SintraThe types of missions that NATO has engaged in: Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, the F-35 is quite suited for.
“Quite suited for”?! A’Stan?!!!
Talk about massive overkill on a grand scale!
Sintraso it would seem that right now, the Gripen is superior in strike, being able to carry it farther with more integrated
but that the Typhoon will seemingly have more planned to be integrated, can carry 1 ton more on more hard points, and will have Ashm capabilities
Right now the Gripen that is fielded is the “C/D”, so “being able to carry it farther” might not be the case.
Sintra“Pentagon Sees F-35 Having Air Superiority For 30 Years”
Excerpt from Aviation Week // September 23, 2015Source:
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/pentagon-sees-f-35-having-air-superiority-for-30-years
“Pentagon needs new Ophthalmologist”
SintraOP is good example why this and many other forums should have age limit.
X2
SintraTurkey was the first (and only, IIRC) F-16 Customer to get access to the code in 2012.
Even then, it was only because Turkey was hosting radars for the missile shield.
Israel got access to the mission computer’s source codes has far as the eighties, the massive amount of Israeli hardware incorporated in the IDF/AF Netz, Barak and Soufa’s would be entirely impossible without it, Sweden in the eighties payed to have access to the Viper FBW’s, the EPAF countries had partial access through the MLU program, Japan through the F-2 program, more specifically the integration of the Melco radar, Turkey was just the last one.
Cheers
SintraAnd another new design! This time from Textron.
WASHINGTON — If Textron AirLand decides to submit a design for the US Air Force’s next-generation trainer, it will be a new design and not a reworking of its Scorpion aircraft, a top company official told Defense News.
Textron AirLand President Bill Anderson said in an interview last week that the Scorpion, designed to be an ISR/strike platform, “is not a T-X competitor” based on the service’s requirements, adding that his company winning the service’s T-X competition will “require a new design.”
SintraFor that matter, the F-16 source codes are still not available but you don’t see all the global users throwing a fit.
If i am not mistaken, the source codes of severall components of the viper (the mission computers, the FBW, etc) were, at least partialy, made available to Israel, severall EPAF countries, Turkey and Japan.
Cheers
SintraIm curious about what’s been done so far about implementing strike capabilities (maritime, CAS, etc) to the Gripen and Typhoon, and what will be done within the next 5 years.
It seems that the Typhoon is still limited to Paveway 4s, brimstone, and soon done with storm shadow?
Gripen
As of now – GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II, SAAB RB-15, AGM-75 Maverick. The DWS 39 Mjölner was taken out of service.
Next five years (confirmed) – SDB
Prospective – A long range CASOM type for the Flygvapnet (the KEPD-350 Taurus seems the leading contender), severall Brasilian munitions
Typhoon
As of now – EGBU-16-Paveway-II, Paveway IV
Next five years (confirmed) – MBDA Brimstone, MBDA Storm Shadow, KEPD-350 Taurus
Prospective – MBDA Spear II/III (the Typhoon was the chosen aircraft to flight test the weapons), SDB, an AShm if anyone orders it
SintraExactly. Those terrorists are financed by enemies and ISIS terrorists are also in Ukraine fighting for Kiev junta. Why do you think they are there? To live peacefully with Russia? ISIS sent thousands of their terrorists now in Europe between those migrants. This is not a coincidence, it is planned and financed by gulf monarchies and US together with Turkey to destroy Europe and Russia. Europe is fooled big time, but Russia will defend itself and it is a last time, that Russia start bombing those terrorists that Syria and Iraq could be liberated.
The tin hat brigade is alive and well, I see.
SintraThe new-build ASRAAM will incorporate an IR seeker of MBDA design.
Thanks for the correction
SintraIt will be interesting to see whether the RAF going all RF for their air-to-air missiles will be the right move.
I will be nothing but astounded if we discover that the CAAM(A) AAM uses the same seeker that the land/naval SAM, i am expecting an IR seeker, more precisely the exact same used by the AIM-9X BII.
Cheers
SintraIn any case, I probably should have focused on my first question; are there any physical or design considerations that favour infrared over radar for use in short/medium range air-to-air missiles, and whether there is any reason infrared should be continued to be used in future for air-to-air missiles. Is there any particular reason to maintain a mix of seeker types, and if so by infrared should be on the short/medium range missiles and radar on the long-range, other than for the historical reasons I mentioned above (i.e. you could develop an infrared seeker for a small Sidewinder-sized missile, whereas at that time in the 1950s you would not be able to develop an active RF seeker for that sized missile.. or even a SARH seeker for a small missile)
Field of view?
