Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

RobertDyck · 2025-12-07 23:40:19

The current Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced the F-35 fighter jets that have already been paid for by the previous Prime Minister would be accepted. However, no further F-35 jets would be purchased. Canada is in negotiations with Sweden to purchase JAS-39 Gripen fighter jets. Donald Trump, one of his cabinet ministers, and the US Ambassador to Canada have said they doesn't like this.

I would like to challenge Trump and his crew with a simple test. Fly an F-35 to Resolute Bay in January. Leave it parked outdoors overnight for 12 hours in temperatures between -30°C and -40°C, then scramble in the morning when it's still dark. Resolute Bay is above the arctic circle, sun doesn't rise in January at all. Scramble simulating a Tu-95 bomber flying over the north pole. From engine start can it reach 50,000 feet in 5 minutes? (1953 requirement for the Avro Arrow)

I posted that paragraph on Facebook. One person claimed "A Gripen on internal fuel only would be close to bingo fuel in a maximum performance TTC to 50k. That doesn’t matter though, since the engine would be destroyed on the takeoff roll."
I would like to hear from GW Johnson: is this true?

I would like to point out history of the Avro Arrow. Russia test flew the Tu-95 bomber (later called Bear) in 1952. This was a threat to North America, because it was designed to carry nuclear bombs, and was the first Russian bomber capable of flying from Russia to the US and back, dropping said nuclear bombs. Response by the US was to design and build the B-52 bomber, which was better than the Tu-95. Response by the Canadian air force was to write requirements for a new All Weather Interceptor. Those requirements were made available to Canadian contractors in 1953. RCAF Specification AIR 7-3

Performance

Maximum Speed: Mach 2 maximum at altitude, with a cruising speed of Mach 1.5 at 70,000 feet (21,000 m).
Altitude & Climb Rate: A combat ceiling of at least 60,000 feet (18,000 m) and a climb to 50,000 feet within 5 minutes of engine start.
Manoeuvrability: The ability to perform a 2g turn at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet without losing speed or altitude, a requirement described as highly challenging even by modern standards.
Range: A normal mission range of 300 nautical miles (556 km) and a high-speed interception range of 200 nautical miles (370 km).
Operational Constraints: The aircraft was required to operate from a 6,000 ft (1,830 m) runway and have a ground turn-around time of less than 10 minutes.

Design and Systems

Crew: A two-place (pilot and weapons control officer) design was specified to handle complex operations and potential automation failures.
Powerplant: A twin-engine configuration.
Armament & Systems: An internal armament package capable of carrying up to six long-range air-to-air missiles and 50 shorter-range 2-inch rockets. This was paired with a highly advanced, integrated electronics system for radar detection, navigation, fire control, and flight control.

The RCAF determined that no existing or planned aircraft from other nations could satisfy these demanding requirements, prompting the domestic development of the Arrow.

Now I know the F-35 cannot supercruise at all, much less achieve supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 within 5 minutes of engine start. One question is whether the F-22 Raptor can do this? But the question I asked is whether F-35 can reach 50,000 at all within 5 minutes of engine start. Under conditions I just listed.

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-08 07:12:21

This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members.

This topic seems sure to receive at least one additional post.

In the context of Mars settlement, it seems reasonable to suppose there will be no fighter jets at all. However, vacuum capable missiles seem likely to be needed for planetary defense from the beginning of permanent residence.

Index:
GW Johnson https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 59#p236059

(th)

GW Johnson · 2025-12-09 12:17:13

Rob:

I don't know enough to respond fully to what you asked in post #1 above. But I will say what I do know.

The cold soak up there in Arctic Canada does present some pretty serious problems operating gas turbine engines. It usually takes a wide-cut fuel to get reliable ignition and operation, when the plane and fuel are that soaked-out that cold or colder. Such fuels would be Jet-B/JP-4 (pretty much the same product sold to different customers with different specs). The JP-8 that most modern military jets burn is not a wide-cut fuel, but a kerosene, rather similar to JP-5/Jet-A/Jet-A-1. Freezepoints vary with the spec a little, but fall in the -58 to -65 F range (-50 to -54 C). Wide cut will successfully go colder than that. Gasoline goes much colder still. It is not the actual freezepoint, but the cold vapor pressure which governs the vapor/air ratio in the combustor cans, that is the real issue.

I am very impressed by the 2 gee maneuver capability at 50,000 ft altitude in that RCAF spec. Service ceilings for jet fighters usually have been in the 50-60,000 foot range since the Korean War, right down to the present day, with exceptions like the U-2 and the SR-71/A-12 family. Service ceiling is defined in the FAR's to be the altitude at which max power climb rate is down to the almost-imperceptible 200 feet per minute. Military specs are similar. There is no maneuver at that service ceiling condition, the airplane can just barely fly unaccelerated straight and level. It's easy to stall at high altitude, and the stall danger is a violent spin, in air too thin to prevent inertia coupling. (BTW, the larger vertical fin on the B-17 from the E model of 1940-onward was a response to this same kind of high-altitude spin risk.)

