $172.3 million
FY2011: 19 $146.4 million
FY2012: 40 $124.4 million
FY2013: 42 $115.1 million
Remainder: 547 $109.3 million
Total: 680 $115 million

Crikey Joe, that's some difference! Thanks! As time goes, Gripen will become cheaper too and upgraded.
Another thing that I've been wondering about, what do you have to do to the engine to make it a 'super cruise' engine?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-35 Aardvark Too is simply carrying on the Lockheed Martin tradition of big promises and lousy bang for the buck. As witnessed by the $350 M F-22 and the JSSM (13 yrs development and a 40% success rate at $700,000+ a pop...)

Once again you're talking out of your ass. 40% success rate??? Where did you come up with that crap?!?!? 4 units failed during testing - it is called "testing" and done for a reason...

BTW you mean "JASSM"

And since the time of the test failures (which were attributed to launcher and propulsion system problems) the thing has been fixed as promised. The first missile of its kind, again it would be expected to have problems. AND Lockheed HAS been put on notice - make it work or program terminated.

As we speak the F-22 MC rate increases and it approaching 80%, no difference than any other new fighter plane.

The 13 year development was not the fault of the fighter by rather set by funding and priorities. After the first flight a lot of the program development sat dormant (look who was president at the time)

To say that the Golden CALF has feet of clay is an understatement. FBJ made reference to a recent flight of the B model, but failed to mention that the program has only completed 3% of the originally scheduled flight test program. And it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be getting an operational F-35 of any kind for the low, low price of $140 million. It is years behind schedule,and its purported invincibility is based on little more than conjecture, hype, and a wilful disregard of both the laws of physics and the known capabilities of near-peer adversaries.

JL

Yes - 3% of the test mission was completed - the aircraft was delivered at the end of December. Given the time and work schedule its right where it should be, and yes there may be arising problems and some more delays, but the bottom line is the aircraft is here to stay and it will follow in the footstep (and them some) of the aircraft it will be replacing.

"Years behind schedule?" There are delays (again just like any new combat aircraft program) but far from failure - again you make baseless assumptions with no credibility, experience or proof to back up any of your claims.

The CAF has flown Lockheed products for over 50 years and even built some aircraft and sub assemblies under contact and under license. Is your comment "Lockheed Martin tradition of big promises and lousy bang for the buck" reflective as part of the Canadian aerospace industry as well?!?!?

BTW - 21 CP-140s with thousands of hours on them, purchased on an offset program that not only gave money back to Canada but employed a few thousand Canadians for at least 10 years - so much for big promises...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Crikey Joe, that's some difference! Thanks! As time goes, Gripen will become cheaper too and upgraded.

It will, and again, its going to be up to the operator, their needs and what they can afford. I see "the big dogs" buying the F-35, but at the same time they'll be investing in its production.

Another thing that I've been wondering about, what do you have to do to the engine to make it a 'super cruise' engine?

"A lot of thrust!"

Actually its the airframe engine combo that will enable the aircraft to aerodynamically reach supersonic speeds at the cruise settings of the propulsion system.

 

[Lucky13]

So, no serious 'surgery' then? Was kinda curious, going from a 'slow boat' to a 'super cruiser'.... Cheers Joe!

 

[riacrato]

Which of the recent large military aircraft procurement programs did not exceed its budget and fail the schedule? The straight-through developments of the cold war era are a past.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Which of the recent large military aircraft procurement programs did not exceed its budget and fail the schedule? The straight-through developments of the cold war era are a past.

Very true riacrato. There is a lot of accountability US Defense Contractors have to be held to when compared to 30 years ago, but when you're building complex high dollar state of the art military hardware there will be cost and schedule over runs. Sometimes they are caused by the contractor (which the media likes to exploit) other times delays could be caused by government directed suppliers not fulfilling performing and in some cases even the customer inducing delays and cost over runs by changing schedules and contract requirements.

The US Defence Procurement system isn't perfect but be rest assured it will not back a program that continues to have unexplained setbacks but at the same time will make allotments on projects that offer promise and quality in the end.