An IR Seeker field of view depends on the optics that are in the front of the sensor, the norm today, with gimbaled optics, is a full 180º frontal arc (the radar seeker has other advantages, detection range and precision), on a boat or on a SAM battery a smaller FOV on the weapon itself is not a particular problem, they have sensors covering 360º above them, they can point the trisonic explosive thingy in the general correct direction before shooting it. The aircraft on the other hand has a radar coverage of (roughly) 1/4 of the frontal arc, using the IR seeker of the missile at WVR means that the weapon can be shot outside of the FOV of the main sensor (the aircraft radar).
SintraHmmm.
CAMM’s datalink, I bet. I wonder if it’s just an ASRAAM with some CAMM bits, or a proper CAMM(A). Or is there any difference between those two things?
The seeker? I would be more than a bit surprised if CAMM(A) ends up using the active radar found on the naval/land versions.
Cheers
SintraSadly, Modern air defense integrates mobile counter PGM devices such as rapid rate canon or Laser. So your pairs of Taurus would have to be escorted until impact 😉
Whats the RCS of an LFK Taurus, a Storm Shadow or a JASSM? Is it bigger or smaller than an F-35A? Is it bigger or smaller than a JDAM or Paveway? Would it be easier or harder to wipe out eight modern CASOM while flying pre programed NAP of the earth profiles or destroy the same amount of JDAM/JSOW&/Paveway´s being thrown several dozen miles away at medium altitude?
Hard questions that i cant answer (albeit the material coming from LM on JASSM and LRASM would make you think that they should be quite survivable) , but i am quite sure that the chaps flying the Tornados inside Saudi Arabia would be safe. 🙂
And then you have the ToT and to keep updated your target coordinates… Throwing a multi-million Taurus that way would be only a waste of money.
We were discussing Q Package, thats a known fixed target, no coordinates problem there, and the Taurus (or JASSM) is not a “multi million” thingy, its more like “bit more than a million”.
Now tell me that a super stealthy Uclass orbit the area unseen to all but you uploading refreshed target info, then I might agree.
But, here we are again: the inevitable reality of Stealth…
Big fixed target 🙂
Cheers
SintraWhat If I need to hit a HAS from the opposite side of my approach?
The scenario discussed was Q Package, not blowing an “HAS from the opposite side of my approach”. But even in this case the answer is straightforward, an HAS is a fixed target, you would simply need to pre program a route in the missile that would take it from the oposite direction, the thing is, even shooting a Taurus two hundred km´s inside the Saudi borders, that particular weapon would hit the center of Baghad while having enough fuel to fly another one hundred km´s, the JASSM ER would fly another three to four hundred km´s.
What if I need to hit the bunker or tunnel entrance? How about putting weapons through a vent or precise in a bunker?
Do you realize places like Hainan island are fortresses?
From package Q to Hainan? :angel:
Well, the weapon of choice for the likes of the RAF, Luftwaffe, Adla, etc, against precisely the type of targets that you´ve described (fixed, hardened, small, heavily defended) are CASOM long range PGM´s equiped with heavy warheads like BROACH and MEPHISTO.
Serious question, is there today any PGM that fits in the F-35A bay´s that is publicly described has having a bigger penetrator capability than something like BROACH and/or MEPHISTO?
Im making the point that exspensive cruise missiles have a niche.
I agree with you, my point is that this particular niche is precisely what Q Package was targeting, big, fixed, important, highly defended. And yes, there are quite a number of scenarious in wich a manned LO platform brings a lot to the table, and Spud´s text is a good one, i´ve just presented another alternative (i´ll freely admit that this coming from someone who´s never worked for an airforce and the only job contact with the aerospace industry that it had was less than a week, twenty three years ago, me, is quite a bit presumptuous).
Another point that i would like to make regarding this particular discussion is that, ATG PGM´s have, with time, become less expensive in such a way that they can be spent in serious numbers (at least by the Pentagon). Roughly speaking (and if i didnt screw the numbers), JASSM today costs roughly the same that a Paveway in 1991.
Cheers
Sign In
