Tu22mLevsha:
Well… isnt thrust/weight ratio and drag an issue here as well as in what conditions the engine can produce said thrust?
Tu22mswedish air force already ordered Gripen E, so they wont be a customer or finacier
Because I know you love sources I will give you one đ
Flygfarkoster
Bakgrund: Det finns i dag ingen civilt finansierad FoT-verksamhet inom flygomrĂ„det i Sverige som exklusivt kan stötta eller ersĂ€tta det specifika militĂ€ra behovet pĂ„ ett godtagbart sĂ€tt. En förutsĂ€ttning för att kunna nyttja och vidareutveckla den strategiska nationella kompetensen, avseende design och utveckling av flygande militĂ€ra farkoster, Ă€r dĂ€rför att Försvarsmaktens teknikutvecklingsverksamhet kan hĂ„llas pĂ„ en fortsatt rimligt acceptabel ekonomisk och resursmĂ€ssig nivĂ„, samtidigt som ytterligare anstrĂ€ngningar görs att stĂ€rka förutsĂ€ttningarna för internationella militĂ€ra samverkansprogram (Neuron, ETAP, LOOP m.fl.) samt civil-militĂ€ra âdual-use-projektâ, sĂ„som det nu redan etablerade samarbetet mellan FMV och Vinnova rörande det nationella flygtekniska forskningsprogrammet (NFFP) och andra liknande insatser och projekt.
Resultat frÄn den flygtekniska FoT-verksamheten ligger till grund för ett flertal etablerade lÄngsiktiga internationella samarbeten, sÄsom ETAP, GAR- TEUR, NEURON och vissa svensk-amerikanska samarbeten under TRDP- avtalet (med USAF och US Navy).
Syfte: Att sÀkerstÀlla en samlad nationell spetskompetens rörande flygande militÀra farkoster (sÄvÀl bemannade som obemannade) uppdelad pÄ sÄvÀl försvarsmyndigheterna, berörd flygindustri samt universitet och högskolor (U&H) och specialistkonsulter och -företag (SME) med verksamhet inom ett eller flera av de flygtekniska disciplinerna. Syftet Àr ocksÄ att framtagna resultat ska kunna nyttogöras i det framtida nÀtverksbaserade svenska och internationella försvaret (NBF), sÄvÀl som för stöd till de nu etablerade internationella fredsbevarande insatsförbanden, med svenskt deltagande (NBG m.fl.) och att resultaten kompetensmÀssigt ska stödja framtida uppgraderingar av JAS 39 Gripen-systemet samt andra relevanta flygrelaterade projekt av nationellt intresse.
DelomrĂ„den: Avancerade teknikstudier och demonstrationer utförs inom Ă„tta tekniska nyckelomrĂ„den, beaktat mĂ„lbilden âflygsystem 2020â (FS 2020):-Konceptstudier (övergripande), som inkluderar: systemarkitektur, sensorarkitektur, vapenarkitektur
-Flygteknik, som inkluderar avancerad styrlagsdesign
-Framdrivning och kraftförsörjning
-Integrerade grundflygplanssystem
-Intelligent operatörsstöd (autonomt upptrÀdande)
-Skyddsteknik, som inkluderar: signaturanpassningsteknik, stryktÄlighet, ABC
-Funktionella material/miniatyrisering
-Sensorintegration.
Areas: Advanced technical studies and demonstrations are done in eight key areas, considering the main objective “flight system 2020” (FS 2020):
-Concept studies (overview), including system architecture, sensor architecture, weapons architecture
-Flight techniques, which includes advanced FCSFlygteknik, som inkluderar avancerad styrlagsdesign
-Propulsion and power supply
-Integrated baseline aircraft systems
-Intelligent operator support (autonomous behavior)-Protection techniques, which includes: signature management, high robustness, NBC (nuclear, Biological, Chemical resistance)
-Functional materials/subscale models (?)
-Sensor integration.
Seems like it is a 6th gen concept đ
If SAAB can get another party to join it will mean that the production will be guaranteed. Otherwise it may end up like Stridsvagn 2000, B3LA, SAAB 36/A36 etc. Funded research but in the end nothing materialized.
Tu22mFound a related top notch story on the same subjects with a little more detail.
For those who wondered about the frontal aspect RCS…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221073[/ATTACH]
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm
Obviosly edge scattering has a huge effect and it is interesting to consider when reviewing more modern designs.