The "combat ceiling" of 60,000 feet in the spec is not the service ceiling, not with a spec'd cruise at 70,000 feet! That would be one impressive high altitude airplane! I suppose the SR-71/A-12 might be roughly comparable with a Mach 3 to 3.2 max cruise at 85,000 feet. But those planes burned an early version of thermally-stable jet fuel designated JP-7. There is no JP-7 any more, but it would be similar to the kerosenes JP-5, JP-8, and Jet-A/jet-A-1. Wouldn't work well at all in Arctic Canada.

As for burning-out engines in a fast climb, there is a time limitation for operation at full power, because turbine blades, combustor cans, and afterburner/nozzle hardware just gets too hot at the max power setting. You can only do that for a very few minutes. But, it takes full power to climb fast. The "trick" really is being able to handle the heat long enough to get to high altitude at full power, to meet the time spec. If the engine was not designed to operate that long at max power, there is little you can do to meet the tougher short time spec to high altitude.

This effect was manifested in a different way in the Mig-25 Foxbat. That airplane, if carrying no external stores at all, could fly as fast as Mach 3.5. Its engines were short-life at only 500 hours. And you did not overhaul them, you simply replaced them. This obtains because of the max power setting for long intervals required to intercept at Mach 3.5, or to intercept at the redline Mach 2.8 and near-max power with external stores. At max power, engine stuff just gets hot. And at high supersonic, the inlet air is rather hot, which makes the whole problem worse. Carrying stores, the issue was vibration from the aerodynamics around the stores, but with the drag of the stores, it wouldn't have gone much faster, even without vibrations.

If you really want to fly high altitude with handling practicality, you must fly well-supersonic. The U-2 was subsonic, with a service ceiling altitude somewhere around 70,000 feet. But subsonic like that, the difference between stall speed and max speed was only 5 KIAS, even with that huge wing. And that huge wing made landings difficult indeed. The wind can upset you all too easily with a landing speed that low, in an airplane that big.

I hope that answers your question to me.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-12-09 12:36:22)

kbd512 · 2025-12-11 02:37:58

RobertDyck,

Any kind of bomber Russia and China actually operate are about as maneuverable at high altitude as a beached whale. As GW already pointed out, they can just barely fly at all up there, and while they do move a bit faster because the air is so much thinner, they'd literally fall out of the sky if they didn't. For a strategic bomber cruising above 40,000ft, anything much beyond high subsonic level flight and lazy turns is wishful thinking. That means they're easy pickings for air defense missiles launched towards them on ballistic trajectories. Missiles will always out-accelerate manned aircraft on simple physics alone. How the incoming bombers and missiles are destroyed is unimportant. A job well done, efficiently and at minimal cost to Canadian tax payers, should be the desired end result.

The_first_of_two_Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense_%28THAAD%29_interceptors_is_launched_during_a_successful_intercept_test_-_US_Army.jpg

THAAD-ER could be ready in a few years instead of a decade, which is approximately how long Canada has been dragging its feet on modern fighter jet acquisition:

If you are sincere in your desire to defend Canadian airspace, and acknowledge the significant budgetary constraints applied to the Canadian military, then you ought to propose a solution that stands a chance of actually being ready and available when called upon to defend Canadian airspace. A few squadrons of fighters, even if they were Mach 4 capable, are simply not enough to defend a block of airspace as vast as the approaches to Canada. Radars and missiles can bring down enemy bombers and missiles a lot more cost-effectively than 2-5 squadrons of fighter jets. We throw more money than any other nation at fighter jets, but weren't able to purchase enough F-22s to merely replace the F-15. If America simply "gifted" all our F-22s to Canada, your military would run out of operational funding trying to maintain them as airworthy assets, as opposed to fully mission capable assets. We quit buying them because their radar and avionics tech is now ancient by modern standards.

Canada's entire annual defense budget is around $12B USD, so maybe 1.5% of what the US spends on defense. Canada can still do quite a lot with the money it does spend, but only when it's very shrewd about where those defense dollars are spent, which means foregoing flash for substance. Air defense is mandatory in modern warfare, but how that's achieved is a choice which carries significant cost implications. If missiles weren't very effective, then they wouldn't be employed by the thousands by every modern military. Whether or not Canada buys American weapons, European weapons, or chooses to develop their own weapons is irrelevant to having something effective available, and in sufficient quantity, when that doomsday scenario you keep throwing out there is no longer a theoretical problem to solve.

