Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Fighter development in the late 20th and early 21st century - a bit of perspective
Aussiegunneragain    11/8/2011 9:53:10 PM
I thought it would be an appropriate time to review the development records of the last few advanced fighters to be built. I've researched first demonstrator flights and IOC dates for the latest few Western ones to begin with, I might look at costs and non-Western types when I have time. F-22: -Demonstrator first flight 1990 -IOC USAF 2005 (15 years) Dassault Rafale: -Demonstrator first flight 1986 -Aeronavale IOC (Rafale M - F1 standard) 2002 (16 years) -ADA IOC 2006 (20 years) Super Hornet -Demonstrator first flight 1995 -IOC 2002 (7 years) Gripen -Demonstrator first flight 1988 -IOC 1997 (9 years) Typhoon -Demonstrator first flight 1986 -IOC 2003ish (17+ years) (I can't find a definitive source on the Typhoon's IOC)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain       11/8/2011 9:55:12 PM

I thought it would be an appropriate time to review the development records of the last few advanced fighters to be built. I've researched first demonstrator flights and IOC dates for the latest few Western ones to begin with, I might look at costs and non-Western types when I have time.

F-22:
-Demonstrator first flight 1990
-IOC USAF 2005 (15 years)

Dassault Rafale:
-Demonstrator first flight 1986
-Aeronavale IOC (Rafale M - F1 standard) 2002 (16 years)
-ADA IOC 2006 (20 years)

Super Hornet
-Demonstrator first flight 1995
-IOC 2002 (7 years)

Gripen
-Demonstrator first flight 1988
-IOC 1997 (9 years)

Typhoon
-Demonstrator first flight 1986
-IOC 2003ish (17+ years)
(I can't find a definitive source on the Typhoon's IOC)

Stinking rotten software fucked up my formatting. Anyway, I used this source for most of my info.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/9/2011 9:46:40 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       11/9/2011 10:36:26 PM
I think this is a useful thread, firstly because it shows neatly that there is no US monopoly on protracted procurement programs.
 
WRT typhoon you have to bear in mind that the tranche and consortium structures make it hard to pinpoint 2003, in reality you're looking at 20+ years based on a standard interpretation of IOC.
 
Also puts the F-35 programme into perspective...
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       11/10/2011 8:05:34 PM
This really shouldn't be demonstrative.  Many of these programs were stretched following the end of the Cold War.  If Sweden managed to do it 9 years it's not at all clear future programs really need to be doomed to 15+ year development cycles.  In fact it might be a serious mistake to assume every other nation must take 15+ years in the future.  Thus the real question isn't how long the average development cycle happens to be right now but how quickly a nation with the proper motivation and funding could in fact develop a new aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/10/2011 10:03:19 PM
LB, the reality is that the funding environment is more constrained in the post Cold-War environment, populations just aren't prepared to spend the sort of money on developing military aircraft that they were prepared to when they saw a clear and present danger. That means cost is just as much of a variable in determining the development timeline as are technical limitations, project management issues etc.
 
Reactive, on the Typhoon I just took the only reference that I could find that indicated when it got into squadron service, which was the RAF in 2003. Happy to be corrected. And yes, it does put things into perspective about American vs European development timelines and the F-35. The reality is that the US managed to develop a competitive 4.5 gen (the F-18E/F) in 7 years by leveraging off their existing lead, then a revolutionary 5th gen fighter (the F-22) in 15 ... both in the post Cold War funding environment. If the F-35 gets IOC in 2016 as planned it will still be ahead of the Typhoon and Rafale, and has to slip by 5 years to do worse. Considering the technological leap involved and the broad scope of the program that wouldn't be a terrible achievement.
 
What the comparison really shows me is how initial decision making on what and how to procure impacts on the entire project.  Let's consider aircraft by aircraft:
 
1. While the F-22 was revolutionary, the project scope was kept narrow with naval or export requirements and a strictly secondary strike capability. It was also conducted by one country making coordination easier. These factors contributed to it going from demonstrator to operational in only 15 years, more quickly than either of the bigger eurocanards which are a generation behind it. 
 
2. The Super Hornet built on an existing design and made use of advances in electronics to deliver a competitive capability more quickly than any of the others. 
 
3. Saab made prudent use of indigenous and imported technology to get a competitive fighter operational very quickly. This has allowed a small nation like Sweden to maintain a very large air force for its size and has secured SAAB the greatest number of export customers, if not total number of airframes, of any of the recent designs.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/10/2011 10:12:19 PM
4. The French went with all French gear for the Rafale, which probably extended the development timeline  but justifiably given that they like to sell to people that the US doesn't like. Producing Rafale M was a huge mistake though, it slowed down the entire program for a capability that could have been adequately met with a purchase of F-18's in the mid-80's.
 
5. The Typhoon's prolonged development can be fairly blamed on German recalcitrance once the Cold War was over, though I actually think the entire program was misconcieved from before the start. The British should never have  purchased the Tornado ADV which is a poor air superiority fighter, licenced produced F-15s would have been the way to go and would have removed the need for the Typhoon. The Germans and Italians would have been better off just licence producing F-16's like the rest of Europe and wouldn't have needed the Tiffy either. That would have left their aircraft industries with the Tornado and licence produced US types to produce and a real 5th gen fighter to develop.
 
 So the big lesson is, blind protectionism sucks when it comes to equipping your air force.
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       11/11/2011 2:18:49 AM
Certainly many nations have lowered military spending post Cold War and Western nations especially are spending less and partly contributing to longer development times for aircraft; however, this period is only 20 years old and doesn't apply to everyone.  If the perceived threat increases in the future Western nations may be quite capable of developing aircraft more quickly.  In any case this paradigm does not apply to everyone.
 