Tu22mMarketing brochure : Not valid (because you do not beleive anything coming from the other side)
Eye witness accounts: Questionable, could be bought over by the radar developer (Not dissimilar to how test-pilot and pilot claims are routinely dismissed here)..
The marketing brochure for Vostok E is only relevant as a relative peformance spec to the P-18.
Yeah, Zoltan was bought by a Soviet manufacturer, thats why he works in a bakery today. I guess they pay him huge amounts to go out on youtube wearing combat uniform and sunglasses while touting out vague bits of information like “when in range, it didnt mater what bird was flying. We saw it and could engage it”, or maybe “Stealth or no stealth, to us they where equally simple targets” while it all is accompanied by some hard rock/metal riff in the background.
But unfortunately we dont see thise Beesley style arguments so it’s harder to dismiss. And we also don’t see Zoltan making claims that are abviously bs like the ones from the LM camp usually turn out to be. On a side note Zoltans claims also are congruent with physics.
Seriously, The F-117 is an extremely poor benchmark
Depends on what we are comparing, right? If the comparison is regarding stealth there is no point in expanding it to what missiles it carries internally, what sensors it uses, what speeds it can reach etc.
This is currently where we are (and no marketing brochure will change his):
We have object A having quality X that is only presented in relation to quality X for object B and C.
Naturally you try to get the actual data for B or C, in this case it is track and engagement range vs C that we have. The numbers for object C are fairly well known and the numbers are credible. From this we can now extrapolalate the figures for both A and B.
This is the argumentation you dont agree with.
Tu22mCould you kindly confirm the source of the Data about the F-117 Radar detection range?
Do you want a marketing brochure, high caps or buzzwords?
I have tried eye whitness accounts (that are congruent with the facts), official reports etc and none of those seem to be any good for you.
Sincerely Tu22M
Tu22mKudos to @Tu-22 for posting the pdf, but it definitely deserve a thread of it’s own,
a fantastic source of info
đ glad you liked it. Unfortunately we dont have anything near as good on Allied Force… But do we have similar GAO reports on Iraqi Freedom (2003)?
I have searched but not found.
One may add the short war in Georgia in 2008.
Russia lost up to 6 aircraft (it confirms 3).
Whatever, given that Georgia doesn’t have any “real” air defence, quite some aircraft lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_war#Equipment_losses_and_co st
You also have to account for doctrine.
For instance RuAF have one lost Tu-22M. Normally a high alt aircraft that was doing low altitude flying and dropping FAB-series of bombs instead of the cruise missiles it can and is built to deliver. This is a target larget than a C-130 flying fairly low over IADS controlled area…
And the other lost aircrafts where Su24/25s. If we look at how those aircrafts where used it is no surprise.
Su25s flew pretty much killing freely in their sectors (they did CAP, reported movements and go OK to engage), attacking ground targets with unguided rocket pods and chasing gun kills in broad daylight. And this even occured in IADS controlled areas. On top of that they where sent on missions to take out enemy artillery positions, positions that where protected by IADS… also during daylight (because of poor integrated IR sights daytime operations where preferred.)
Considering all these factors I am surprised we didnt see more losses.
Add to that the fact that the SEAD resources where limited at best and it gets clear that the IADS could operate differently from the Serb ones in Allied force. Just for the heck of it I can show you a prime example of the manly way to do CAS/hunting targets. đ
And this was done with very limited/non existant SEAD support in areas with IADS. Naturally you should expect losses, and the Russians sort of expect that and as long as the losses arent in the way of reaching the objective it is acceptable for the time being. Afterwards they have realised that maybe, just maybe, it can be a good idea to start using guided bombs on a larger scale and improve not only the armor on the Su25s but also avionics, FLIR etc.
At the same time remember PGM’s did not deliver as well in Kosovo.
Desert warfare in good weather is a very different kettle of fish to dense terrain in poor weather.
There was no hiding in the desert. Even the night wasn’t helpful as the Iraqis found out when their tanks heated up by the desert sun were still lit up like Christmas trees in infrared spectrum thus offering great opportunities or IR AGM-65s.
~750 SEAD missiles like HARM where fired… how many Serb radar stations where destroyed by that?
Tu22mOne thing is certain, you are unwise to use the datasheets you cited as evidence. They seem to have been âgot atâ by the companyâs marketing department!
Why do I say this?