Logistics wins wars, not who has the faster fighter. WWII German military hardware and training was judged as superior to most allied hardware, even amongst the allies, but for all their technical superiority, whether real and demonstrated in battle or merely theoretical, it never amounted to a hill of dog crap in the face of superior allied logistics.

Ask yourself how many bombers and missiles Russia or China might throw at Canada to wreck your economy. Next, ask yourself if Canada would have enough weapons (fighters / missiles / radars / spare parts / trained operators / usable air bases / etc) ready to use, from advantageous positions, to intercept all or most incoming weapons, if only Canada did "X" vs "Y" with their defense dollars. When the answer is "not enough", something's wrong with the chosen solution, however personally appealing.

kbd512 · 2025-12-11 12:00:03

Now I know the F-35 cannot supercruise at all, much less achieve supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 within 5 minutes of engine start. One question is whether the F-22 Raptor can do this? But the question I asked is whether F-35 can reach 50,000 at all within 5 minutes of engine start. Under conditions I just listed.

The F-4 Phantom was able to reach 82,000ft in 3 minutes 50 seconds, using full afterburner, despite its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio as compared to the F-35, so what makes you think F-35s cannot quickly reach 50,000ft?

Thrust-to-Weight with Zero Fuel / Zero Weapons of Select Fighters
Avro Arrow w/ J75 engines: 0.96:1
F-106A: 1.00:1
F-4E: 1.18:1
F-14D: 1.23:1
Avro Arrow w/ Orenda Iroquois engines: 1.25:1
JAS-39E/F: 1.25:1 <- Edit: I somehow forgot to include the Gripen in this list
F-18E/F: 1.37:1
F-35A: 1.47:1
F-16C/D: 1.54:1
Rafale C: 1.57:1
F-22A: 1.62:1
F-15C: 1.64:1
F-15EX II: 1.66:1 (no CFTs installed)
Eurofighter Typhoon: 1.67:1

All the rest of the fighters on that list are at least as climb-capable as the F-4 when proportionally laden with fuel and weapons. The F-35 has a significantly greater excess of thrust, relative to its own empty weight, than the Avro Arrow ever did, even if the Arrow was equipped with Iroquois engines that were never installed. The F-14D's initial climb rate was nearly identical to the F-35A. I've never heard anyone claim that a Tomcat couldn't climb very well. If all fighters on that list were proportionally encumbered with fuel and weapons, then as a general rule the fighters with higher excess of thrust would still climb better than ones with lower excess thrust.

Does aerodynamics still matter?

Absolutely. Quite a lot, actually.

How much less aerodynamic are the non-stealthy jets when they're carrying 2-4 gigantic fuel tanks on wing pylons as part of their combat configuration?

There's a reason why all the latest jets are carrying significantly more fuel internally, even if that means the base jet design has greater drag than a more streamlined airframe carrying less internal fuel. Drag penalties from multi-hundred gallon external fuel tanks are very real, to say nothing of how external point loads affect real world maneuverability limits to avoid over-stressing the airframe.

If the F-35s ultimately receives the 50,000lbf F-135 or F-136 engine refresh under development, then A model TWR becomes 1.71:1, outclassing the very best Gen 4.5 fighters. If the CNT / BNNT wiring replacement is fully implemented and Aluminum wing spars fully replaced with CFRP, there's a real shot of re-engined and re-manufactured F-35As hitting 2:1 TWR and F-35Bs being able to take off vertically with full fuel. C models would perform better than current A models. A models would be able to climb vertically, and quite rapidly, when laden with full internal fuel and 6X AIM-120s. Up to high subsonic speeds, they'd accelerate faster and therefore recover energy following hard maneuvering faster than all other jets with lesser TWRs and proportional fuel / weapons loads.

Last edited by kbd512 (2025-12-11 16:45:23)

RobertDyck · 2025-12-11 12:34:46

Thank you for the reply. As you mentioned, Canada is vast. Only Russia has more land area than Canada. But most of the population is huddled south where it's warm. And where crops can grow. The north is vast with very little there. Fighter jets were the 1950s defense against strategic bombers. In the early '60s the US government convinced Canada to get Bomarc missiles. They had problems, didn't work very well. So now you're arguing for a ground launch system that hasn't been fully developed yet.

If a Russian bomber can fly faster than a fighter, if just needs to spot the fighter at distance with radar. It doesn't have to be a precise radar lock for a missile, just enough for a warning. As long as the bomber stays at least 100 miles away from the fighter, it can't do anything. The bomber doesn't require sharp turns, just enough to keep the fighter at distance. That's what an interceptor must be able to cruise (no afterburner) faster than the bomber. Now look at not only 1952 vintage Tu-95 Bear bombers, but Tu-22M3 Backfire and Tu-160 Blackjack. An interceptor's job is different than an air superiority fighter. Also realize the Tu-160 is used to launch cruise missiles, so must be shot down much farther back.

