VnomadIt’s not about the ability of the missiles to shoot down an airliner, it’s about reaction times. I don’t have the data at hand but I vaguely remember a study about an airliner approaching Czech Republic at ~900km /h speed.. The study has shown that in order to achieve the same success rate of interception with AIM-9M only, the air defense system would have to be able to detect the aircraft at ~3 times the distance compared to the same Gripen equipped with AIM-120C-5. That means nine times the area of radar coverage. Suddenly makes the two dozens of C-5 missiles they have bought look cheap.
The Czech Republic is 350km East to West and 200km North to South. They don’t have adequate ground radar coverage?
And how does any of this explain your AMRAAM argument – unless you’re saying that A) civilian aircraft can be shot at from BVR range, or B) the Aim-120 is significantly more effective than an SRAAM at WVR range.
BTW the (radar-equipped) FA-50 is still far cheaper than Gripen C/D.
Those ideas about radarless trainers being able to successfully cover the air defense role are even more absurd and frankly, it’s nothing else than sour-grapes-retaliation from the F-35 fanclub who want to ridicule the idea of a Gripen being better suited for the role than their favorite pet.
There are radarless MiG-21 squadrons that are performing these kind of missions every day.
As for ‘sour grapes’, do you honestly want to get into a comparison of the actual export successes of the F-35 & Gripen? Norway and Netherlands buttoned up, only one of the two is still competing for the Danish contract.
The debate so far has only covered the F404 engines (Samsung vs Volvo).. I agree on the avionics, though..
The debate focused primarily on their acquisition cost (which always dominates the affordability equation), where the Gripen simply can’t compete with the TA-50 (or FA-50).
VnomadCome now, you know better than to feed the troll.
VnomadNonsense.. As Czechs have found out with their Gripens, AIM-9M offers a very narrow window of opportunity even against overflying airliners, let alone potential adversary. Effective QRA urgently requires medium-range AAMs (AIM-120C-5 in the case of CzAF), which, in return require an onboard guidance radar. I could argue a Rafale F3R or Typhoon being an overkill, but Gripen C makes an almost ideal detterence option.
– Huh what? Did the Czechs really conclude that their Gripens were incapable of/unreliable at shooting down an airliner with a volley of Aim-9Ms? What about with an ASRAAM/Python 5/IRIS-T?
– The MRAAM idea i.e shooting down a civilian aircraft type from BVR ranges, without visual confirmation, is just.. absurd.
1. Are the spares for a Samsung F404 significantly cheaper than for an RM12? Are at least some of them interchangeable?
2. You have not only mentioned spares but also maintenance, does the Samsung have significantly higher MTBO/MTBF than Volvo?
The engine-related costs for the two are probably not very different. That still leaves rest of the aircraft, and the Gripen will inevitably feature far more LRUs than the simple TA-50. And there’s still a huge gulf in their acquisitions costs, which will be a bigger hurdle for the customer than their operational expense.
VnomadTNI-AU T-50Is do not have a radar or any kind of a weapon control system installed, they’re basically empty airframes with an engine, cockpit, embedded GPS and radio altimeter, which, of course makes a pricing comparison with full combat ready Gripens a kind of moot point.
Sounds more than adequate for a basic air policing role. All that’s missing is an Aim-9M option, which shouldn’t cost too much to integrate. A fully combat ready Gripen is overkill. Less so than the F-35 but overkill all the same.
Anyway, the engine is largely the same, Samsung F404-102 or Volvo RM12 should not have greatly different operating cost.
Well it wouldn’t be significantly cheaper in term so fuel burn, but the savings on spares and maintenance ought to be substantial.
VnomadWhat makes you think that the TA-50 can be operated at a fraction of the price of the JAS39C/D?
Cost will include both operation and acquisition components. The contracts signed by the Indonesia, Philippines (FA-50) & Thailand indicate an acquisition cost for the TA-50 that is a fraction of the Gripen C/D’s. (And given its relative mechanical & avionics simplicity, the operational cost will likely be a good bit cheaper too.)
VnomadSome fundamental flaws in your thinking here…
There not flaws, they’re assumptions. Assumptions that the individuals reading it are level-headed people that can recognize a reference to a loss-exchange against a hostile 4/4.5/5 gen fighter, not against extraterrestrial aliens or turboprop fighters.
Vnomadfirst, all these fighters are labeled 4+ fighters,
I was referring to MSphere’s post where he called them ‘my 4th gen’ fighters.
secondly, your assertion of “not happening” is disputed, by for instance a test pilot among many others stating following:
interestingly he predicted the issues with F-35 in A2A long, long before actual result was leaked through David Axe,
google There’s No Way The F-35 Will Ever Match The Eurofighter In Aerial Combat
for original article
You don’t think its surprising that this test pilot didn’t mention RCS either? (Or radar/EW/ESM performance for that matter.) Is he assuming the F-35 is fitted with Luneberg lenses or that the opposition fields only MiG-21 type aircraft?
they sure would save a buck or two with a Gripen, and some think they are better off saving money
The Gripen sounds like a god-awful waste of money when the TA-50 can do the job at a fraction of the price.