There is also the problem that while it is perfectly possible that export P-18 users have been able to track B-52 and F-14s, how could any claim to have tracked an F-117 flying without add-on radar reflectors? Remember that stealth aircraft normally fly with reflectors or some other form of radar-signature enhancement, and only operate in stealth mode when at test ranges or exercise areas well away from prying eyes, or when conducting combat operations.
The best that could say is that they have tracked something for which there may not have been an equivalent track from radars operating at higher frequencies â assuming of course that the latter radars had not been jammed or forced to shut down by SEAD attacks.
As always you make solid points. I just wanted to show that development isnt one sided. The F117 for instance is still pretty impressive from a signature management perspective. And also, using the RCS is always tricky because of the variations depending on angles etc. But at least in this chart we have a target to compare with, and we have relative performance to the P-18 that tracked the F117…
Now, in my quest for sources to test the validity of my claims I have found these:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4408.html (a copy paste from some AF magazine)
The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.
Just for the sake of making things easy here we can assume a -10dB difference that is pro F35, ok? (For those who arent familiar with dB is means 10 times lower RCS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown (F117 shoot down, to get real ranges from a war, incl EW support)
At about 8:15 pm local time, with a range of about 8 miles (13 km) several missiles were launched. According to Sergeant Dragan MatiÄ, who was identified in 2009 as the soldier who fired the missiles, they detected the F-117 at a range of about 50 to 60 kilometres (31 to 37 mi), operating their equipment for no more than 17 seconds to avoid being locked on to by NATO anti-air suppression.[2] According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani (what radar did Zoltan operate?)
General surveillance of NATO aircraft was provided by vintage P-18 radar sets, which used vacuum tubes and a large rotating Yagi antenna grid for meter-band illumination. Under optimal conditions the Soviet-made P-18 was able to plot large-Radar cross-section aircraft from 125 to 200 km, depending on the target’s size, but with a high range inaccuracy of several hundred meters.
ZoltĂĄn Dani tuned his P-18 to the lowest possible frequency and further replaced four major capacitors in the electronics to achieve an even longer wavelength, hoping that meter band waves would reflect from the inside of targets, rendering stealth aircraft skin technology ineffective. In practice his modified P-18 provided stable plot of F-117 movements from just 25 km, which was useful when combined with the comparatively short missile range of the SA-3 air defence complex.
Ok, so what does this mean?
Well, from an environment like the Serb airspace, clouded with UAVs, SEAD resources, and EW support the P-18 has a demonstrated effective range vs the F117 of 25km. (That is twice the “jammed” range in the chart btw)
In similar conditions, assuming a -10dB reduction for the F35, the P18 should be able to track the F35 at 14 km and have a stable plot. The Vostok E should be able to get a solid plot at ~67km. (25km actual range x (57/12 the relative performance) x 0,1^0,25 (range formula))
If, OTOH we only assume an RCS reduction of 3 (the quote says slightly better than 2) we get the following.
P-18 would get a stable read at 19km and Vostok E ~90km.
None of this, of course, is absolute hard facts but rather the result of deductive reasoning and using relative performance with a basis in real war. đ
By comparison, flying low will make you invisible to radars out to 10-20km depending on how low you fly.
From evidence I have seen, I am prepared to buy that sort of logic. First-generation stealth technology as seen on the F-117 may well have been focussed on C and X bands, but this is no longer the case. The latest generation of VHF radars may have been intended to close the stable door, but the stealth horse has already bolted.
Check the downloadable book mentioned in the “Available for download online: Northrop Grumman book on B-2 development” thread. It has some interesting information on the problem of maintaining stealth at these lower frequencies.
Thx for the book, I will read it.
But AFAIK the F35 is focused on the X-band. Either way, I think my comparisons do hold water. And baer in mind, Vostok E will be a decade old when the F35 enters service.
Tu22mThe Koreans will get assistance and design work according to what they want. The T-50/FA-50 is not a F-35 or a F-16 Block 60 in expense..They asked for a particular capability and got assistance accordingly. Lockheed or Boeing will not consult or assist in a small Light weight stealth fighter program and offer designs that are expensive, size and shape of the f22 etc. This is ridiculous. Its akin of suggesting that if ROKAF asked for SAAB’s help for a mid range tactical bomber, SAAB will give them a gripen. From what i make of things, ROKAF and the South Koreans are wanting to go alone on tis with very little assistance.
Nothing is carved in stone yet.