The first reason Canadians objected to F-35 was cost. Not just acquisition cost, but maintenance and operation. How effective is it? Can we afford it? JAS-39 Gripen has a similar acquisition cost, but much cheaper to maintain and operate. And it's designed for Arctic cold.

Performance of fighters you listed are impressive. Now could they operate in the cold of the scenario in post #1? Temperature I listed is typical for night in January in the city where I live. It can get colder at the location listed. Can an F-35 operate when cold soaked?

kbd512 · 2025-12-11 14:34:32

RobertDyck,

So now you're arguing for a ground launch system that hasn't been fully developed yet.

THAAD has been operational since 2008. Strapping a 2X more powerful rocket motor to a weapon already designed to accelerate to hypersonic speeds doesn't make it a completely new weapon with completely unknown characteristics. What I'm suggesting is that Canada take a proven weapon system, like THAAD or Patriot, let LM develop the improved motor unless you have the R&D and manufacturing capacity to do that yourselves, and then add a home-grown kill vehicle to Canada's version of the weapon. That's what you guys already do with every American weapon system you purchase, so why should this one be any different?

If a Russian bomber can fly faster than a fighter, if just needs to spot the fighter at distance with radar. It doesn't have to be a precise radar lock for a missile, just enough for a warning. As long as the bomber stays at least 100 miles away from the fighter, it can't do anything.

I find this idea of the F-35 being tracked by an enemy bomber from 100+ miles away, to be quite fanciful. If considerably more powerful ground stations cannot do that with any degree of reliability, no, just... no. When the F-35 is equipped with AIM-260s or AIM-174Bs, those bombers absolutely are within range. AIM-174B can hit bomber-sized targets from 250 miles.

The first reason Canadians objected to F-35 was cost.

So, your counter-proposal was to acquire considerably more expensive and maintenance-intensive jets like the F-22, on the sole basis of it being able to "supercruise"?

Do you not see how absurd that is?

If bombers really can see the F-35 on their radar screens, is the Gripen going to be less visible to the bomber?

And it's designed for Arctic cold.

You think Alaska isn't cold, or that when we conducted flight ops below the Antarctic Circle aboard carriers, that somehow doesn't count as cold weather?

Do you realize that we leave the jets on the flight deck at night, with fuel in the tanks, and then use them the next morning?

Cold-soaked, or heat-soaked, is the only kind of "jet operating" we do in the Navy. The only thing we remove is ice, because ice will screw up any aircraft ever made, period. We don't show any deference to "fancier" stealth aircraft brought aboard. If it's on our flight deck, then it's a combat asset, or we send it home because it's useless to us.

The Gripen's airframe is made from the exact same kinds of materials as the F-35, and uses an American Super Hornet engine. The F-35 in particular uses its fuel as a heat sink, so it can definitely heat up the airframe if necessary. Making the jet in Sweden vs Texas doesn't imbue its airframe materials with special properties. America operates combat jets in every climatic conditions imaginable, from Death Valley heat, to jungle insect FOD and humidity, to ice-spray encrusted aircraft carrier flight decks rolling and bobbing around off the coast of Antarctica.

kbd512 · 2025-12-19 19:50:22

Here's another interesting tidbit about jet aircraft and best maneuvering speeds:

All supersonic capable aircraft such as the F-8, F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Fulcrum, Flanker, Gripen, et al share a common characteristic related to best maneuvering speeds. Every single one of them exhibit best maneuverability characteristics at speeds remarkably similar to the top speeds achieved by WWII era "super-prop" propeller-driven aircraft, which tends to be somewhat below the max cruising speeds of large jet airliners. There is not a single example of a turbojet or turbofan powered fighter that makes tighter turns at supersonic speeds. As long as a human is in the cockpit, there never will be.

Every purpose-built fighter turns / re-points its nose exceptionally well at 350 to 550mph. Some are capable of "super-maneuverability" at Cessna 172 speeds, which means they can turn as tightly as a Cessna 172 at Cessna 172 cruise speeds by using afterburner to prevent them from literally falling out of the sky. When those same fighter jets maneuver at supersonic speeds, despite the fact that they change their position in 3D space much faster, the time it takes to execute a 90 degree turn greatly resembles turn rates associated with WWII era tactical bombers. B-25s had decent maneuverability for what they were, but I would never want to attempt to avoid a missile shot while flying one. That's what you're transforming a fighter jet into when you fly it faster than the speed of sound- a much faster B-25 with only modestly worse turn rate (degrees or radians per second) and radius (feet or meters).

