None claimed the SR-71 could not be tracked during its typical “Baltic Express Run”. No ECM in use by the SR-71 and it stayed outside national boundaries using its side-looking sensors high up- The ones tracking are on alert if the SR-71 may diverting from its assumed track.

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2006/sr71/sr71.htm

Have you read the heaadline/topic?

It is “Is the SR-71 considered a stealth aircraft?”. I dropped actual footage from radar tracking using the radars of the same era (radars from 1966, used in the 1980’s).

It had lower RCS than many other aircraft (as can be seen in the radar footage) but I would be reluctant to answer the OP that the SR-71 could be considered stealthy.

Regarding the ECM, there is footage of ECM-use as well in the vid. ECM at that time was mostly white noise and barrage… and it wouldn’t add to the stealthiness.

Why so crass? IMHO Djcross is in general very knowledgeable and has made great contributions to this forum.

Some of his posts are good, but the response I got had nothing to to with the source material debated.

I gave calculations based on official performance data and extrapolated the detection range for a target that is 10th to 100th of a cruise missile in size. (As stated in the material for Erieye)

And the response I get is the SAAB are lying and that somehow the word “5gen” is equal to angeldust. To me that means the discussion is over.

The Gen 4 escort for the AWACs probably has the ability to detect a 1 sq meter target at 130km (cued search). But would not detect the Gen 5, using your 1/100 of 0.5 sq meter = 0.005 sq meter RCS for X band, until it was within 40km. Again, the Gen 5s would have salvoed BVRs long before getting to 40km. The Gen 4s escorts would be wiped out/defensive/useless.

Ok, so instead of reading the source material you just make stuff up and use that as an argument. Great. It was fun chatting with you. I wont bother replying to whatever straw man argument you come up with next.

Edit: the “effective range” refers to tracking not detection it seems. “fighter sized aircraft” normally means RCS of 5m2 I believe; if so, the ER should be able to track an LO target with RCS of 0.5m2 at more than 330km.

Is there a “rule of thumb” for the relationship between detection range and tracking range?

If the difference in size is 10 times then the difference in detection range is ( 5 / 0,5 ) ^ 0,25 = ~1,78 times that of a normal fighter (at least 350km). This gives ca 200km detection range against your example target. If we instead look at a 0,05sqm target we get over 110 km for the ERIEYE or about 190km with Globaleye.

However, as you see in the quote below the 350km range also includes cruise missiles (typically 0,1-0,5 dBsm).

With that as the baseline Globaleye should see a 0,01 dBsm target @ 1.7 x ( 350 x ( 0,01 / 0,3 ) ~ 255km.

These are the SAAB claims from 2013:

Sea coverage is only limited by the horizon,
which is around 190 NM. Within this area, everything
from fighter aircraft, hovering helicopters, cruise
missiles or sea targets down to a Jet Ski can be
detected and tracked.

http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/eds/radar/airborne/erieye_en_2013.pdf

As a rule of thumb, lowering RCS by a factor of 10 shortens detection range by ~44%

EDIT. I would be careful using globalsecurity as a source. Found this in your link 😉

Seaborne targets can be detected at 320 km (1998 miles),

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.

In scenarios with lots of EW and where both sides are trigger happy the Pk of any missiles go down below 1%. The one exception in Allied Force is when no EW or RWR was used by the flying targets. Against clueless subsonic targets the Amraam can hit 60% of the targets incl WVR or <50% if we look at BVR only.

However I do agree that the statistics for AA lacks numbers for modern engagements. Thats said, it is pretty clear what the current numbers do show. You don’t want to see that and that’s your choice, but in future critique, provide some numbers or references.

All my numbers can be found in the RAND study about Allied Force (think the name is lessons for the future).
In filling out the blanks I assume better than ever proven performance for the missiles.

Where is your stuff coming from?

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.

Is the SAR report based on the current fleet or based on brand new F16? I think you’ll get the answer below.

