And the US has enough revenue to shift budget where necessary.
Where could European aviation be today had political agendas not prevented such an aviation industry arising in the 60's
- Thread starter Jagdflieger
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And the US has enough revenue to shift budget where necessary.
There is some very huge differences between early stealth aircraft such as the F-117 and the 22/35, and why they were not going to happen before they did.
Honestly, the earliest Europe would get an F-22/F-35 type aircraft would be the mid to late 90s just like the US, and to do that I would wager they would they need a partnership with LM.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"The spokesman said the Navy was also investigating why Grumman was charging $400 apiece for a socket wrench to adjust ejection seats on F-14 jet fighters, and why the cost of a groundlock, or brace, used to secure a parked E-2C had escalated from $102 in 1982 to $2,710 a year later."Well there is "funding" and there is "funding".
NAVY PAYS $660 APIECE FOR TWO ASHTRAYS (Published 1985)
www.nytimes.com
Yep - and I was involved in the investigation of the "$600" toilet seat which was actually a fire resistant enclosure. Lockheed actually "overcharged" the government about $100 per unit and refunded the government, but that's hardly spoken about.
Article from 1985 - IIRC we did our investigation about 2 years earlier.
"Lockheed, which makes the plastic-and-fiberglass cases for toilets on P3 Orion submarine-hunting planes, said the housings should cost $554.78, not the $640.09 it had charged.
As a result, Lockheed recently refunded the Navy $4,606.74."
In today's world this has gotten much better but can occur when you have procurement people on the government side not fully educated with regards to the item they are buying. On the contractor side, they should realize that because they have fixed overhead costs they shouldn't even bid on such items and tell the government to "open bid" so it doesn't look like they are overcharging, but sometimes they are compelled to do so.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Aside from the basic airframe, the Viggen is from a bygone era and is basically a dinosaur when compared to the capability and mission of the F-35, and I'm not even talking about stealth capabilities. The F-35 is a flying supercomputer that can not only perform a strike role, but can integrate other weapons systems from other joint operators and use them. It can perform ECM, ELINT as well as AWACS missions as well. It's called a "battlefield quarterback" and that's why so much emphasis was placed in it's production. Many people are looking at the F-35 like any other jet fighter when it's not.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Guilty as charged.
I got better.
Shortround6
Major General
I had an old book that went a bit into the advancement in electronics over the years, from WWII to the 1970s or so?
They were measuring things like how many vacuum tubes (valves) per cubic ft the different electronic mile stones or generations could fit in.
Any of us older than the age of 12 can remember how much cell phones have evolved
TSR.2 equipment bay.
electronics got an awful lot more capable and an awful lot more compact in just a few years.
Also remember that the Viggin was a very serious effort to get a short take-off and landing aircraft when the TSR.2 was not.
You can find video's of Viggens backing up on Runways using their thrust reverser.
The Viggen was a very good design that solved a lot of problems that the Swedes had. Other countries may or may not have had some of the same problems or given them the same importance. For the Swedes it may not have mattered how much stealth you had in the air if your airbases were all blown up as the planes were taking off or could only fly one mission.
The TRS.2 looks like the end of an Era, The electronics look old, the wing looks old and the engines, while powerful, were also old. everybody would start shifting to turbo fans of various bypass ratios instead of turbojets.
You can upgrade anything, the question is wither you should.
They were measuring things like how many vacuum tubes (valves) per cubic ft the different electronic mile stones or generations could fit in.
Any of us older than the age of 12 can remember how much cell phones have evolved
TSR.2 equipment bay.
electronics got an awful lot more capable and an awful lot more compact in just a few years.
Also remember that the Viggin was a very serious effort to get a short take-off and landing aircraft when the TSR.2 was not.
You can find video's of Viggens backing up on Runways using their thrust reverser.
The Viggen was a very good design that solved a lot of problems that the Swedes had. Other countries may or may not have had some of the same problems or given them the same importance. For the Swedes it may not have mattered how much stealth you had in the air if your airbases were all blown up as the planes were taking off or could only fly one mission.
The TRS.2 looks like the end of an Era, The electronics look old, the wing looks old and the engines, while powerful, were also old. everybody would start shifting to turbo fans of various bypass ratios instead of turbojets.
You can upgrade anything, the question is wither you should.
- Thread starter
- #48
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Why do you compare an TSR.2 or a Saab 37 from the 60's with a present state of art aircraft?
That is totally not the issue - if then you can compare these two with an F-105 or an F-104 from the 60's or an F-4.
My point is to use one of these two very advanced aircraft's or just one of them as a common basis for a joint European aerospace industry in the 60's. Making a huge amount of money within Europe and outside by producing selling thousands of units till the end 80's, meanwhile continue developing with the joint know-how of all the European partners the next generation from the 90's onward (not just an upgrade) - resulting in an earlier F-22/F-35 equivalent or maybe even more advanced.