Roll rates stay about the same or slightly increase at modestly supersonic speeds, so more speed helps there, at least a little. Best climb speed for all of them is deeply subsonic when combat loaded, even if a F-15 or Flanker with all combat equipment removed, no weapons, and only 10% fuel can "go supersonic" in a vertical climb. A jumbo jet airliner likewise turns into a real "hot rod" with all the passenger seats and other cabin equipment removed, and only 10% fuel remaining. The one minor problem is that it's useless as an airliner.

Turn Radius = Velocity^2 / Acceleration
Mach 1 = 1,125.33ft/s
g0 = 32.2ft/s

Divide the turn radius by 2 to get a sense of how far a hard evasive maneuver places the targeted aircraft from the incoming missile's warhead.

AIM-9X is reputed to be able to pull up to 80g maneuvers and its seeker has a 110 deg/s tracking rate, so let's see how that translates to missile turn radius at Mach 2 (average speed over its fairly brief flight duration):

AIM-9X Mach 2 Turn Radius:
(1,125.33ft/s * 2)^2 / (80 * 32.2)
5,065,470.4356 / 2,576 = 1,966ft

All missiles bleed speed like mad when not under power, but as they slow down a bit, they also make tighter turns. This would be worth remembering.

F-22 Mach 1.5 Supercrise Turn Radius:
(1,687.995)^2 / (9 * 32.2)
2,849,327.120025 / 289.8 = 9,832ft
10,560ft = 2 miles

Turn capabilities for longer / heavier radar guided missiles are typically in the 40-70g range, which makes them somewhat easier to out-maneuver, but this isn't looking very promising for our "I feel the need for speed" F-22 pilot.

Same F-22 cruising at Mach 0.5, same 9g turn capability:
(562.665)^2 / (9 * 32.2)
316,591.902225 / 289.8 = 1,092ft

At least now we have a real shot at evading a highly maneuverable heat-seeker. Timing is everything, as-always, but at least we're not setting ourselves up for failure from the word "go".

max speed at which a 9g capable super-prop has a reasonable turn radius and rate: (400mph * 5,280) / 3,600 = 586.66ft/s
max speed at which a 9g capable combat jet has a reasonable turn radius and rate: (550mph * 5280) / 3,600 = 806.66ft/s

Regardless, you're 1 to 1.5 football fields away from away from the missile warhead's blast radius with correct timing of evasive maneuvers. Pretty much all of them are designed to pass within 0.25 football fields in order to reliably destroy a maneuvering target using a continuous rod warhead, irrespective of warhead orientation to the target.

For those who don't know what a "continuous rod" warhead is, imagine a thick steel wire rope being explosively driven radially outward from the point of detonation, slicing through everything in its path, because that's how it works. It's not like a conventional blast-fragmentation iron bomb, nor does it create a jet of molten metal like a High-Explosive Anti-Tank warhead. The reason is fairly simple. Blast-frag is exponentially less lethal with increasing distance from the point of detonation because all fragments being projected outwards are flying through an ever-increasing volume of airspace. That means most fragments are hitting nothing at all unless it detonates very close to the target. HEAT has to be pointed directly at the target, and a combat jet is not armored like a tank, so there's not much point to that. You may still get hit with some small random bits of steel missile casing with any of these warhead types, but so long as ye olde continuous rod passes within lethal distance, then before the continuous rod breaks into individual rod segments, creating "gaps" in the "death lasso" during radial outward expansion, a "large fragment hit" on target is effectively assured.

Blast-frag could potentially do greater damage with a greater number of projectiles if you could assure that the missile passes very close to the target and its warhead has the correct orientation with respect to the target, but that's much harder to do. A guaranteed hit when the missile passes within fusing distance is better than potentially getting a few more fragments or no hit at all with other warhead types. Imagine a blast-frag detonation 0.25 football fields directly astern of the target. Even though the missile technically passed within lethal distance to trigger its warhead, the target may not get hit at all because it's displacing so rapidly that almost no fragments are directly aimed at the target. If the same missile passed directly under the belly of the target, then yes, blast-frag might spray the target with quite a bit more metal than a continuous rod. Throwing a 0.5" thick / 12-20" long steel bar through the target at hypersonic velocity generally ensures something catastrophic happens to engines or fuel or airframe.

Any pilot who likes being counted amongst the living wants to be as far away as he can get, but 1 vs 1.5 football fields for super-prop vs jet is not a game-changing difference most of the time. The super-prop is fast enough that a hard maneuver will remain well inside the missile's turn radius and it still displaces fast enough that a near-miss is unlikely to be immediately fatal.