 

[Butters]

FBJ,

Note that the '40% rate' etc was in reference to the JSSM. If you'd actually paid attention rather than reflexively jumping on me for talking out of my ass (And I'm a tyro in that regard compared to the LM and other JSF shills...)you might have noticed the $700,000 price tag. After all, we both know that you'd need three times that amount just to buy a single disposable canopy for the F-22...

Ditto the '3%' . That was not about one STOVL test-bed, but the scheduled F-35 flight test program in toto.( As was clearly stated)Which by the end of 2009 had only achieved 3% of what was scheduled to be accomplished by that date. And I'm not making assumptions or unsupported assertions about the delays in the F-35 program. That it is far behind schedule is a matter of public record, as you well know. Assumptions and unsupported assertions I leave to the JSF booster club. They like'em better than I do. Speaking of which, where is your evidence to support the assertion that, "...its the airframe engine combo that will enable the aircraft to aerodynamically reach supersonic speeds at the cruise settings of the propulsion system."?

I'll concede the CP-140, and other LM legacy a/c, but the fact remains that the tangible results of the F-22, JSSM, and F-35 programs have all failed to match LM's promises, whether in regards to schedules, affordability,or maintainability. Not that it's all their fault of course. They're only giving the USAF/DOD and the pork-hungry Congressman the hi-tech gee whiz fairy tales they want to hear...

JL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ,

Note that the '40% rate' etc was in reference to the JSSM. If you'd actually paid attention rather than reflexively jumping on me for talking out of my ass (And I'm a tyro in that regard compared to the LM and other JSF shills...)you might have noticed the $700,000 price tag. After all, we both know that you'd need three times that amount just to buy a single disposable canopy for the F-22...

And as you see I gave the amount of Failures your 40% came from - 4 failures DURING testing. Despite the issues, folks are still buying the thing....

"a single disposable canopy for the F-22"

And do you have component replacement data indicating WHEN an F-22 canopy would be replaced????

I worked on F-86s that had the same canopy from day one!!!

Ditto the '3%' . That was not about one STOVL test-bed, but the scheduled F-35 flight test program in toto.( As was clearly stated)Which by the end of 2009 had only achieved 3% of what was scheduled to be accomplished by that date. And I'm not making assumptions or unsupported assertions about the delays in the F-35 program. That it is far behind schedule is a matter of public record, as you well know. Assumptions and unsupported assertions I leave to the JSF booster club. They like'em better than I do.

And is the customer dissatisfied with the contractor's current performance, progress of the program or has the DoD threatened the contractor with default??? NO!!!!

Speaking of which, where is your evidence to support the assertion that, "...its the airframe engine combo that will enable the aircraft to aerodynamically reach supersonic speeds at the cruise settings of the propulsion system."?

Simple - You look at the power lever, set it to about 93% and watch the airspeed indicator....

Lucky 13 was asking in general how an aircraft is able to go tp supercruise.

I'll concede the CP-140, and other LM legacy a/c, but the fact remains that the tangible results of the F-22, JSSM, and F-35 programs have all failed to match LM's promises, whether in regards to schedules, affordability,or maintainability. Not that it's all their fault of course. They're only giving the USAF/DOD and the pork-hungry Congressman the hi-tech gee whiz fairy tales they want to hear...

JL

And again, with both programs just coming to maturity, you're assumptions fall short of real world events. The only REAL problem LM has had to deal with as far as contract default is the JASSM and rightfully so, if they don't perform they deserve to loose that one - but comparing contract performance on that program to the F-22/ F-35 is like comparing apples, oranges and pears.

BTW - this was recently sent to me....

A Senate's Document about the claims recently made against the F-22A:

" F-22 Assertions and Facts
July 2009

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It?s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22?s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.


Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.


Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Part II

Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.


Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been
redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.


Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.


Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered

prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are
occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.


Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.



Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie
Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.



Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.



Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today?s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.


Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft?s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts.



Assertion: Are these accusations in the recent lawsuit valid?

Facts: We believe the allegations are without merit. While we are aware of the Olsen lawsuit, the Corporation has not yet been served in this matter. We deny Mr. Olsen?s allegations and will vigorously defend this matter if and when it is served.


Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn?t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today?s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF."

F-22 Myths Debunked

I think in the end, that "LM CP-140 Legacy" will prevail

 

[Matt308]

 

[Glider]

I have read a slightly worrying report on the F35. I understand that the director of operational test and evaluation (DOTE) has written a report that concludes that Lockheed is struggling to deliver and fly Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft on time. The delays could extend the development phase until mid-2016.

The problems are the sort of thing that often happens in aircraft development but in times like this where budgets are tight and the Gripen is a known quantity that is in production. Some overseas customers may start thinking of a change in direction.

Items mentioned include
a) The STOVL has flown 16 times whereas the schedule shows it should be 168 flights
b) The avionics testbed has cleared 7 items instead of 284

Some small changes to the design to contain weight growth are causing concern
a) Removal of some dry bay fire extinguishers
b) The elimination of shut-off fuses for engine fueldraulics lines

That said things are going well in other areas
a) Structural testing has gone very well
b) The STOVL aircraft entered flight-testing with 64% of their allowable envelope cleared. The programme's goal is to clear 80% of the envelope in static testing by mid-2011.

Lockheed are saying that they can make up the difference but the director of operational test and evaluation is being more cautious.

A different item but related to the F35 is that the USAF have for some reason now realised that the F35 and F22 cannot talk to each other or exchange data in the air. Hard to believe but true. A five year project has been set up to integrate the Multi Functional Advanced Data Link (MFADL) of the aircraft to overcome this problem.
This may not however be as straight forward as it seems. The MFADL is the only realistic option but the amount of data it can exchange is very limited and in five years time may not be sufficient. Personally with the size of the pipe being a potential problem I would expect it to take longer than 5 years for a full system to be in place.

 

[pbfoot]

I believe the Gripen would be foolish buy for Canada they do not have the range for anything useful,

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Personally with the size of the pipe being a potential problem I would expect it to take longer than 5 years for a full system to be in place.

Great info Glider and recently read a similar piece (I'll try to find it). I think Lockheed will address the fixes of the problems based on what is acceptable to the DoD, lets wait and see. Be rest assured however that when push comes to shove, Lockheed will have to jump through their butts to comply with the contract - or else!

I believe the Gripen would be foolish buy for Canada they do not have the range for anything useful,

Agree - the only "work around" I see is expanding a proposed fleet size and also buying tankers to support the fleet and mission - $

 

[Glider]

I believe the Gripen would be foolish buy for Canada they do not have the range for anything useful,

I agree with this for Canada and also for Australia but for European countries where range isn't as important, the Gripen would be a tempting option if you want a low risk but still very effective fighter with secure costs to replace your F16's.

 

[Lucky13]

From Wiki.....

Gripen NG and Sea Gripen
A two-seat "New Technology Demonstrator" has been built, and was presented on 23 April 2008. It has increased fuel capacity, a more powerful powerplant, increased payload capacity, upgraded avionics and other improvements. The new aircraft is also referred to as the "Gripen Demo".

The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the General Electric F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will produce 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles.

Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900–35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A radar adds a new AESA antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009.

Gripen Demo's maiden flight was conducted on 27 May 2008. The test flight lasted about 30 minutes and reached a maximum altitude of about 6,400 meters (21,000 ft). On 21 January 2009, the Gripen Demo flew at Mach 1.2 without reheat to test its supercruise capability.

Saab did study work on a aircraft carrier based version in the 1990s. In 2009, Saab launched the Sea Gripen project in response to India's request for information for a aircraft carrier aircraft. Brazil also has a potential carrier aircraft need.

Will be interesting to see how they're gonna solve this. I know that Viggens (J 37) landing gear was strong enough for carrier landings, but still. And, if they did a study back in the '90's, they might have other aces up their sleeves.

 

[Matt308]

A different item but related to the F35 is that the USAF have for some reason now realised that the F35 and F22 cannot talk to each other or exchange data in the air. Hard to believe but true. A five year project has been set up to integrate the Multi Functional Advanced Data Link (MFADL) of the aircraft to overcome this problem.
This may not however be as straight forward as it seems. The MFADL is the only realistic option but the amount of data it can exchange is very limited and in five years time may not be sufficient. Personally with the size of the pipe being a potential problem I would expect it to take longer than 5 years for a full system to be in place.