Based on Elements of power we see that the numbers are from the current fleet average.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239377[/ATTACH]
On average teh F16s are 21.5 years old.
http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article10.html

As you see, he uses the same numbers as you did. The last F-16 A/B in service 2013 flew 65 hours so the effect on costs is minimal.

Here is the raw data: http://www.pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/08/03.xls

I could agree that it is roughly 25’000 even though the exact number is closer to 23’000.

So… the F35 is roughly (going by pro F35 estimates here) 28% more expensive than 21,5 year old F16s.

Or to recap what we said:

Tu22m – 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…

Vnomad -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.
Tu22m -What is the average age of the USAF F16 that they compare with? 20-years?

Can we put this to rest now? Once again my numbers are on the pro F35 line…

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

I think we will have to see them face of in a competition with similar bids (in terms of whats included and when payment is due etc).

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).

Please, make more straw man arguments.

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.

Well, instead of tossing around fictional numbers I will wait for real comparable offers to come in. So far the real world numbers are on my side.

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)?

How about the actual costs for the F16 fleet?

From 2005 (the last F16 delivery) to 2013 the prices increased 61% while inflation was just 19.3% for the same time. The source is linked above.

It’s getting repetitive, I know. Reality is not what you want it to be, it is what it is. I would say increases 3 x inflation is ballooning, don’t you?

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.

Are you serious?

Brazil and Sweden signed their contracts with fixed prices (currency weighted) before they changed the empty weight to 8’000kg. How is that possible?

$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.

Heard about apples to apples? Guess no.

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.

Ah, so AESAs are magical. That explains it.

Are you serious?

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.

Unless the F35 can’t teleport itself out of harms ways then the faster jet will dictate the endagame.

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

After seeing your claims vs reality numbers above I’d say it is better if you dont run any numbers. For anyone. Ever.

So I kindly decline your offer.

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

No you don’t as I never claim to be the expert. I merely give you apples to apples comparisons, like Janes and now also the raw data for operating costs (unfortunately from pogoarchives but the numbers are correct).

(I think JSF was supposed to be the combination of the “Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter” and JAST, no?)

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

The F22 is always blue force… I think that when Gripen is on that side the outcome is pretty similar. Woud you say Gripen C is 90% as good because of that? I’d say no, but applying your logic it must be so.

– 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.

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

– 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.

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)

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.

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.

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).

The ingress area is not the same as combat area…

That would make only the F-35As from eighth LRIP batch, 26% more expensive than the Rafale.

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)

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.

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’.

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:

“The combat-proven AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoy System successfully countered numerous missile attacks during Operation 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

– 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.

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.

– 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.

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…

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.

Assuming no jamming at all.

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

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

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

Read the offers and compare.

Divide 84 with 37. Do you get a number larget than 2? If so It doesnt matter if you think that it is less. Facts are facts and in the future where the fighters are in a similar tender offering the same type of package to the same customer we can look at it again. Rafale was, in the last competition where Gripen and Rafale where pinned against eachother 22% more expensive than the Gripen. (18 Rafale for the same price as 22 Gripen)

If the F35 costs 2.3 Gripens, then this would mean that the F35 costs 2.3/1.22 = 1.89 Rafales.

Those are the only directly comparable apples to apples numbers out there. And it doesnt matter if you like them or not.

– 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.

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?

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.

SAAB offered a price in the same tender. This is the only apples to apples comparison you can get for the price.

1. Your sensor range is reduced to a third.

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.

2. Your combat radius is reduced to a third.

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

3. Your weapons range is reduced to a third.

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.

4. You enter the battle area in a very poor energy state.

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.

5. You’re could run into mobile QRSAMs & AAA with almost no warning.

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

6. You run the risk of being downed by a well trained grunt equipped with a $100K MANPAD.

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.

Your math is wrong.
The Pk equation for four missiles with 50% reliability fired against a single target is: 1- the probability of all 4 failing to kill = 1-0.5^4 = 93.75%

Simplifications…

Your Pk estimates are complete guesswork. The efficacy of something like the BriteClould against the latest generation of AAMs is, lets say… unproven at this point.

It is not unproven.

If you have 4 targets moving around you have a 25% chance of picking the right one.

