Which fighter would you choose ... ?

For your air force if you could have only one combat aircraft?

This is exactly what the Norwegian government is considering these days. The candidates are down to three, the JAS 39 Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 Lightning II. I would choose the Typhoon over the other two any day. Or the Rafale, which is slightly inferiour to the Typhoon in the air superiority role but has a much better air-to-ground capability as well as other features which would suite Norwegian needs, but this aircraft is not on the shortlist anymore. I would even choose the F-15 over the Gripen and the F-35, which despite it's old age I believe is better suited for the role of the sole combat aircraft in any air force.

 

Australia has a similar predicament, only the choices considered are the F-35 JSF, the Su-27 Flanker, and the F/A-18E Super Hornet... For us, however the choice is decidedly simpler...
- The Americas are very reluctant to sell the Super Hornet (they outright refused to export the Raptor - rightly so)
- Buy a Russian aircraft, are you mad? We're a Western country

Which leaves or the F-35 JSF, which the government has already ordered... There is much disagreement seeing as the aircrat has not even been fully tested yet, and will likely not be available to us until 2017... Many in the military are a bit sceptical, seeing as Australians need planes with RANGE, which the JSF doesn't seem to emulate... Though I think the reason it was chosen came largely down to logistics... The F-35 will be a fighter/bomber, making it a good choice to replace our current dual operation of F/A-18's and F-111's... It will take on the role of both aircraft

Personally I'd also choose the Typhoon, seeing as its actually operational, and has good BVR capabilities... Though I always loved SAAB aircraft, the Gripen is really more of a short range interceptor, somewhere between the F-16 and the Hornet though not quite either... It lacks range, not sure if that is so bad for Norway... Seeing as it is the cheapest to maintain, and since Sweeden is so close it might be the economically wisest decision...

The Rafale IMHO is superior to both, given that it has the best range by far, and is only slightly less powerful than the Eurofighter... Frankly the two aircraft seem so similarily capable its almost impossible which one is 'better', though I tend to place alot of emphasis on range...

 

I read the RAAF was going to buy 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to replace the F-111s already, and that the US congress approved last month. Or is it still hanging in the air (no pun intended)? That would mean less F-35s later, and more reason to replace the regular Hornets with Super Hornets as well.

Norway has signed the same MoU regarding the F-35 as Australia has. But the aircraft has raised some controversy over here, as I'm sure it has in your end of the world as well. I have also read that the RAAF prefer two-engined aircraft for security reasons. The Norwegian air force F-16s has of course only one engine, but taking into consideration how many aircraft which would not have been lost because of engine failure if they had two engines a two-engined aircraft should be preferable to the Norwegian air force as well. Which leaves both the Typhoon and the Rafale preferable to the Gripen or the F-35.

The Gripen is a decent enough light combat aircraft, but it is hardly in the same class as the Typhoon, Rafale or F-35. The biggest reason it's still on the shortlist is probably the fact that we would get four Gripens for the price of one F-35. But from a military point of view is Norway, being a NATO member, closer to Britain or the US, and would benefit more from operating an aircraft which is compatible which either British or US forces.

My personal favourite for the Royal Norwegian Air Force is the Rafale. It is robust and low-demanding on maintenance and logistics, and it's weapons and avionics suite is perfect for Norwegian conditions. Especially it's passive terrain-following system, but that should be possible to be adapted to other fighters. But I think I still would choose the Typhoon. It is already used by some of our closest allies, while the Rafale is only operated by France, and the Norwegian armament industry is already involved in building components for the Typhoon.

 

Smeghead makes the really good point that the best single aircraft will depend on the particular needs of that nation.

Of the three you have listed, the only advantage the grippen ahs is lower costs. In terms of capability, it comes down to the F-35 and Typhoon. F-35 may come in as the better ground attack aircraft, the Typhoon the better air control aircraft.

 

Yes, there are many things to take into consideration outside the actual performance of the fighter when choosing which one to buy. Which is why I from a purely tactical point of view would prefer the Rafale, but when taking strategic and political considerations into the equation is choosing the Typhoon.

But that is for the RNoAF.

How much do we really know about the F-35 by the way? You mention ground attack, but the F-35's internal weapons bay has limited capasity and external pylons would compromise its stealth capabilities and render it no more stealthy than any other fighter. And can it compete with the 14 hardpoints of the Rafale and its impressive air-to-ground weapons suite?