The implications for surival are crystal clear, though. At Mach 1.5 there's no hope of turning inside an 80g capable missile in a 9g capable combat jet. At Mach 0.5, especially with perfectly-timed computer-controlled evasive maneuvers, you have a better than average chance of living to fly and fight another day.

A skilled F-16 pilot with situational awareness and visual advance warning of incoming missiles demonstrated how this works in real combat a half dozen times on a single mission which took place during Gulf War I. The Iraqi's had his jet locked-up and fired off at least six SAMs. He survived not because of his supersonic speed capability, nor the missile's lack of speed, given that he was well within its engagement envelope, but because of his ability to turn inside the missiles fired at his subsonic jet, which wasn't moving any faster than a WWII era super-prop plane except at the start of his ordeal when he was cruising around like an airliner.

NewMarsMember · Yesterday 08:00:45

kbd512 posted an interesting and detailed follow up to the report above...

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 61#p236361

The post includes additional details about the flight mission and roles of the various components.

A detail that might interest a reader with knowledge of aircraft piloting is kbd512's report that a pilot can be trained to evade an oncoming missile by forcing the missile to use only two of four control surfaces. How a pilot could master ** that ** nuance while engaged in flight is something that must be taught in advanced flight school, which kbd512 ** also ** describes.

All the weaponry our (US and allied) pilots engaged in Iraq were designed by the Soviets.

(th)

kbd512 · Today 05:49:36

All Weights in Pounds, Ranges in Statute Miles (5,280ft per Statute Mile)
Engine(s); Empty; MTOW; Internal Fuel; External Fuel; Max Stores
Gripen E: 1X F414; 17,637; 36,376; 7,496; 7,798; 15,900
F-16C - 1X F110; 18,900; 42,300; 7,000; 12,240; 17,000
Rafale M - 2X M88-4E; 23,400; 54,013; 10,362-18,658 w/CFTs; 14,771; 20,900
Typhoon - 2X EJ200; 24,251; 51,809; 9,900; 5,386; 19,800
KF-21 - 2X F414; 26,015; 56,400; 13,227; UNKNOWN; 17,000
F-35A - 1X F135; 29,300; 65,918; 18,250; 8,160; 18,000
F/A-18E - 2X F414; 32,081; 66,000; 14,700; 13,056; 17,750
F-15EX - 2X F110; 35,500-40,000 (2X CFTs); 81,000; 13,550-23,750 w/CFTs; 12,240; 29,500
F-22A - 2X F119; 43,340; 83,500; 18,000; 16,320; 20,000

Max Fuel and Ferry Range
F-16C: 19,240; 2,620
Gripen E: 15,294; 2,500
F-15EX: 35,990; 2,400
Typhoon: 15,286; 2,350
Rafale M: 29,716; 2,300
F/A-18E: 27,756; 2,070
F-22A: 34,320; 2,000
KF-21: 13,227 *1; 1,800
F-35A: 26,410; 1,700 *2

Notes:
*1: KF-21 external fuel capacity is unknown, though external stores capacity suggests it can carry at least 2X 600 gallon external tanks.

*2: F-35A is plumbed to carry 2X 600 gallon non-stealthy external tanks on underwing pylons, so ferry range listed is on internal fuel alone. AFAIK, you can't "dump" 600 gallon tanks. If you decide to carry them, then they're staying on the wings, period. This adds about 45% to total fuel capacity. If we guess at the increase in ferry range as being 30% greater, meaning the drag penalty eats up 15%, then 2,210 miles seems quite reasonable. If only 10% of the external fuel carried is consumed by the additional drag, then 2,295 miles. Regardless, "rule-of-thumb" says that's where your ferry range falls.

Conclusions:
The European fighter jets are remarkably fuel-efficient designs with long legs. However, ALL fighter jets love the fuel. Russian and Chinese fighter jets don't burn any less. Whenever you say, "Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full", you're no longer going supersonic and your previously nimble fighter jet has all the maneuverability of a fuel truck, which is what you turned it into.

Despite claims to the contrary about European / Russian / Chinese fighters, American jets are the ones which are built like tanks. Even Russian defense analysts have commented on how "over-built" American jets are, relative to Fulcrums and Flankers. US Navy jets in particular are noted for their durability. I can't speak intelligently on any other nation's jet design philosophy, but there is a notable difference in empty weight between comparable designs.

