😮

Now calm down. Don’t let the title make you cringe. :diablo: Let me explain…

There are a lot of airforces in the world with only a basic equipment fit. A few dozen Mig-21s, a coupla choppers, and a rusty C-130 in most cases. Some are attempting to upgrade to newer models, but I was wondering: The latest models of Russian SAMs (S-400 series I think it’s called) are said to be a whole new level of deadly. And now with the advent of Stealth aircraft, it adds a whole new dimension to air warfare. And from what I understand, it’s a whole hell of a lot cheaper to buy and maintain a mobile SAM network than it is to buy, train, maintain, fuel, and keep a fully functioning air force to defend your airspace.

For a lot of the smaller third-world nations, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense just to invest in the latest SAM designs than to try to plog along on some third-hand aircraft while saving money? Could we see the end of air combat forces in the lesser nations around the globe in place of SAM networks? (Of course, if you want to INVADE another nation, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame right there…) The concept of fighter aircraft would be relegated to only the wealthiest, most influential nations?

What advantages do Fighters have over SAMs when it comes to defending a sovereign airspace, especially today with the new SAMs and Stealth?

SAMs(especially something like the S-400) aren’t necessarily as cheap as you might think. In order to have complete overlapping coverage with SAMs alone would be pretty expensive, especially if you’re expecting VLO targets.

Fighters can also be used for A2G, so that offers quite a bit more flexibility for the $$$.

Exactly the oposite.
The Block 50/52+ albeit having better acceleration are out turned at any altitude by any MLU Viper or block 25.
The Block60 his a flying brick, a ten ton behemoth flying on a 7 ton wings.
At full weight it has the worst weight/wing area relation of any NATO tactical fighter ever, and that includes the F-104G.

It may not turn as well, but for missile kinematics, it’s improved straight line performance shouldn’t be discounted.

“in just seven minutes and be able to loiter in the area for 41 minutes before going home.”

That is the way things are made-up for questionable reasons. At least to satisfy some willing readers.
Around seven minutes into the area with no distance given for obvious reasons, which is around 100 nm. To loiter at unknown speed for 41 minutes and fly back at unknown speed. All that by shaken the windows in that metropolitan area. 😀

By the way, with the F-15C you can do the same with ease as the F-4 before. A 100 nm dash supersonic, to loiter 41 minutes subsonic and return 100 nm subsonic. 😉

PS: The distance between Washington, D.C. and Langley Airbase is around 130 miles / 209 km.

To do that in 7 minutes from launch requires M2+ speeds(which would emply A/B being used rather than supercruising).

The AWST story is more specific.

well, you have it, at first is said is 40 min at loitering, later is mixed up as 40 min of SC, loitering is not SC

I don’t see it that way. For an F-22 to take off, and be at a location 130 miles away in 7 minutes, you’re talking about speeds higher than supercruising. Even if the F-22 were already supercruising at the time you started the stopwatch, that would be ~M1.7 the whole way, to do it in 7 minutes. When you account for take off, climb to altitude, acceleration, the F-22 would have to be at over M2+ for a good portion of the flight(using A/B), still loiter 41 minutes(no speed given), and then fly back. If the F-15/F-16 can fly at M1.5 for 7 minutes too, then what you’re suggesting is that the Raptor doesn’t have any additional capability over legacy fighters.

Well, agree it is fuzzy math, since i know as little as anyone else what the final optimal speed will be, hence i wrote some + ~ = double rough.
In this case, i assumed double rough optimal speed for gripen to M 1.24, based on
1. Optimal speed is probably at >35.000 ft, due to cold air, that made a significant difference on Gripen C.
(Gripen C can supercruise but only on a cold day remember ?)
2. Less drag.
3. Since Scooter can’t provide anything to support his claim, i’ll use common sense that a two-seater is heavier
4. And the canopy and changes to airframe made the two-seater more draggy.
5. Speed of sound is lower at higher altitude.

If these factors provide less then 1% each, it will be more then M1.24.
Actually i didnt guess on 1.24, i just took something between M1.2-M1.3…

IMV, of these, only 1 and 5 will have an impact, since i’ve read Gripen C makes M1.1 with EFT + AAM loadout, but never read any claim what it does clean. If extra weight and drag from EFT + AAM (or extra weight and drag at all) had made a difference, why no bragging of M1.2-1.3 clean i wonder ?
In Gripens case, thrust seem to be the one limiting factor.

No matter if it is measured at sea level without fuel reserved for climb etc or at 30.000 ft with spare fuel as i did when doing Schorsch example, Gripen still has ~41% longer time.
Even when assuming M1.2, Gripen still has longer range.
Agree i don’t know what impact difference there would be with a speed difference of M0.4, if any, but according to Schorsch, the thrust at M0.8 is roughly the same a M0. So its a good bet a difference of M0.4 make even less difference then M0.8. (means negligible)
My result when comparing F-22 @ M1.7 vs Gripen NG @ M1.2 was a slightly (ok negligible) longer range for Gripen.

Was there something you dispute ?

Two problems with your assertions.
A-You don’t know the throttle settings, SFC, etc… that the Raptor and Gripen have when they’re supercruising.
B-You don’t know if your numbers are completely accurate in the first place.

As was posted earlier- the Raptor can supercruise at M1.5+ for ~41 minutes with 8 AAMs. This doesn’t include the subsonic portion of the flight. Your figures are significantly underestimating the Raptor while being very generous for the Gripen. Don’t you think SAAB might want to capitalize on the Gripen’s superiority to the Raptor, if that were indeed the case?

well it was not the P-40, if you are so worried about it..

Can someone explain me if all the f-35s will lack of conventional HUD, the navy versions too?, i was about to open a new thread about it..but since this topic is about that plane..

Also the “electronic” sight is shown through all the visor helmet? or just a segment (which would be a bit confusing)

All imagery that would normally be on the HUD is projected on the pilot’s visor, along with imagery from the DAS/IRST. In otherwords the HUD has been replaced in the F-35(all 3 variants).

Isn’t it rumored that the F-16 literally has the RCS signature of a flying barn?

A clean F-16 is around 1m^2 in terms of frontal RCS. The SH is less than that.
A Blk 60+ may have some RCS reduction like the SH getting it down to the .1 ro .5m^2 range. Once you start hanging weapons on them, the RCS will start going back up though.