Amiga500A thumb-rule is that ~ 50 % of the ferry range value can be used for real combat missions in general.
I would think it is much less than that. Ferry range is a 1-way trip is it not? [You don’t ferry something from A to B only to return to A without landing.]
Further to that, you lose some wet pylons, add ordinance (with associated weight and zero-lift drag effects) and you need to plan for at least a few minutes on burner in the combat zone. You also need to consider diversions and dog legs.
Probably nearer 25% if you ask me.
If you want an example, run the Typhoon numbers – and remove the optimism on the part of the manufacturer’s PR dept. for combat mission planning efficiency.
Amiga500The MiG-31 has a claimed max high-speed cruise (Mach 2,35) combat radius of 389 nm.
Range is supposedly 869 miles with 4x R-33 @ Mach 2.35.
The MiG-31 has been observed covering 600 miles at Mach 2.6 into Sakhalin shortly after the KAL007 shoot-down.
Amiga500Anyway the claim is that F-22 and F-35 would be able to operate without support in a much more hostile environment than legacy F-15/F-16.
That claim is simply incorrect.
F-35 will definitely need electronic support (both in terms of off-board sensors and radar interference).
F-22 slightly less so, but to be used optimally, it needs at least off-board sensors. With only 183 F-22s to go around, its not as if there are loads of them to operate some as information gatherers and others as prosecutors.
Indeed, one could make the argument that with the -22 and -35 relying on strict EMCON to operate*, their need for support is much more acute than legacy aircraft.
*they definitely need it if they are going to operate as the much vaunted “force-multipliers”.
I don’t think you folks have really thought through your argument.
Amiga500If the USAF and USN does not believe their newest RAM-covered F/A-18E/F, F-15E and F-16C (with massive jamming support) can survive against an adversary’s sophisticated IADS, what makes you believe Gripen will?
Gripen will survive… just as the -15E and -16C would… but none of the Gripen buyers need to justify wasting billions on F-35, so they won’t fabricate tall tales of ineffectiveness.
Amiga500A Rafale will do better than the legacy F-15/F-16, but how much better?
Same as F-22.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/power-of-multisensor-data-fusion.html?L=1
“Multi-sensor data fusion”
Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the RAFALE translates into accurate, reliable and strong tracks, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.
It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:
1. Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.
Everyone please dismiss the Lockheed FUD on fusion. Everyone is at it. It is yet another obvious evolutionary step in fighter development. Doesn’t stop the LM powerpoint wizards or their idiotic fanbois from claiming it somehow is unique to their products.
http://www.eurofighter.com/capabilities/technology/sensor-fusion/overview.html
Amiga500“Our objective is to fly in front [of any strike force] with the F-22s, and have the persistence [because of larger fuel loads] to stay there while the [stealthy fighters] are conducting their LO attack,” says Maj. Todd Giggy, the wing’s chief of weapons and tactics. Giggy was formerly with the chief of weapons and tactics for the 1st Air Dominance Wing at Langley. “That persistence is something we can add that no one else can in the air dominance world.”
Interesting. Is he trying to indicate than an eagle has greater persistence than a Flanker? :confused:
I wonder what barometer of persistence is he using to come to that conclusion?
Amiga500So, we have come full circle back to post #14.
We have done no such thing.
You keep painting an impossible scenario if you want – but do not expect anyone else bar the rabids to pay any heed to it.
Does Denmark only expect their combat airplanes to do easy things such as airshow displays and fly-bys for Royal Holidays (or Libya)? Or do they expect to be part of a deployed coalition which can defeat a sophisticated, capable adversary?
Gripen can do either very well thank you very much.
Now please quit spreading Lochkeed FUD.
Amiga500It depends on the scenario.
I know that.
Hence why I was making the point, very bluntly too.
However, the isolation of the FOB will also affect:
1. The degree of threat against it, both in terms of force size and sortie regularity.
2. The amount of targets that are available, also both in terms of target difficulty and target numbers.
Further to that. If space at the FOB is so limited, then you can expect the deployment to be limited to a squadron (or maybe 2) which will all come from one country, with all the overhead minimisation that entails.
You are trying to paint a scenario that simply doesn’t exist, I expect the scenario definition to start moving around shortly… a bit like LM’s criteria for “5th generation” when they realised the F-35 doesn’t supercruise.
Amiga500Are you still working for LM djcross?
Its looking mighty like he has sold his soul and moved to the frikkin marketing department! 😀
Amiga500RQ-4 and JSTARS only work in permissive environments against militarily inept adversaries, such as Libya. Try the same against a capable opponent and you’ll find that you are too busy dodging missiles to track their stuff which incorporates sophisticated CCD.
I note you neglected satellites.
I also note the elephant in the corner of the room you are arguing from – you are supporting a doctrine that would require information gathering by manned platforms (fighters) within the strike range of enemy surface to air munitions. Never going to happen.
There are sensors and there are SENSORS.
There is bullsh!t and there is slurry.
After the failure against Serbian CCD, the US has spent a substantial amount of national treasure developing techniques to discriminate between decoys and camouflaged targets.
I’m surprised you are admitting that the American war machine was ever less than perfect.
Well guess what, its still f**ked up and the F-35 is front and centre of the clusterf**k.
Banding about buzzwords like “sensor fusion” and “5th generation” as if they actually mean something is nothing short of ridiculous.
Sensor fusion is not a capability. 5th generation is not a capability. Both are marketing slogans.
Saab have developed the low-frequency CARABAS radar capable of identifying IEDs buried in the ground. Don’t be so daft as to indicate they cannot penetrate camouflage nets.
Beancounters rule the battlefield. Just because a new technology exists, doesn’t assure the capability will pass the beancounters roadblocks.
hahaha
It is pathetic to see you reduced to arguing along that line. At this point you are embarrassing yourself and starting to reduce your previously high level of credibility.
Amiga500This limits the number of airplanes that can be supported at the FOB and places severe limits on large airplanes such as tankers, AWACs and the inevitable parade of cargo airplanes.
Just who do you think you are preaching to with this bull****?
Are you seriously trying to state that AWACs, tankers and the like are restricted to operating from forward operating bases to operate effectively in the same manner as heavily loaded fighters/fighter-bombers?
Amiga500http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Sensor_Systems/Reconnaissance_Systems/CARABAS/Features/
AFAIK Saab can offer something similar as a pod solution for the Gripen NG, this was mentioned in conjunction with the Gripen IN offering to India.
But that doesn’t work, ‘cos its not on F-35
[/shill]
Amiga500Gen 4 jets have limited utility in modern air-to-ground operations.
LM FUD.
Tornados may be great at bombing buildings or bridges, but adversaries’ warfighting ability no longer relies on fixed structures. Everything is mobile — command vans, TBM launchers, SAM batteries, artillery batteries, Tank and mechanized armies, all mobile and constantly moving. Mobile targets are also camouflaged with sophisticated IR and RF netting.
If they are mobile, they move. They are tracked by JSTARS, satellite and recce UAVs.
Do you think the USAF spent billions on Global Hawk for no good reason?
So they don’t show up on Gen 4 SAR or FLIR.
So, your saying the Gripen NG radar (which is pretty much as new as you get, its only onto the aircraft within the 6 months) is obsolete?
Or that the lightening pod IR suite cannot be upgraded?
A fortune has been spent learning how to discriminate between decoys and real targets. Gen 4 doesn’t have that capability, but F-35 does.
I despair at such obvious tripe. This generational debacle has to stop – it is a big smoke and mirror exercise run by LM to delude clowns that know no better. You are far from a clown, now please quit acting like one!
Do you actually think the USAF and USN are not going to update the targetting pod if required/as necessary to enable their legacy aircraft to function? :confused:
Amiga500Bang-for-the-buck is key. No ally will be allowed to show up with a squadron of jets which cannot fly the primary missions, yet comsume valuable real estate and logistics, and require a circus of jammers and tankers, elephants and bearded ladies to perform the mission.
Even a handful of F-35s will bring more to the fight than a full squadron of Gripens.
I’m actually finding it hard to believe, you, as someone experienced within aerospace, has written this pish.
Has your account been hacked? :confused:
Amiga500I dont think so. On an F-16, an AIM-120 or AIM-9 missile on wingtip pylon with 16S210 launcher has no impact on drag at all (drag index = 0)
In fact, with regards lift dependent drag, having two wingtip missiles can help, rather than hinder. 🙂
Seeing as most maneuvering is subsonic…
[Obviously there is no beneficial impact on supersonics.]
Sign In