In reality the Pk of the AMRAAM (including WVR) is around 60%, counting BVR-shots only its less than 50% (but thats against targets that have no RWR or countermeasures).

So you can expect to hit something BVR in 50% of the cases (if we are generous).

So you will have 96/2 = 48 hits assuming no jamming occurs or that jamming is completely useless.

48 hits / 4 targets per try (3 active decoys, all playing to the Home-On-Jam feature as well as giving better reflections than the target) = 12 hits on the desired target if we assume that each BriteCloud fails to do its job in 75% of the cases. This is also generous and very pro missile.

So, in the end the 12,5% Pk in BVR is based on useless jamming + chaffs (as we know isnt the case) and decoys that fail to do their job in 75% of the cases + not a single effective engagement of the IRIS-T in its anti missile hunt.

Keep in mind, this the Pk for a single missile in a single sortie. Assuming the opposing aircraft are similarly limited, the loss-exchange ratio remains unaffected.

Well, the Gripen and Rafale can both stay airborne about 50% longer than the F35 and all of them don’t have to be at the front line. We are also assuming one sided first shoot capabilities with no retaliation at comparable range. Ie, it’s very very pro F35.

One, F-35 costing 50% more than Rafale? Based on what?

Janes ranked the operational costs to be 28-88% more expensive.

A larger airforce also makes the cost per plane (due to infrastructure + depot crew) lower as would be the case if anyone opted for Rafale. I’d say the comparison is pretty fair.

Two, the Rafale will depend on its IRST for target detection and tracking. Doubtful prospect, especially at long ranges (F3s models aren’t even equipped with an IRST).

It will have IR-sensors in the external missiles… In the case of Gripen NG it will have sensors in both Skyward-G (for BVR performance) + at least 2 (one per IRIS-T).

Rafale OTOH will have BVR-capable MICA IR along with other missiles.

Three, if IR missiles are demonstrably more effective for BVR encounters than EM types, is there any technical barrier preventing an Aim-120IR from being developed? It would appear to be a relatively easy undertaking (and yet remains unpursued.

IR-sensors make the missiles less aerodynamic and generally have a shorter detection range. They also have trouble in clouds/rain whereas radar guided missiles are all weather-platforms.

Four, according to you an F-35 with an external payload is more survivable than one with a purely internal payload. That sounds dubious to put it mildly.

It depends on the situation. In a 4 vs 4 situation internal payload would probably be enough (would end up with a 4 vs 1 scenario in the example above). I have no doubt that the F35s in this case would have no trouble getting away. The problems start to show when the enemy has more aircraft, and when those aircraft are highly survivable.

In the 4 vs 4 case, having one or two of the fighters flying with 4 external missiles each (flying behind the others in the formation) the F35 would probably come out without any losses every time and the enemy completely beaten. (at least theoretically)

But lets say it like this. Your camouflage makes sure that you can see your enemies at twice the range they can see you. Your rifle has poor accuracy and you only carry 6 bullets. Your enemies have 8-10 bullets each, the same accuracy as you but cant see you at the same range that you can see them.

Somewhere you will probably notice that trading detection range to get more bullets will be good in some cases, and in others it is better to wait for them to get closer and in your crosshairs.

The golden ratio for when to sacrifice what is depending on the opposition you face. Sometimes many missiles are the only sensible option, sometimes it isn’t. The F35 gives that choice, and thanks to stealth it is more probable that it can choose the engagements if the generals are patient (which they rarely are). So in a fictional scenario where France invades Belgium the airspace and attack vektors are limited, so the F35 is unlikely to reach local numerical superiority (Belgium has twice as many Gripens as France has F35s).

OTOH, if it was France vs Spain facing off then the stealth tactics would allow the F35 to sneak in and get numerical superiority or at least numerical parity due to the element of surprise and because the defence has to cover a lot of airspace. And thats how the F35 is intended to be used. It is a good tool for divide and conquer. But in a defensive role the aggressors picks where to focus the forces, meaning that they have both local and total numerical superiority. And then the game is different.