Airframe Design Service Life, Equivalent Flight Hours
MiG-21 / MiG-29 / Su-27: 2,000 to 3,500
Su-35: 6,000 (aspirational, according to the Russians)
Typhoon: 6,000
Rafale: 5,000, extension to between 7,000 and 9,000
F/A-18E: 6,000, extension to 12,000
Gripen E: 8,000
F-22A and F-35A: 8,000 (accelerated fatigue testing has shown no structural failures at 24,000)
F-16C: 8,000 (Block 40-52) 12,000 (Block 70/72)
F-15EX: 20,000 (highest deliberate airframe design service life for a tactical fighter that I'm aware of)

If Canada wants a non-stealthy twin-engine, two-seat, long-range, high-speed (Mach 2.9 max dash speed), high-capability tactical fighter with a full state-of-the-art sensor and electronics package, then the F-15EX Strike Eagle II best fits that description. It carries more fuel than any other tactical fighter except the Chengdu J-20. I would absolutely L-O-V-E to hand over our entire inventory of F-22As to Canada, but the Royal Canadian Air Force would bankrupt themselves trying to maintain those jets. Fewer F-22s means more money for F-35s and F-47s.

Here's what I wish more people knew or understood about real world tactical fighter operations:

1. Situational awareness through sensor fusion and concise "dumbing-down" of information to only what you need to know RIGHT NOW, not having to manage the jet itself while you're trying to attack or evade something, seamless communications and networking, combined with raw sensor + compute + data sharing capabilities means more than any amount of stealth or raw speed / climb rate / maneuvering performance. If the 1950s F-5 airframe was upgraded with all of that, minus the stealth, then it would still be a terrifyingly capable opponent, every bit as serious and lethal as a heart attack. The fact that it couldn't out-climb the F-22 or fly as fast as the F-15 is almost entirely irrelevant to anything. In 2025, you are fighting semi-automated and automated air defense systems much more than you're fighting actual human beings. Enemy fighters are mostly a non-issue because there are so few of them, they're mostly sent out to attack targets vs defend them, everyone is so spread-out, and typical fights take place over seconds to minutes at most.

2. Big jets cost big money. If your military can't eat the cost, then don't put that much metal in the air. I'm dead serious, because that is literally the extent of the issue. All jets are expensive. Combat jets are really expensive. The entire Free World needs more cost-effective fighters that don't mandate spending so much money on the basics, so that real combat training can be conducted by flying with greater frequency. There's no point to buying them if you cannot afford to use them with regularity. They're not lawn ornaments. Nations with smaller military budgets can still afford to stuff the latest and greatest electronic gadgets into airframes that don't put them in a financial bind. If you put the F-35's radar in the nose of the F-5 after removing the guns.

3. The idea that you can train differently from how you fight is pure nonsense. You CANNOT economize on total cost of ownership by not flying the fighter regularly. From both a mission readiness standpoint and equipment service life standpoint, once you start flying a combat jet, or any aircraft for that matter, the absolute worst thing you could possibly do is to quit flying it regularly. Jet aircraft not undergoing an overhaul, that haven't flown more than a handful of hours during the last calendar year, may as well be destined for the Bone Yard. The entire reason Navy combat jets didn't literally fall apart is that the maintainers are constantly taking them apart, replacing whatever little bits and pieces have failed, and then putting them back together so they can be flown again so that the entire cycle can repeat itself. That process is normal and necessary. Yes, it's a pain. Yes, it appears to the untrained eye that the jet is "always broke". Yes, it costs real money. However, that is a vital part of the operational art. They get good at doing it because they do it every single day.

If you fly any modern combat jet less than 200 hours per year, the odds are better than average that your aircrews are only proficient enough to not kill themselves flying the jet from Point A to Point B. The first 150 to 200 hours is entirely devoted to maintenance of basic airmanship skills and represents the cost of entry into the world of combat jets. At 250 hours, you can conduct training for a single mission type. You need 300 to 350 flight hours per aircrew per year to maintain any kind of proficiency across multiple missions. Let's say your Air Force has decided that your squadron will train for air intercept and tactical strike. If you're not flying at least 300 hours per year to train for both of those missions, then I cannot take you seriously if you tell me your aircrews are mission ready, because any kind of realistic exercise will quickly demonstrate that they're not.

There is no software simulator that can teach you how to fuel and rearm the jet quickly, nor trace a faulty electrical cable. You have to actually practice that to get good at it. How might one accomplish that, you ask? Fly the jet. Practice the mission. Figure out what works and what doesn't. Practice fixing the jet by flying it until you break something. If your ordies need half a day to read through a manual to assemble and hang a JDAM because nobody in your squadron has done it during the past month, that's a pretty serious problem if you intend to fly strike missions. If your pilot hasn't briefed ingress and egress routes and "what-if'd" through alternative waypoints and secondary targets, then they're not proficient, either. I don't care if they have a vague idea of what's involved. I want them to be intimately familiar with every aspect of mission planning. When we did this stuff before real combat missions over Afghanistan and Iraq, it took a half day of work for one officer who was doing it at least once per week, if not more often.