BTW, it was a Saab 37 that introduced e.g. a Link capability and many other novelties.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm not the one doing it - you are! You're own words!
"Aside from being stealthy - which mission is it that a Saab 37 couldn't perform such as an F-35?"
Depending on the role, I can!
Perhaps but that's a guess...
It was but very rudimentary when compared to the F-35 (JA version only) and this capability was was tailored to the needs and mission of Sweden.
I'm actually a fan of the Viggen, this explains it's development and capabilities better than most sites I've seen
Saab 37 Viggen AJ37 JA37 SH37 SK37 SF37 Notis 1
System 37 skulle ersätta såväl Fpl32 som FPL35. AJ37- Centralkalkylator ersätter navigatör. JA37 - Mikroelektroniken ger nya möjligheter.
www.aef.se
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Any comparison including "apart from"
Wing of the TSR.2 just looked old. It have had the blown flaps to improve the low-speed capabilities. Everyone's electronics in early 1960s look old, no point to single out the TSR.2. Granted, engines were certainly not the turbofans, but afforded almost twice the power of what Mirage IV had, and the range figures were decent.
Probably the main problem the TSR.2 had was that there was no firm political will in the UK to support the program.
Shortround6
Major General
F-104s had blown flaps. We know how that worked out.
So did Blackburn Buccaneers
The next Generation of aircraft tended to go to swing wings for good or evil, to get around the take-off landing requirements and the high speed low altitude dash requirements.
The first F-111 flew about 3-4 months after the TSR.2
So did Blackburn Buccaneers
The next Generation of aircraft tended to go to swing wings for good or evil, to get around the take-off landing requirements and the high speed low altitude dash requirements.
The first F-111 flew about 3-4 months after the TSR.2
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
There's nothing wrong with blown flaps. They are certainly simpler than swing wings, and are a very effective method of producing high the high lift coefficients needed for reasonable approach speeds with the high wing loadings needed for efficient high speed flight
Shortround6
Major General
The problem they had with the F-104 was that is was single engine. If the engine packed it up the blown flaps stopped blowing and the stall speed went from around 170mph (? to around 225mph.
With twin engine planes either engine could supply the bleed air.
Don't know what you need for an APU to provide blown air.
With twin engine planes either engine could supply the bleed air.
Don't know what you need for an APU to provide blown air.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 4,875
- May 13, 2018
I was around in the early 60s and the TSR & Viggen didn't look old then.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I really don't think this was as big as an issue as it was reported to be. I'm reaching out to a former boss who flew the -104, when I hear back from him I'll post his thoughts.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
OK - Paul "Naf" Nafziger got back to me. Paul did a full 20 in the USAF, flew in Vietnam and had all kinds of hours in many aircraft. He was a test pilot and VP at BAE Flight Systems when I was there. I had the pleasure to work for him during my time at Mojave 20 years ago and I actually got to fly with him on occasion on a few flight test programs. Paul flew the -104 and spoke very highly of the aircraft but didn't go too much into any negatives. He did have a flap failure once. His words:
"you'd just shoot a no-flap landing if you lost the blown flaps. Did that once on a hot summer day in Albuquerque. Final approach was 240kts (about 300 true, if I remember the circumstances). 210 was the tire limit speed and 190 was the drag chute limit. I kinda pressed all of them, but got her down and stopped."
This was from Paul's FB page. High key at Edwards taken by him in an F-104, 1971.
"you'd just shoot a no-flap landing if you lost the blown flaps. Did that once on a hot summer day in Albuquerque. Final approach was 240kts (about 300 true, if I remember the circumstances). 210 was the tire limit speed and 190 was the drag chute limit. I kinda pressed all of them, but got her down and stopped."
This was from Paul's FB page. High key at Edwards taken by him in an F-104, 1971.
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you
- Thread starter
- #59
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Okay, but that was a reply of mine onto the ongoing comparisons of the Saab 37 with the F-22/F-35 by others.
Regards
Jagdflieger
- Thread starter
- #60
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
As I had posted previously in regards to the F-104 - the main cause for the Luftwaffe F-104's losses were engine fires and engine stalls, the latter mainly caused by the German installed avionics suits. This was also the reason as to why any other NATO European development had 2 engines. I think the same was applied to requirements from the USN - till the F-35.
IIRC the USAF mission parameters for their F-104 were entirely different from those operated by the other NATO countries, plus the factor weather in the USA compared to Europe.
E.g. the US pilots were being mockingly referred to as "Schoenwetter Flieger" (nice weather pilots) by the F-104 Luftwaffe pilots.
The below photo - showing "nice weather conditions" in Germany
Regards
Jagdflieger
Attachments
Last edited:
