It is you saying that a 50 degree AoA was something exceptional, worth alone to cancel the definition of flying brick I gave to the F-35, I just make a note about this being a normal performance in current fighters.

How many fighters are cleared to 50 deg AoA? Su-35 perhaps. Plus the Super Hornet & F-18. Also the F-22. Which else?

(Mind you, I’m not talking of extended post-stall conditions achieved by overriding the FCS, wherein the F-35 too has been pushed to 110 deg.)

About the stand off missiles, when you mention them one can naturally though that you are saying that instead going deep and using bombs you suggest to counter stealth detecting radar launching them from distance. For doing so you not need to use a stealth plane as a vector. Our armed force will get F-35 but would use Eurofighters for launching them.

You instead now in this latest post suggest than Jsow and Jassm would be used as ARM? and what is those , pardon me, weirdnesses about the necessity of a fighters to cue a stand off missile? Ground radar and Sam can’t take it down the same? Jsow and Jassm for what I know are not specialized anti-radar missiles but just gps guided weapons, so what they would be useful against mobile radar sites?

– A stealth aircraft will always be a better SEAD/DEAD platform. It’ll approach closer (before a hostile FCR can paint it), its weapons will retain greater KE, and this ESM systems will generate a more accurate threat picture.
– Both the JSOW & SDB II are equipped with an IIR seeker, so with the initial cueing provided by the launch platform they’re quite capable of attacking radar sites.

But lets assume that older fighters are also able to do the job as effectively as the F-35, and they successfully attack and destroy the enemy early warning system(s) in a certain theatre with a swarm of stand-off weapons (like the Storm Shadow/Taurus). What then? The next day they will still face a host of hard-to-track enemies including AWACS, enemy fighters, mobile X-band radars, SAM systems and everything else that a stealth fighter is better equipped to handle.

PAK-fa in not carring any of those, I know perfectly, you know perfectly, Mig-31bm know perfectly.
Only thing was that Mig-31 was instead convinced that I was referring to the L-band surfaces when Iwas talking about long wave radars. so i send that line to say to him that it was not the case given. Pardon me, if such phrase sorted out something that you have difficulty to understand, i’m not a native english speaker.

Roger.

for the rest iwas just using your same logic: if you said that is absurd to buid a stealth plane if exist a radar able to detect it, the same would apply to conventional planes against conventional radars, in both cases they (stealth ones)would fly the same lik e the others have flown after the radar introduction: with much more care than before.
So, just being stealth now would not allow a plane to penetrate in enemy air defenses anymore, it would require a careful planning, lot of support and good performances i.e. what we are discussing here as a possible F-35 drawback.

That long wave radars are a threat to all fighters, including stealth ones is true. And yes, poor planning and hubris can lead to downfall (case-in-point: F117 shoot-down). My point was that they (i.e. LW radars) are still not an ‘equalizer’ vis a vis conventional fighters, which will continue to remain on a lower rung. Which is why despite increases in mobility and performance of EW radars, countries like China and Russia are still continuing to invest in stealth designs.

You still sacrifice range in both cases. Sure, the lower flying aircraft shortens the range more but the effect still applies both ways.

One of them out-ranges the other. And its not that’s the missile climbing up.

The capability exists, but not without any performance issues. Similarily DAS can look all around the aircraft, at the expense of lower detection ranges. (even though fanboys deny this)

Please elaborate. What sort of ‘performance issues’ do radars (esp. AESAs) face in look-down/shoot-down mode? How much do you estimate the track range reduces by? A third? Half? More?

If they can teleport themselves then yes. Nobody needs time to coordinate. In the real world an object flying in 300m/s can only move 10 NM per minute.

I didn’t say anything about repositioning the SAM/AAA system. We’re talking about deployed battery lying in the Rafale’s flight-path which the latter is unaware of, because the pilot has opted to fly blind at 50ft AGL.

The ingress area is not the same as combat area…

When was the last time a NATO jet performed a low level ingress/loiter/whatever against a trained enemy equipped with MANPADS/QR-SAM/AAA?

I used Blue Apples numbers, and from now on I wont use any numbers you provide unless you put a source next to them. (Simply because all of your numbers are proven to be made up)

I thought most people on an F-35 thread would be aware of the terms of the LRIP 8 contract, Blue Apple obviously being an exception. But, since you claim to be in the same boat, here you go.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-03-19/pentagon-revises-down-estimated-cost-f-35-fighter (This is one of dozens of references on the matter.)

Im getting tired of explaining basic stuff when it turns out that you have no sources other than fantasy. If you expect a reply, use sources for your claims, if not I will not waste time in proving that they are bs. So far my numbers have been supported by comparable tenders, statistics from actual wars and real accounting figures. Your claims have been in direct contrast to all of these.

So your numbers are iron-clad huh? 😀

that didnt do any good now did it ?

This doesn’t remind you of F-16 engagements against the MiG-29 (and the F-18, SH & Su-30)? With one aircraft dominant in ‘low and slow’ conditions and the other in ‘high and fast’ engagements?

So according to your own word I was totally right when I said that F-35 specialized into being a flying brick.

Flying brick with a 50 degree AoA.

See answer above for the too huge in size for be put on fighters. Data links and integrated air defense network are there just for this.

JSOWs and JASSMs are just for that.

About the L-band on Pak-Fa I doest just mention nor one nor the others at all,so ?????????????

This statement doesn’t seem to make sense.

Its interesting that all the countries fielding ‘stealth-killer’ L-band radars also seem to developing stealth fighters. Suicidal tendencies, I suppose.

Well, since most of theis is classified it has to be. But just going on facts instead of how jamming and radar works we can look at history yet again.

From Allied Force:

It was only carried on US F16 and being the jet flying most dangerous missions (low and medium alt daytime) + following the F117 on all nightly raids.

The F16s had a sortie rate of well over 2:1 compared to the F117 and only half as many hit aircraft. Surely not all of this can be attributed to the AN/ALE-50, but according to pilots it had a huge impact on survivability.

In the end the F16 had a ratio of missile evasion of just above 4:1 compared to the F117 on a sortie by sortie rate. Coincidentally pretty close to the succesrate I attributed to the far more superior BriteCloud when fired in swarms of 3.

Its absurd to take a statistically irrelevant pool (with the dataset running in the low single digits) and try to build a predictive model around the results. And like I said before, your process completely omits the missile seeker’s capabilities from the equation.

The F35A would in that case cost 28% more than Rafale, not the other way around. But you are correct in that the difference shrinks and for the Rafale vs F35 it might actually be a close call on what offers the best value for money.

I didn’t say it was the other way round. I said the F-35’s operating costs were 28% more than the F-16 (from the SAR report). Unless the Rafale costs exactly the same as the F-16 to operate, its gap with the F-35 will be much narrower.

On acquisition cost, the F-35 & Rafale are very close too. So the value-for-money question is not a ‘close call’.

You may continue to dream, I will wait for the actual numbers to show what is the actual reality.

You may continue argue that the F-35 costs $250 mil since that’s what the LRIP 1 was priced at. Rational people will see that the cost has fallen by nearly 60% since, and that every LRIP has been cheaper than the last by an average of 4%. And that savings from hugely scaled up economies of scale are inevitable (from 40 per year to 175 per year).

You’re free to ‘wait’. The customers aren’t. They’re placing orders with LM, while mostly ignoring the Eurocanards, that you believe offer comparable value-for-money.

What is the average age of the USAF F16 that they compare with? 20-years?

Yeah about 20 years. What’s your evidence for the idea that the operating cost of a fighter jet can balloon in 20 years (notwithstanding disruptions to the supply chain)?

No, I took the numbers from the exact same tender where SAAB offered a fixed price and Lockheed offered a guesstimate. These offers always include inflation or “then year dollars”. The F35 could only offer 37 jets in the same tender within the same budget.

That is a 2.3:1 ratio.

The SAABs ‘fixed price offer’ was a steaming pile of balderdash, unless it was willing to sell them at a massive loss. Simple logic will tell if you can’t estimate the aircraft’s empty weight accurately, you aren’t going to get the price right either.

That is assuming you fantasy numbers are true and so far the JSF-project has a long way to go. You are fast to point out that I make assumptions (even though they are based on historical events/previous lessons), but then you make the wildest guesses yourself…

LOL. Fantasy numbers huh?

$145-150 million (depending on the exchange rate chosen). That sir, is what the Gripen E was priced at for Switzerland. Perhaps you could care to explain why SAAB decided to be so charitable with the Dutch but stingy with Swiss.

Assuming no jamming at all.

Maybe if you have a Growler on your side slinging three NGJ units. If an AESA was that susceptible to jamming, the Rafale F3R would have been sporting a brand new IRST instead of the brand new AESA.

If you dont have a choice you dont have a choice. The F22 can out run most other fighters.

Your saying so, doesn’t make it. The F-35 pilot has no incentive to given the opposing the Rafale a sporting chance by coming to close range.

Read the offers and compare.

Explain the Swiss figures and I’ll be happy to run with the Dutch ones aka the actual fantasy numbers.

That has really turned out to be a success… And to a large extent it is BS. Wasnt it designed to be lightweight as well?

We have your word against that of the people actually maintaining it. (And no it wasn’t designed to be lightweight.)

Now who is pulling numbers from their a$$? You can expect radar detection range, in real life, to be from roughly 0-200km in a jammed environment. The lower end is less likely but was demonstrated by Su30MKIs vs F15C.
IRST in semi decent contitions can spot and track targets from 40-90km depending on aspect ratio and the potential use of afterburners.

Right. Which explains why the F-22 gets thrashed so regularly at BVR combat. :rolleyes:

Assuming the pilots are retards flying at low alt from the moment they leave the tarmac.

And that goes both ways. Shooting a target at low alt (as I took as an example for the ingress only) will reduce the range of the aggressors missiles as well. Also, flying low does shorten the radar detection range because of the amount of clutter.

– No it doesn’t go both ways. The hostile air launched missile will always have longer range. That’s what happens when you’re diving on a target instead of climbing towards it.

– Look-down/Shoot-down radars with the ability to filter out ground clutter have been around for, I don’t know, a few decades now.

Either you gain the advantage of a surprise atack (in which case energy state doesnt matter since the climb is over in less than a minute) or you go in at high altitude with good energy state and excellent range potential.

It matters in the event that there are enemy fighters patrolling the region.

Goes both ways. For deep strikes this is bad, near the border the IADS have no time to coordinate.

They don’t need ‘time to coordinate’. In wartime, any competent foe is on high alert. If the QR SAM/AAA unit spots you, it fires. A simple radio call (if not telephone call) from a forward spotter will bring the battery to a hair-trigger alert.

Lets see how often that has happened….

The last incident was a Mirage in 1995. Thats like what, 20 years ago? I think the risk is acceptable. Sure, there have been some propeller aircrafts and helicopters as well but no fast jets.

When was the last time a NATO aircraft chose to fly nap-of-the-earth to avoid hostile radars against a well trained foe equipped with MANPADS? And while you may think that its an ‘acceptable’ risk, the folks flying and commanding those aircraft apparently don’t. Even the A-10s in the Balkans flew at 10,000ft+ i.e. outside the MANPAD envelope (only briefly breaching it to attack in dives).

Rafale F3 price is currently 79 mil EUR, which is $86 mil @ production rate of ca one per month

Its currently lower than the F-35. No dispute there.

Each BriteCloud unit is designed to take care of one missile. I assumed it will fail 75% of the time. Thats pretty generous to the missile. But since you asked…

In a high clutter environment with lots of jamming going on the missile will never have a clear picture of the target. Any moving object giving the correct phase shifted return (so chaffs can be ignored) are treated as potential targets. BriteCloud gives both the correct return signals as well as sending EM-signals in the correct spectrum.

Secondly, the target is likely to give a similar dopplereffect as the chaffs due to a perpendicular motion. So the only actually visible targets are the BriteClouds and maybe towed decoys.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that discrimination & ECCM capability of the missile’s seeker is not part of the Pk equation. Hence, the ‘guesswork’.

But both Gripen and Rafale outranges the F35.

Only by piling on huge amounts of externally carried fuel. Which increases further increases their RCS. Which in turn, tilts the loss-exchange ratio even further in the F-35’s favour.

Depends on the models etc. The middle is 55%.

We’re talking about the F-35A i.e. the cheapest model. So, if the Rafale costs just 28% more than the F-35A, that would make the former’s CPFH comparable to the F-16. An unlikely prospect.

Has anyone actually payed those $85m or is it still just an empty promise?

And according to operating costs… yes. If you compare brand new fighters with airframes at the end of their service life that is what you get…

The F-35A’s unit flyaway cost is now down to $105 mil. (At LRIP 1 the cost was $250 mil). And that cost has fallen consistently by 4% over every LRIP, even before the production ramp up (40/yr to 175/yr). At this point, the only real question is by how much they beat that $85 mil figure.

The F-16 is at the ‘end of their service life’? Sez who? The last F-16C/D was delivered to the USAF in 2005 IIRC. Its as old vis-a-vis the Rafale, as the Rafale is vis-a-vis the F-35.

If that is the case then sure. But the Rafale is not only cheaper to operate (according to Janes) it is also just 50% more expensive than a Gripen (at least in Switzerland). This put is (according to the figures below) at a 1.5:1 ratio in acquisition cost vs the F35.

– For a fighter aircraft, acquisition costs will always dominate operating costs. Take Netherlands for example. Spread over six years, the annual cost earmarked for its (37 strong) F-35 fleet will be range $1-1.2 bn. The annual operating cost of the entire fleet in contrast will be less than $300 mil assuming a very vigorous 200hr/yr usage.

– The CPFH gap with the Rafale is pretty narrow. A simple result of greater economies of scale.

– To achieve a 1.5:1 ratio against the F-35 on acquisition costs, the Rafale would need to cost $56 mil flyaway. Even the Gripen E would be hard-pressed to match that. Fact is, the F-35 will continue to have numerical parity against Rafale.

So its not an argument, its just actual costs.
Unless the targets are flying in behind or inside storm clouds at 30kft modern IRST have detection ranges long enough to detect and track them well beyond 40km.

The typical AESA radar will detect and track the typical loaded fighter at ranges beyond 150 km, and the typical BVR weapon can be used to engage from ranges well beyond 50 km.

In a jammed environment the effective range of a radar is anywhere from 0-200km. But in this case I am very pro F35 so I assume radar jamming doesnt work and that no RWR can detect the F35 emitting.
Because they are being fired at close range the Pk is higher. This is also proven by history to be accurate.

By all means, assume that the RWR can detect the emitting F-35. Problem is, all the F-35’s silent buddies are still invisible to the enemy.

Because they are being fired at close range the Pk is higher. This is also proven by history to be accurate.

So I’m just having it one way.

There’s no reason for the F-35 to approach to ‘close range’ where an IR missile is more effective.

I never mentioned a 4:1 ratio. I mentioned a 2:1 ratio and a 3:1 ratio (48/16 = 3 and 32/16 = 2).

About costs:
Taking Netherlands as the example (same tender and costs are directly comparable) you got 84 Gripens for € 4.5 b and 37 F35. (2.3:1)
Janes put Gripen to be at 1:4.5 in operational costs (the final number is not absolute but a relative price tag). Going by thrust and fuel consumption Gripen would clock at roughly 2:1. But that is not taking into account that low operating costs are part of the design philosophy for the Gripen.

– Even a 2:1 ratio is very very unlikely for the Gripen as far as acquisition is concerned. Operating costs… maybe.

– For the Rafale, neither applies.

– Keep in mind, the F-35 was also designed to be easily maintainable, with majority of LRUs placed ‘one deep’, EHAs replacing conventional hydraulics and the whole system hooked into a support chain operating at massive volumes.

The figures quoted to Netherlands have no validity. When the aircraft’s ‘official’ weight at the time was off by 1000 kg, just how do you expect them to get an accurate reading on the price of the aircraft 15 years before IOC? In fact, the price quoted to Switzerland (valid in 2014) for a 22 aircraft package ($145 mil/unit) is far more applicable to a general cost estimate.

In the future that will probably be the case. But similar datalinks have been around for decades, albeit not directional.

Gripen for instance can take targeting information from ground and sea units and engage targets based on that. Ie, get a missile lock from a ship to a target beyond the horizon.

Sure, if the F35 had enough speed to bug out after an engagement one could repeat it all.

Detection by ground radars and so on can also be avoded by flying low. Radar stations arent very good at seeing through earth.

– Most fighter aircraft are equipped with datalinks, but only an LO aircraft like the F-35 (& PAK FA/J-20) can approach to weapons range undetected and then RTB undetected.

– The issues with flying low have been discussed before:

1. Your sensor range is reduced to a third.
2. Your combat radius is reduced to a third.
3. Your weapons range is reduced to a third.
4. You enter the battle area in a very poor energy state.
5. You’re could run into mobile QRSAMs & AAA with almost no warning.
6. You run the risk of being downed by a well trained grunt equipped with a $100K MANPAD.