Btw are those F-117 even in service now, being just half the age of F-15 ?
but most importantly having “VLO” which is the only thing that matters these days.

F-117s are the same era as F-15Cs and older than most F-15Es. VLO isn’t the only thing that matters- that’s why agility, and situational awareness, combined with speed are included in the package.

And why is USAF spending money in providing EW F-15 to support F-22 when F-22 can’t be detected
until VWR, at which point F-22 have since long blasted that thing away ?
Only net result is F-15 shot down since they didn’t have “stealth” right ?

You have an uncanny ability to miss concepts like force multiplication. F-22s are difficult to detect, but if you reduce their need to emit, as well as raise the EM noise floor, that will compound the problem for any foe looking for them. That’s how you make the most of in demand resources, that aren’t in unlimited supply. As for the F-15s, I suspect there won’t be too many threats getting through to challenge them, if F-22s are on point. If a threat does manage to get through, the F-15s have long range radar w/ EA and jammers, as well as -120Ds and -9Xs w/ JHMCS, so they’re not exactly helpless.

Feel free to “sig” anything you want. He’s right. As far as *real* dangers go, GW1 and Kosovo were a cake walk.

Stop twisting numbers into something you want them to be, not what they mean in reality with all things taken into consideration.

Iraq had one of the most formidable IADs in the world during GW1 by the way.

But can the MLD that’s on a fighter detect a launch from those sorts of ranges? I highly doubt it.

Flying random routes reduces risks, no argument there. However, the routine routing worked with EA/EW support – the SAM’s were suppressed – and it failed when EA/EW wasn’t available. The mission staff/pilot knew that there were mobile SAM’s in the areas where the F-117 was to overfly, and they knew the EA-6B was out of position to support the mission (and the Serbs know when you are not jamming,) yet elected to procede without EA/EW support. And got caught.

How about this scenario: The F-117 is on a random routing. There is no EA/EW support available. Clear night. Spies call in the launch time. A forward observation post with acoustic sensors detects and localizes the plane, and passes the info along. Another observation post is able to track optically. Luckily, a SAM site just happens to be in position to take a shot because it’s launch envelope hasn’t been degraded by EA/EW. Same outcome – the only difference is the routing.

That is certainly possible, if all of those conditions exist, but only if those conditions exist. Now take a plane that is stealthier, faster, more agile, and has EODAS, SAR/GMTI, etc… and the odds are much more in the pilot’s favor.

Source? I will agree that if the F-117 flew another route that had no SAMs within effective range, then of course that statement would be true. But to knowingly fly a route with SAM coverage without EA/EW support is stupid, and the result in this case was a downed F-117.

They didn’t knowingly fly a route with SAM coverage. There was SAM coverage because they kept flying the same route, and the mobile SAMs could be positioned to best engage. Had the F-117 flown random routes, the same circumstances that allowed for the shootdown would not have occurred. The SAM site wouldn’t have had the reaction time, were it a random flyby, as the F-117 was 10 miles or less away, when detected.

The production model better have better fit and finish tolerances, if the pic above is indicative of a launch bay.

The Canadians are paying 9billons for 65 planes -> 138mio per plane
So they are paying more then 78mio per plane for :confused:

The $9B includes a lot more than just airplanes. You can’t just divide the total amount by the airframes, to get the price of the airplane.

Several things here:
1st That NEZ is twice the range for the M1.7 over the M0.7 fighter,
at M0.7 you will need to close distance to basically VWR for a decent shot,
so you’re unlikely to be undetected.

That’s not an accurate statement. It depends on the launch altitude, the target altitude, whether the target is heading towards the missile, or away, etc…. Even if both aircraft are at the same altitude, you can expect a 30-50% improvement in kinematic range by launching supersonic vs. subsonic. There’s not going to be a 100% range advantage, especially when 2 planes are approaching each other.

2nd What gives you the idea that a missile is only detected when it’s seeker go active ? i take it none ever notice an IR missile then.
the 10 km argument doesn’t hold water, even if it makes it up to M4 momentarily from a subsonic launch.

If the missile is launched within the MLD’s detection range, then there’s a good probability that it’ll be detected. If it’s launched from outside that range, then it’s by no means guaranteed that the missile will be detected, until the missile is close. Late model AMRAAMS don’t go active from 10km out either, so that much notice isn’t even assured. As for the speed of the missile, unless the missile is fired at sea level, there shouldn’t be any reason why it wouldn’t reach M4+. A supersonic launch isn’t necessary to achieve that speed.