 

We probably know as much about the F-35 as anyone wants to let us know, the biggest question mark is probably price. Even so, it looks like Rafael is much more expensive.
The emphasis on the JSF seems to be on the "S", strike. It looks like it's meant to be a ground attack/bomber first and fighter second.
It's also meant to be able to fill all the roles in a strike package, fighter, counter-measures, and attack, but this could be said for most multi-role aricraft.
Regardless of external stores, F-35 is likely be stealthier than the Rafeal. As fair as weapons load goes, the F-35 can carry about the same weight of ordnance as the Rafeal (6000 kg). I doubt Rafael uses all the hardpoints often, at least not with a heavy load.
Modern aircraft design, analysis and simualtion as so good that there are seldom any big surprises in performance, unlike many WWII "paper" aircraft.
The F-35 design is also 10 years more advanced than the Rafael, which probably means something positive for the F-35.
One area where we won't get info, is the avionics.electronics suites. I would exect the F-35 to have an advantage here as well.

 

Norway would, as would most other countries, get a downgraded version of the F-35 if chosen, which would probably blank out any difference in avionics between the F-35 and the Typhoon or Rafale of which Norway would get the exact same versions which are flown by the countries of the Eurofighter consortium or France respectively.

And the Rafale can carry up to 9500 kg of ordnance, which is considerably more than the F-35.

 

The last info I had seen on the Rafale's ordnance load was around 6,000kg, and that the 9,500 was external stores carriage, which would include the fuel needed to carry the 6,000 kg any distance. But that was awhile ago (even assuming my memory is correct), so the Rafale may be able to use the full 9,500 kg to carry bombs/missiles.

Your point about downgraded export versions of the F-35 is very good. What will actually make this aircraft very good, will probably be the the radar, avionics and electronics. Without them it's just another dumb gas guzzling airframe.

 

IIRC The Gripen has one particularily interesting feature which might make it a good purchase... It can take off or land on an extremely short runway of just 500m, and can be fully re-armed and re-fueled within ten minutes... Theoretically, in a defensive air war situation, this would make it possible to operate all of ones' Gripens almost indefinitely with full missile loads, so long as an airfield was nearby... and since they are so cheap you could pump swarms of them into the air

Perhaps I'm getting carried away.. But to me, it seems like the ability to land/take-off on any road anywhere and be re-fitted so fast is a huge benefit... The F-35 JSF has VTOL, of course, but can it be re-fitted in 10 minutes? I think not...

 

I believe the Rafale can better that. I can't remember the excact figure, but the Rafale needs less than 500m for both take-off and landing. The typical turnaround is 20 minutes for the Rafale, including reloading of weapons and refilling the fuel tanks performed by six personell, but I'm sure it can be done faster with more personell.

 

For Finnish air force, Gripen.

The design goals for Gripen are exactly the same, that Finnish airforce actually needs.

-The design mission for Gripen was/is to assault (Russian) beach heads, their support and logistics.
-Designed for disperse base operations (Both Swedes and the Finns are the 2 airforces that has finessed this)
-Fast turnaround
-Low maintenance cost
-Low flying cost
-Designed to operate in the harsh northern winter.
-Designed for high sortie rate.

Some aircaft might excel one of the aforementioned thigns (except disperse base operations ) but Gripen is the aircraft that has top notch performance in all of the categories.

 

I would choose the Grippen....
only one reason and it has nothing to do with performance!
Spareparts
As our airforce has currently only 40-50 aircraft servicable (out of 108 or so F-16's) because of lack of spare parts comming from the US thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (The USAF needs them for themselfs)!
I can understand that spareparts are more easy to come by if your suplier is the country next to yours...!

 

I'd have an armada of F-18's, eventhough I dont like them. Im going for operational capabilities and practicalality here.

 

Rafale Specs:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/

Typhoon Specs:
http://www.defencetalk.com/world_milita ... 050120.php

Gripen Specs:
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/

F-35 JSF Specs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

 

The info on this webpage is outdatet. For example were only the earliest versions powered by the M88-2. Block 10 and Block 15 aircraft are powered by two more powerful M88-3 engines as well as having other features not included on this webpage.

 

The Raptors are new and advanced. The F/A18s can dogfight and bomb pretty well. I don't have much on the Rafale, Eurofighter, and F35. I dunno if I'm ready to say that the Rafale is superior to the F16 and the Super Hornet.

 

The Raptors are also not being discussed, and have as much relevance as a Sopwith Camel at this stage of time. Varyag, I think the Typhoon would be ideal for us if we look at a defensive situation - when Denmark invades Norway again, or something

But AFA our operations have been going in recent history - Serbia and Afghanistan - the F-35 is most suited. And we have a moral obligation to Team America (in addition, our industry is developing parts for the F-35, so we are also profiting from it)

 

Well, to be fair the topic was; which aircraft would you choose for your fantasy airforce, so I don't see why the Raptor can't be included.

 

I was hoping for a bit of realism as well, Grieg. The F-22 is superiour to anything else flying at the moment, but it's not likely to be sold outside the US anytime soon.

 

Varyag has a point. Well, The F16, F/A18, Rafale, Typhoon, and others all sound good.