This is not an F-35 issue. This is a US Armed Forces (US Air Force in particular in this case) issue. The inability for the F-35 to communicate with the F-22, is indicative of a lack of comm integration amongst platforms. Not an issue of the F-35 "underperforming". Such press releases are typically tied to airframe procurement to put it in bad light, but it is rather an Air Force system engineering shortcoming. The same issue exists with AWACS, F-15s, F-16s, A-10Cs, RQ-4s, etc. F-35s are getting the latest in open architecture comm systems. It is the other 30-40 year old airframes that require the upgrade.

And with regard to the Gripen satisfying European short range needs. Okay. But as long as Europe thinks in balkanized fighting mentality, the European Union airborne assets will continue to be individual sovereign specific and European Union strategic needs will never be met. If that's okay fine. But frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars going overseas.

 

[Lucky13]

This is not an F-35 issue. This is a US Armed Forces (US Air Force in particular in this case) issue. The inability for the F-35 to communicate with the F-22, is indicative of a lack of comm integration amongst platforms. Not an issue of the F-35 "underperforming". Such press releases are typically tied to airframe procurement to put it in bad light, but it is rather an Air Force system engineering shortcoming. The same issue exists with AWACS, F-15s, F-16s, A-10Cs, RQ-4s, etc. F-35s are getting the latest in open architecture comm systems. It is the other 30-40 year old airframes that require the upgrade.

And with regard to the Gripen satisfying European short range needs. Okay. But as long as Europe thinks in balkanized fighting mentality, the European Union airborne assets will continue to be individual sovereign specific and European Union strategic needs will never be met. If that's okay fine. But frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars going overseas.

Is that the computers etc., not being able to communicate between pilots/airframes regarding targets etc.?

Would you mind awfully explain, so that little old me understand Matt?

 

[Glider]

This is not an F-35 issue. This is a US Armed Forces (US Air Force in particular in this case) issue. The inability for the F-35 to communicate with the F-22, is indicative of a lack of comm integration amongst platforms. Not an issue of the F-35 "underperforming".

I never said that it was an F35 Issue. What I said was that the USAF had realised that the F22 and the F35 could not communicate with each other, no more, no less.

Such press releases are typically tied to airframe procurement to put it in bad light, but it is rather an Air Force system engineering shortcoming. The same issue exists with AWACS, F-15s, F-16s, A-10Cs, RQ-4s, etc. F-35s are getting the latest in open architecture comm systems. It is the other 30-40 year old airframes that require the upgrade.

Not quite. The problem lies in the failure of the USAF to identify what is a basic requirement, i.e. that planes can communicate with each other and incorporate it into the requirement. It isn't the fault of the aircraft designers and engineers who built what they were asked to build.
Its a difficult requirment to meet for two reasons
1) The F22 as we all know is based around stealth and any transmission compromises that ability.
2) The amount of data may swamp the size of the pipe.

And with regard to the Gripen satisfying European short range needs. Okay. But as long as Europe thinks in balkanized fighting mentality, the European Union airborne assets will continue to be individual sovereign specific and European Union strategic needs will never be met. If that's okay fine. But frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars going overseas.

You make it sound as if the Gripen is a twice around the airfield sports plane such as an early Mig 21 which is hardly accurate. As for your Tax dollars, you don't seem to mind european currency coming to the US, why should europeans not feel the same way?

You have touched on somthing that I first mentioned a couple of years ago. In the 70's, 80's and early 90's there were two fighters that ruled, the F15 and the F16, Europe and the USSR didn't have anything close. We had Mirages, Viggens and Tornado's but nothing in the same league.
As a result most of the worlds airforces came to the USA and this helped a) to drive the unit cost of the US fighters down, to the benefit of the USA and b) in people employed on the production of these aircraft.

With the latest Gripen, Typhoon, Rafael and SU fighters there are realistic alternatives. Its going to be tough in the US and if the drawbridge is drawn up, its going to be even more difficult.