This was a strange day. Norway has never had any airplane production, although there are several companies producing aviation parts and pieces for export. Nevertheless, the only real airplane production done here is under the ambrella of EAA Norway, making me a part of the Norwegian aviation "industry" more than the industry itself, he he. Norway has always purchased fighter aircrafts, mostly form the US. We have allways had cool fighters, real fighters, like the Spitfire, Mosquito, Vampire, F-86, F-104 (at least very fast and cool), F-16. And now this? the F-35, an airplane that looks like a bath tub!
The F-35 is stealthy, it has super avionics (so they say), and I am sure this has lots of tactical advantages in the "beyond visual range" area that I know nothing about. But in the near future, when most fighters are stealthy to a higher or lower degree, there will be no "beyond visual range", so the fighters will need to be agile. Technology for detecting stealthy aircrafts already exist, at least as prototypes, but I guess stealth is an advantage that cannot simply be disregarded. Anyway, since the whole stealth thing is so fuzzy and unclear, I wanted to look at good old physical relationships that tells the essentials about the flying abilities. I headed to Wikipedia and found data to set up some characteristics of the F-35 and compared it with other modern fighters.
First is the weight, just to get the size of the plane. The F-35 is more or less of the same size as the F-18 E Superhornet.
Then the thrust/weight ratio loaded (I guess "loaded" in Wikipedia means with fuel and basic ammo or something similar, it is not MTOW), and the same thing with afterburner. This gives some clues how it will climb, turn and accelerate. The F-35 is worst, but comparable to the F-18 E.
Then the wing loading. This shows the effectiveness in turning and maneuvering in general without loosing speed and burning fuel. The F-35 is worst, but still comparable to the F-18 E.
With the worst T/W and highest wing loading, at least it must have some speed, but no - it is by far the slowest of them all. The only good thing about the F-35 is stealth, otherwise it is underpowered, heavy and slow. The best description is probably an anaemic but stealthy F-18 E.
Real fighters are the Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-15 and the Gripen NG. The F-22 is also similar, it is stealthy but huge, with almost the same empty weight as the 80 passenger airliner Fokker-70. Typical characteristics for all these airplanes are low wing loading, high T/W and high speed. The Gripen NG is not entirely a "mini" Typhoon regarding T/W, but with smaller wing loading and its smaller size it will be much more agile.
Saab offered a much better industrial cooperation, that would in fact lift Norway several levels in the Aviation department, making Gripen NG something that looks closer to a joint Norwegian/Swedish development and production. But - when the decision is made exclusively by politicians and tactical US-centric military personell, I guess the engineering dimension being self sufficient of military technology is not understood - at all. The Vikings made their own longships, light - maneuverable and fast, that's what made them invincible. The Gripen NG (and Swedish fighter technology in general) is a modern continuation of this vikingship building tradition, and Saab and the Swedish government invited Norway to be a part of it, but the Norwegian government said no. This is one of those things I will never understand, no matter what the F-35 turns out to be.
Gripen NG would be perfect for Norway, but the Norwegian government said no (to all of it) and instead chose to purchase something that looks like the least maneuverable, the heaviest and slowest fighter-design in the last 30-40 years.
But what do I know? I am only a slightly preoccupied person trying to build my RV-4 :-)