I'll write more about what I think a realistic modern day "light fighter" (twin engine, two-seat) and "micro fighter" (single engine/seat) involves for Canada, but broad strokes:

1. CFRP airframe fabricated using "Carbon Forging" vs extended duration vacuum bagging and autoclaving.
2. Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B engine, which delivers almost triple the fuel economy of the J85 turbojets that powered the F-5E, $1-2M per engine. This is a non-afterburning turbofan engine, built in Canada, and primarily used in Biz Jets. America has already used this engine to power the General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger combat drone.
3. Raytheon PhantomStrike AESA radar, around $1-2M and 119lbs. This radar has already been used in the Kratos XQ-58 and Boeing MQ-28. This lower cost and weight system still provides the ability to launch AIM-9X, AIM-120, presumably Raytheon's new Peregrine missile, JDAMs, JSOWs, and other common munitions like Hellfire. It's a full-capability miniaturized Super Hornet radar.
4. High subsonic speeds for reduced operating cost and takeoff / landing / stall speeds to permit operation from austere facilities.
5. Strict adherence to a no-frills design, which includes foregoing stealth. No unnecessary gadgetry or novelties will be included in these light fighter and micro fighter designs. The temptation to load-up the jet with everything but the kitchen sink will be ever-present and someone will try to rationalize and sell their gadget idea. To prevent the design team from creating miniature versions of the F-22 and F-35, both design and scope discipline are mandatory.

The more you reduce the scope of requirements, the faster you arrive at a workable and affordable solution. Canada wants an afforable interceptor, but neither F-35 nor Gripen-E are truly affordable fighters which Canada could purchase in sufficient quantity. They already have 16 stealth strike fighters for eliminating heavily defended ground targets.

RobertDyck · Today 09:50:01

kbd512 · Today 13:47:19

RobertDyck,

Those values are based upon an entire series of assumptions about how the fighters are used and how many are used.

One of your home-grown "leakers" recently published a classified infographic attached to the findings of the F-35A and Gripen-E evaluation report. The Gripen scored significantly worse in all categories, by Canada's own government. The category where it scored the worst, relative to the F-35, was entitled, "Mission Performance". The people your own government paid to evaluate it didn't think too highly of it.

Do you see how closely CPFH for the F/A-18E matches the Gripen-E, despite being a twin-engine jet flown from carriers?

Total CPFH for a twin-engine heavy fighter that gets the piss beat out of it by launching from and landing on aircraft carriers is only $3.6K more than the Gripen.

The F-35A cost per flight hour (CPFH) has seen significant reductions, with recent estimates around $33,000 to $36,000 for the U.S. Air Force, down from higher figures in earlier years, though targets and actual costs vary with sustainment efforts, parts, and upgrades, with some projections seeing slight upticks as aircraft age into depot maintenance.
Recent Estimates (FY2024): The Defense Department's Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) estimated around $36,000/hour, while the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) projected $34,000/hour.
Declining Costs: The program achieved a 61% improvement in CPFH between 2014 and 2022, reaching about $33,600/hour by 2022.
Historical Context: Costs were higher in previous years (e.g., ~$47,000 in 2017), but continuous efforts to improve reliability and logistics are driving them down.

Saab is attempting to sell Gripens using 2017 F-35A O&M costs to anyone who will indulge them. Don't take my word for it, though, read the reports. We make them publicly available. Our costs are true O&M costs per fiscal year across the entire fleet. We provide total expenditures by category, hours flown, and number of jets in inventory. F-35A averages 4.4-4.8 maintenance man-hours per flight hour. These are NOT notional costing figures, they're what the American tax payers are on the hook for.

Saab JAS 39 Gripen - Wikipedia
The Saab Gripen-E, designed for efficiency, aims for low maintenance, with claims suggesting around 10 maintenance man-hours (MMH) per flight hour (FH) on average for the Gripen family, emphasizing modularity and quick field servicing, though specific Gripen-E figures vary but generally are significantly lower than older jets like the F-14 (40-60 MMH/FH).

10MMH/FH for a non-stealthy Gripen with less advanced everything
vs
4.8MMH/FH for the F-35A, the most sophisticated fully operational fighter jet in the world

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2025-12-07 23:40:19

Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#2 2025-12-08 07:12:21

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#3 2025-12-09 12:17:13

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#4 2025-12-11 02:37:58

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#5 2025-12-11 12:00:03

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#6 2025-12-11 12:34:46

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#7 2025-12-11 14:34:32

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#8 2025-12-19 19:50:22

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#9 Yesterday 08:00:45

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#10 Today 05:49:36

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#11 Today 09:50:01

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

#12 Today 13:47:19

Re: Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow

Board footer