DAS can detect a ship if its big enough, and close enough, but the pilots eyes detect better
The pilot’s eyes are limited by cockpit visibility and he can only focus them one sector of the sky at any particular moment. The DAS looks everywhere, all the time.
This is the imagery from the F-22’s AN/AAR-56 MLD.
Looks good enough for WVR combat and the DAS is supposed to be a generation ahead (at maturity).
VnomadI can only tell you what I think, because it is quite obvious that the whole thing is covered in mist.
^ Its interesting that you put two point on kinematics and not one sole solitary mention of the RCS anywhere. Other points to ponder:
– Will 4th gen fighters like the Rafale F3, Typhoon Tranche 3, Gripen NG and Su-35S be able to achieve parity against the F-35 in BVR combat? Not happening.
– Will the PAK FA and J-20 have an RCS as low as the F-35? Remains to be seen.
– Will Euro AFs like Belgium, Netherlands or Poland be better off with a Eurocanard? They wouldn’t.
– Will they be better off with a light fighter-trainer (‘for daily use’)? Maybe.
_______________________________________________________________
As for the DAS, if it can be used for air-to-ground work (as your post admits), it’ll be employed in air-to-air combat as well, the mechanism remaining the same. Maybe not immediately, maybe not even at the USAF’s IOC but the capability will inevitably be released to the fleet.
VnomadWhy does a rocket have a divergent duct nozzle and a gas turbine engine either convergent or convergent/divergent?
If the pressure increases in the jet pipe, does it only move rearwards or also forwards? If it doesn’t move forwards, what stops it?
Does the rpm increase when selecting reheat?
When exhaust is subsonic the velocity will increase across a (converging nozzle). Accelerating a supersonic stream in contrast requires a de Laval nozzle like on Space Shuttle for example.
VnomadMaybe swedes don’t enjoy inflation at all…strong economy.
Inflation isn’t going to affect the cost differential between an export Gripen and domestic Gripen, when both are being built in Sweden. With the regard to the offset portion, Switzerland is also a strong low inflation economy (arguably more so than the Netherlands & Sweden).
VnomadHow does the reheat increase the thrust?
Functions essentially the same way as a rocket. There’s a nozzle at the exhaust. Jet fuel (operating like rocket fuel) is sprayed just at the turbine outlet. It combusts to generate high pressure and the gas is then forced out of nozzle to generate a high velocity exhaust, which in turn results in a large amount of additional thrust (similar to pinching a garden hose to get a faster longer reaching water stream).
Vnomadone small mistake there
APG-81 angular coverage is actually 120 degree ( 60 degree left and 60 degree right)
That’s what he meant by 60 degrees ‘off the nose’ (meaning off-boresight), as opposed to 60 deg FoV.
Vnomadsimilarly, i have a 100% hit probability on a punch-bag,
but probability goes down the faster the boxer i meet, it may even go really bad
Except in this case what you’re doing is predicting the outcome of your bout against an opponent that you know nothing about, save that your grandfather once beat his grandfather in X out Y fights.
VnomadWell, if we put it like this. All missiles previously used had some 90-100% success rates in all trials. The AMRAAM if im not mistaken had 95-100% before the war (and was the most modern missile at the time). But firing at clueless targets in the real world gave a total hit rate of ~60% in what can be compared to target practice and less than 50% at BVR.
In practicality this means there is no difference from previous wars. The numbers are good, but its because the enemy didnt try to avoid them more than once.
For instance, shooting at the same target type in similar circumstances the SA-6 had a 100% kill rate on friendly MiG 29. In the rest of the war the probability of hitting something was ~0,6% (if we include the damaged F117).
Thats the difference between firing at someone that has no idea what is coming and firing at targets that shoot back and have EW-support. At least in that war. Now, given that one kill isnt enough the same can be said about the AMRAAM with just 9 confirmed kills. And yet, the SA-6 claims a kill probability of over 0,7 with a single shoot against a fighter jet.
After writing all that your post is still utterly devoid of supporting evidence when it comes to –
1. Aim-120D & Meteor hit-probability when fired from within their NEZ. (I’m not talking about the Aim-7, Aim-120A/B, SA-6 etc.)
2. Aim-120D & Meteor’s respective seekers’ ECCM capabilities.
All your figures about X% & Y% against BriteCloud and/or jamming… still have no supportable basis.
Yes, current numbers as in the numbers we currently have. Is that so difficult to get your head around?
You’re still pretending you have access to ‘current numbers’?
Thats how generous I am to help in your crusade to tout the F35 as king of the hill.
Rhetoric.
I’d say that is still factually correct (its less than 29% left of the life time). This means a majority of the fleet has less than 8,5 years left. I’d say that is a fleet near (what i actually intended to say..) or at the end of service life.