Moreover, there are various other reasons contributing to complex systems taking longer to produce.  Consider that the early SR-71, the A-12, went from preliminary conception to first flight in 5 years and that partly this was due to a small team being left alone.  Today we're not exactly telling companies to produce something as quickly and efficiently as possible but rather inflicting incredible amounts of oversight and constant design changes upon them.  The process can be and needs to be improved.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       11/11/2011 3:26:54 AM

 
Either China has to implement the advances of 2-3 generations incrementally. No doubt it can be done; but it will cost - not money; but the more valuable commodity: Time - and time is precisely what China hasn't got. The US has time.
Or they can try to make a revolution: Make a modern engine, modern weapons, modern airframes, developing tactics simultaneously - that will in all probability fail.
Not only will they not achieve a leap of 2 generations to catch up to present standards; but they will be left with what they've got - while the USA advances one generation. They will march to the battle of Borodino and clash with Wehrmachts armored divisions.
 
An upcoming power will need an edge in tactics and a one or more new cheap weapons of advanced techology - and I don't see any of that coming - but that's just me. What we have seen reveals ambition; but not ability.
The submarines that stalk the US Task Forces - well it will challenge the SAR of the carrier - simulation a tactic, that didn't work for the Soviets.
The pirate fighting at the Horn of Africa? VERY good! Honestly! That is convoyprotection in WW2.
 
The US does not have the funds the next 20-30 years to maintain the same control of the sea; but what they have is clout - and attacking your enemy on his premises is NOT a good idea.
The Chinese have all the money in the world; but they do not have time. Their economic advantage is running out - fast. Their internal stability is getting shakier by the day.
Protesters in the USA are complainíng over rude bankmanagers - the Chinese cannot feed themselves.
 
No doubt the chinese will try to arm themselves out of the hole - when expenditure on real estate and useless infrastrukture - cannot replace the export to the West. Pour money into the European banks - be my guest, they have broken stronger characters than you.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       11/11/2011 7:10:19 AM
A lot of nonsense in this thread so far .
 
First , Gunner doesn 't know what he is talking about (as usual) :
 
"Producing Rafale M was a huge mistake though, it slowed down the entire program for a capability that could have been adequately met with a purchase of F-18's in the mid-80's."
 
The entire Rafale program was built AROUND the navy version (M) and not the other way around . The B and C versions came from and after the carrier variant . That being said , thinking that the Hornet or Super Hornet was capable enough for France is insulting french intelligence . The Rafale is a far more capable aircraft than both while being smaller , which was a request for our carrier(s) size .
 
I also note that in Gunner 's sick mind , Europe should have scrapped its entire military aircraft aviation and simply build under US license  fighters from the 70s like the Eagle or the Viper . Pfff , debating with this poster becomes less and less possible . The way he ends his post is also remarquable , not :
 
"So the big lesson is, blind protectionism sucks when it comes to equipping your air force."
 
lol ! I can 't believe that posters like Reactive , Thomas and LB didn 't jump on him (Gunner) for saying such nonsense .
Thomas , the way you look at China is an error and you underestimate the chineses big time and this is never good .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

MK    My 2 ct   11/11/2011 7:39:52 AM
I think it would be more appropriate to compare the first flights of the prototypes rather than that of the demonstrators vs prototypes. The Swedes indeed managed to develop the JAS 39 rather quickly, but the aircraft was also much less complex in its initial iteration and based on a number of existing and proven technologies. This itself isn't bad and was a wise move for the Swedes who have a rather small population and are this more restricted when it comes to funding.
 
The F/A-18E/F had no prototype as well and was based on an existing design too. The initial block I version shared a lot of the avionics etc. with the F/A-18C which allowed for a much faster and cheaper development as well. Many of the delays and costs are owed to the development of avionics and sensors these days and both the F/A-18E/F in its original form as well as the JAS 39A/B weren't even remotely as complex and advanced as the F-22, Rafale or Eurofighter. 
 
Purchasing US designs like the teens to fill the requirements would have been possible, but the timelines dictated an introduction in the 1990s by which time those designs may not have been adequately suited to new threats if the Soviet Union would have continued to exist. Back then when the decisions were made wrt all of these aircraft (spare the Super Hornet) no one could have predicted that the cold war would be over rather soon. 
 
The suggestion to licence built the teens and move on with the development of a 5th generation fighter would have yielded all new problems as well. The European industry was in need to keep up the pace in various fields of technology and the teens if introduced earlier would have required an earlier replacement as well, which means that a second type would have to be introduced adding much more costs than what has been actually paid now. 
 
It's also a wrong perception that the development of the Rafale M blocked the progress of the overall programme. The delays were owed to the reluctance of the French state to invest following the end of the Cold War. Delays in the Eurfighter programme are owed to politics as well, initially the French when they were still aboard, later the Spanish which joined all decisions as the last partner, then the Germans following the re-unification and then the British after the turn of the century.
 
To bring up more accurate dates replacing first flights of the demonstrators for the Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 with that of the prototypes:
JAS 39A: 
FF: 9th December 1988
DD: 8th June 1993
IOC: 30th October 1997
 
F/A-18E/F:
FF: 29th November 1995
DD: November 1999
IOC: February 2000(?)
 
Rafale:
FF: 19th May 1991
DD: 4th December 2000
IOC: October 2002
 
Typhoon:
FF: 27th March 1994
DD: 30th June 2003*
IOC: 1st January 2007*
 
 *Depends on the customer DD is for the RAF and IOC for the AMI
 
F-22:
FF: 7th September 1997
DD: 26th September 2003
IOC: 15th December 2005
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics