To some extent I agree with djcross.

As I just linked to in the missiles subforum, the UK fired 80 cruise missiles in Libya; the US fired a much larger number; add to that what France fired.

In addition B2s also flew some missions.

My understanding (but I may be wrong) is that had the F-35 been available during the Libya conflict then one would not have needed to fire all those cruise missiles.

Curiously one of the main reasons for “CASOMING” targets deep inside Lybia was the lack of range of the CSAR teams. Unless someone develops a CSAR capable Dave…

They denied the outcome of the WVR encounters.

And? Are you implying that the Germans lied?

You are really having problems to accept that the Raptor might have a few BFM´s in wich they came on the wrong side of a gun muzle aint you?

The basic numbers (T/Weight and wing loading) for the two airframes are almost identical, not much to choose between the two, throw the Raptors LO and sensors advantage to the “bin”, take the fight into WVR and the outcome is heavily dependent on pilot skill´s.
To complement this, Lt Col Marc Grune, the Luftwaffe’s operations group commander, the one that lead the Phoon´s flight is the same chap that “got” a pair of Rafale´s in a previous BFM, he is a veteran with an awfull lot of flying hours in the Eurofighter, if the rest of the German detach were composed of the same ilk, its bleeding obvious that there were going to be some Raptors ending on the wrong end of the gun camera…

So whats so surprising?

Is every future conflict going to be as simple as Libya?

Simple? Really?
Having to cross the entire Med, then having to pinpoint targets the size of a small car in the midle of densely populated cities in the midst of combat in wich there was absolutely no diferentiation betwen the oponents (nevermind the civilians), without UAV suport (at least on the initial phases) is simple! Well!!!

Or could it be difficult, with sophisticated CCD and IADS?

I am really having a hard time to understand what are those ATG missions that (for the foreseable future) an evolved Gripen equiped with something like the LITENING G4, Rover 5 and an assorted selection between the likes of MBDA Spear, IPavewayIV or the AGM-158B (depending on the scenario) cant handle.
I can only think of two, the first involves more double digit sam units than what the Russians field outside Moscow, the other involves a chap from the some MOD telling the pilots “you must visualy JDAM an S400 Batery”.
Both of them are, at the best, very niche scenarios.
But i am a layman, i can be entirely wrong.

Since you fight with the kit you already have, do you want capable kit? Or kit suited to the 1980s?

“kit suited to the 1980s“

Nice catch phrase!
Sounds really nice, LM should stick it in every presentation ppt!

Now, can i spend the extra cash that i´ve saved by not acquiring a LO/VLO 13ton+ airframe on things like the MBDA Spear, AGM-158B, MBDA Meteor, etc?
And can i spend the money saved by not operating such a beast on flying hours for my (Danish) pilots?
Or (in alternative) can i have a meeting with those chaps from General Atomics?

Capability? Tricky word.

If you were the Defence Minister of a small country with a limited budget would you not seriously consider alternatives?

Real sensor fusion and some sophisticated processing techniques.

If that “80´s kit” mention was good, this one is simply wonderful! 🙂

REAL SENSOR FUSION

I really like it. Does it go with the “without latency” option? :dev2:
(Dont need to answer that one, it was a cheap shot, i admit)

I am also having a deja vu, i have this image of fleets of F-22 Raptors (their pilots having helmet mounted displays in their heads) roaming the skies collecting data and being a comunication node with every single aerial platform present in the Pentagon portfolio!
Those LM ppt´s from the beggining of the century were just grand, were they not?
I am quite sure that “Sensor Fusion” was written all over the place on those docs!

If sensor fusion is your thing, i am sure you´ll apreciate pages 21 and 22 of this document:
http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/About%20Saab/Events/Farnborough%202012/Gripen%20presentation%20Farnborough.pdf

EODAS can provide initial cueing, but its the “big sensors” that discriminate targets v decoys, and provide weapons quality targeting.

Thank you.
Translated, “if its dificult to discriminate between a TEL and a buch of trees (or Berlin) dont be silly and use the ETOPS, the AN/APG-81, the two together, or better still, if its in disputed airspace send something without a man (or woman) on it”.

Back to square one, a modern AESA Radar, a modern tracking and targeting pod, data linking with the rest of the assets (throw in a satcom, by the way), “some sophisticated processing techniques” et voilá…

The actual performance of the “system” would have to be analyzed with factual data, something that is not available on public, and compared, but at least on theory there´s nothing that the likes of evolved Eagles, Gripens, etc, couldnt do.
I am sure that you do have some well founded base for your claims and cant disclose them, but i dont have many doubts that the Boeing chaps would surely disagree.

Anything to make a buck, but the capability may not be very useful in a stressing scenario.

Entirely agree, that capability might not be very useful on a stressing scenario… independently of the platform, be it a Sopwith Camel or an F-35.
Now that reunion with those General Atomic chaps…

The “gargantuan logistics tail” is modeled after the commercial business model used by airlines. There is a small set of spare parts stored at the “retail level” (i.e. the airbase) to service immediate needs. A larger set of spares stored at a shared “wholesale level” (i.e.regional center) to replenish retail spares. Regional centers will be in Europe, Australia, and 2 locations in the US. Repair parts are sent to the OEM for repair. Turnaround through the supply system is incentivized with more $ reward for faster turnaround. This is infinitely preferable to the old model where every Air Force had its own (expensive) Intermediate repair and (expensive) depot repair capability. Think of it as a single supply system servicing a 3500 jet fleet instead of 13 supply systems with fleet sizes ranging from 24 to 2400 jets

1º What Scorpion said.

2º When i´ve used the expression “gargantuan logistics tail”, it wasnt with a pejorative intention. The EPAF countries had a wonderful experience with the Viper, its just normal that experience combined with a potencial massive acquisition of assets by the Pentagon creates an massive selling point on JSF favour.

What is the value of capability to Denmark?

I am remembering something from my Danish History lessons.
There was this chap called Hägar the Horrible who, somewhere in the 9th century, was having problems with a bunch of pesky Northumbrians, so he went to the Danish (9th century) industrial/military complex and ordered a new generation (the fith one) of Drakars.
Those new ships were going to be bloody fast, agile and it would be almost impossible to detect them while at sea, he wanted 750 of them.
The Danish (9th century) industrial/military complex promised that those new Drakars (the ATFD, “D” is for “Drakar”) would cost more or less the same that the last generation of ships, while at the same time having some new magical capabilities, Hoggar believed it and ordered forward the construction.
Has time went by, two things happened, first the magic guild (the chaps who made the new Drakkar invisible) asked far more than it was initialy predicted, so the cost of the ships balloned, and the Northumbrians got hammered by a political/economical crisis, so Hoggar got to think, “650 of them might do the trick”. The costs continued to climb and Hoggar thought “hmmm, 381 of them might serve”, etc…
In the end Hoggar got 187, of wich more than 1/4 are exclusively used for rowing training around Sjaelland. Mind you, the around 130 combat capable 5G Drakars are the worlds envy, but strangely Hoggar has led a bucket load of incursions around the world and never used them!
Some chaps even call these Drakars “port queens”…

So, yes i agree with you, measuring capabilities versus cost is absolutely essential.
You might end up with a halved fleet of very expensive “port queens”!

If your expectation is fly-bys on national holidays, then buy M-346s

“If your expectation is fly-bys on national holidays, then buy M-346s“

Another lovely catch phrase!

Albeit Scorpions text is also wonderful, “stealth”, “millions” and “hangar queen”, reminds me of something…

I´ll try something of my own, “if you want to starve of oxigen a pilot while flying at supersonic speeds then buy a 5G LM product”. How´s that?
Yours better, i admit.
.
And, last but not least, who wants to train in Lynkoping, when you can train in Florida?!

*
Lynkoping

Well, the bantering was quite nice and DJ, its a pleasure to trade “jabs” with a well informed chap like yourself.

Cheers

Since yesterday an animated preview of the book is available …

http://www.harpia-publishing.com/index-ModernChineseWarplanes.html

I hope You like it ….
Cheers, Deino

Thats a hell of a good job Deino!

Congratulations

firstly , aim-120 is 152 kg , have a diameter of 180 mm , length of 3.7 m , the RVV-MD is 190 kg , have diameter of 200 mm , length is 3.71 m , the Meteor is 185 kg , have diameter of 178 mm , length is 3.65 m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-77_%28missile%29
so it seem that R-77 is the biggest and heaviest of the 3

Moon

May i ask what a diference between the Vympel RVV-MD and the MBDA Meteor of 5 kilos in weight and 6 cm in lenght are suposed to mean in relative terms of lethality?!

secondly , the 9M96E2 missile (S-400 ) is 420 kg , and can reach 120 km when fire from ground ( air launch may reach 200-> 400 km ) ,also radar guide and it is very deadly against any fighter , so i dont think weight is a problem

Now you lost me, we were talking of the latest generation BVR AAM´s, right?!
If not, well, a Bristol BloodHound had a range of +85 km and weighted +2 tons, both of these are interesting numbers, because, well… they are totaly irrelevant?

finally , F-16 equipt with 4 Ale-50 and alq-184 is hardly an high end threat , more than that iam not very impressed with the F-22 , in fact the F-22 lack of IRST making it very vulnerable against another stealth fighter , so if the F-22 , and F-35 go head to head , 99 % the time the F-35 will get the first shot , fire all of it’s missiles and come home before the raptor know any things ( due to EOTS ) and even if the fight go WVR i dont really think the F-22 will enjoy much advantages as it dont have JHMCS , DAS or DIRCM like the F-35

?!
Well, if you are not impressed with the Raptor, i surely was/am!
That beast combines mach 1.7 supercruise, 9G´s, a LO airframe, a big AESA set, etc… And it was flying in 1997!

Expensive to operate? You’ve got it all wrong, Sintra. It will only cost only 7% more to operate than F-16. That figure is from LM so it has to be right, hasn’t it? 🙂

Yep.
Silly me… 🙂

That prediction (“It will only cost only 7% more to operate than F-16”) was made using the exact same tool that was used to predict the number of test flights needed.
I cant quite seem to remember the name of the chap who developed the software, it was either “Dilbert” or “Dogbert”, it had worked before for Eurofighter GMBH and it had a norwegian cousin that wrote reports for their MOD…

Please explain why Denmark bought Draken & CV90. They’re both Swedish.

The chap who made the decisions was a Swedish in disguise called Humphrey Appleby?

I´ll get me coat… 😀