So, the ‘majority’ of the USAF’s F-16 fleet will hit its 8000 hour service life ceiling and be retired by 2023-24. Hmm.. lets file that away as your prediction.
(8000 hours over 30 years equals 266 hrs/yr. NATO standard is 180 hrs/yr.)
The change was made in sept 2014, SAABs offer was accepted in 2013 and the finalized contract (with all offsets etc) was signed in oct 2014.
Sweden ordered the aircraft in 2012.The Netherlands offer was maid in august 2008, this video is from may 2008 (may comes before august)
Seriously Vnomad… I give up after this.
– Gripen E’s weight had been identified and frozen at 8 tons well before the Saab offer was accepted in 2013 by Brazil.
– Everyone’s seen the demonstrator. And its exactly that. A tech demonstrator. Not a prototype. The first prototype (39-8) is currently in an ‘early stage of assembly’.
I dont need to respond. How do you explain the numbers in the Norwegian tender? (You dont have to explan it, I just demonstrate how bad the argumentation method is)
Can we agree that tenders look different in different countries, and because of that you cant directly compare the costs of say the Gripen in Sweden to Norway, Brazil or the Netherlands?
Well, its the same tender, at the same period in time, with comparable offerings.
– The Gripen E was offered to the Dutch at €56.4 million each in 2008. And the price to Sweden itself was €62.5 million ($80 mil in Nov 2012). The gap is not even enough to bridge inflation. Effectively, you’re arguing that an export Gripen E with all the additional expenses (offsets, training etc) is still cheaper than the Gripens supplied to the Swedish Air Force.
– Where does it say that the F-35 contract signed by Netherlands was identical, or even near identical to the Saab’s proposal with ‘comparable offerings’?
Im still wating for a better alternative. As long as the numbers dont originate from apples to white shark-comparisons and twisted number trolling Im all in.
Apples to apples… Was the F35 present in that competition?
^ This a total cop-out. The Saab offer in 2008 was very obviously an estimate for a paper plane, one who’s real world weight turned out to be off by a whopping 1000 kgs from what was advertised in the old brochure with ‘artists impression’ images.
With the sale hinging on a public vote in Switzerland, both Saab and the Swiss Air Force had every incentive to minimize the cost and cut out all frivolities (as long as the deal could pass an audit). And yet the cost they arrived at was $145 mil/unit. Same 100% offset value as in Netherlands.
To get the actual numbers for F35 vs Rafale you should look for the Canadian tender, that is unless Dassault pulls out.
Well, unfortunately the Canadians have refused to invite Dassault to present a package offer for the Rafale. Limited them to power-point presentations so far.
Implicated? Well, needing borscope inspections every 3 hours and manual overrides in ALIS is sort of the oposite of what was expected.
But again, this is not from my fantasy but from the technicians working on the plane.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/15/problems-facing-f35-maintainers-automated-system/25781075/
Both of which were developmental issues and no reflection on the aircraft’s design as far as maintenance in concerned.
ALIS 2.0 was released late last year. ALIS 2.0.1 was released last month. They’ll be releasing ALIS 2.0.2 before the AF IOC in 2016. The issues faced by the first variant of the software are increasingly irrelevant as far as a FRP jet is concerned.
And thats for a simple reason, my numbers arent made up. They are from credible sources and all of the claims can be verified that way. We have seen repeatedly how your numbers stack up to reality checks from accounting offices and so on.
Contrary to fanboys I don’t make guesses to prove my point.
:facepalm: :very_drunk:
Just as a reminder, this whole cost debate started with your assertion that the F-35 would cost 50% more than Rafale (’16 F-35 v 25 Rafale’).
The effect depends on too many factors to give a definitive answer, if the terrain is like the swiss alps the track range is reduced by 80-90%, if its the grass fields of Ukraine I guess the range wont be effected more than the expected margin of error.
So for any non-mountainous terrain (i.e one without LOS issues), the Rafale/EF/Gripen will not be able to ‘hide’ within ground clutter.
But lets say it like this: If you cant find targets by the doppler phase shift and you, at long range, have a lot of clutter. How many sweeps do you have to make to five the filtering processor enough data for the datapoints furthest away vs if the target is in a relatively clutter free higher altitude? It doesnt take a genius to figure out that the false positive ratio will increase, and thus you have to raise the “noise level”-bar. This means a stronger reflection is required. And why would the phase shift not apply you might ask? Well, that is a question you have to answer if you want to keep going with this “give me a guesstimate that can dismiss”-nonsense.
I wouldn’t ask any such thing because phase shift will very much apply. And you’re again making assumptions about the radar data-processor’s capability with respect to filtering out ground clutter.
How about Desert Storm?
Good God! One can only hope that that experience didn’t inspire NATO forces to pursue low level ingress harder, with the first Tornado downed by a MANPAD within hours of the start of the air campaign.
VnomadConcerning a-d it’s suffice to say it didn’t happen, the “might” was pre-emptively chosen.;)
Even if it didn’t pan out, I’m still curious, which of the four options was your original post alluding to?
Sign In