SAAB are looking for co financing for an FS2020 style project do lower the costs (SwAF will never get the ac in great numbers). Turkey may already be on that bandwagon.
What eventually happens in ROK is open. Either ROK needs a partner for future fighter development, maybe th ey just need consulting, maybe they will buy something that is in production.
SAAB has the opportunity to get one more party financing their 5th gen fighter. I havent even read about exactly what ROK wants, at first they wanted to develop their own jet, then they had a competion and bought the F15SE instead.. where are they going now?
Tu22mDo you have anything substantial to claim or are you just going to rant and be rude? Basic point is very simple..Lockheed have developed the smaller tanks for the F-35, the Range with them is well understood and communicated.
Point is, if Lockheed uses range with drop tanks in a presentation for the Norwegian gvt then I feel entitled to use the same numbers when giving you the range with drop tanks. Untill better ones are designed we only have the information LM has supplied us with. I am being just as specific as Lockheed Martin btw.
You do realize that the range they submitted was not with 600 gallon tanks and/or CFT’s right?
NOMFP, its LMs problem. They state “range with drop tanks”, if 728nm is the best they can do then I just have to take heir word for it. This number may change in the future (as all their projections) but I’m staying open minded about it. It may even get better than 728nm range someday.
Tu22mDear TU22m
Vostok-E introduction date: 2007
F117 first flight 1981
F117 fleet being decommissioned in 2008
And P18 from 1970 could track the F117 in un jammed environment at 95km, Vostok E @350km.
The F35 fleet will reach IOC in… 2015-2018? By that time Vostok E will already be a decade old.
What was your point?
Tu22mTu22mm, you makes a lot of assumption that over-kill the objectives (answering the initial question).
My belief is that tactics are more important than gadets.
I think your original question was about what the most sustainable way was to have an ongoing air campaign. Your assumption was that stealth aircrafts, due to being closer to the targets could drop more and cheaper bombs than contemporary fighters that have to keep a further distance or take greater riscs to perform the same mission. Right?
In theory you are roughly 100% correct. But in reality the most effective bombings have been low altitude surprise attacks and sabotage units that can locate enemy targets in advance. And this is because a number of reasons.
1 SEAD missiles aren’t accurate if the target disapears (shuts down power), it will then become an INS guided missile with the margin of error that comes with that.
2 Laser guided munitions work fine in good weather, but clouds, rain, heavy fog etc blocks lasers. It also kills the ability for EOTS/IR to acquire targets. Meaning you dont know what you hit.
3 GPS guided bombs work fine, but coordinates have to come from somewhere and distance increases margin of error for laser measurements –> lowering performance. So you need ppl on the ground or clear line of sight.
So, what is sustainable?
Well, that is the big question. Sorry I joked about the A10, but as far as costs go per destroyed target it is fairly impressive.
Tu22mWhich is why decent A2AD will be neutralized by stand-off & UAV, like most other strike&ISR missions
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220984[/ATTACH]
This is actually really close to the Operation Allied Force tactics in Serbia.
The SEAD and EW resources where pretty ovewhelming, this made the IADS extremely vulnerable (you have probably read this, but it is relevant for the discussions).
The result was that the radar operators had short up time and tried hauling missiles at the targets during the short time they had before having HARMs incoming. In turn this lead to many “blind shots” where the fire control guided the missiles a little while and before they reached the targets the guidance was aborted resulting in a lot of “near misses” because of the SEAD threat.
After all, only 22 UAVs and 2 fighters got shot down (F117 + F16, Harrier not counted) despite 815 fired missiles only 24 targets where actually downed and a few others. To show what I mean I will provide pie charts! đ
Number of SAM missiles fired.
And the responses from NATO:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221019[/ATTACH]
As we see the SAM Pk was only 0,0025 or 0,25%.
I think it’s time you support this 1% claim…….
I think obligatory even has provided you with the formula for it. Look for the “Aim120 range questions” thread.
Very true…Despite of TU22M’s signature, no one has ever claimed that in a dogfight the opponent would still be using tanks….
How cute, you noticed my tribute to your stubborn quest to never accept performance comparisons between 4,5th gen fighters without drop tanks to the F35. Because as I understand you, they never jetison the EFTs. The signature is a tribute to you. đ
Tu22mSorry, but a VHF early warning radar is not a fire control radar capable of guiding missiles. The best a VHF radar can do is cue an X-band fire control radar, which would fail to lock the stealth. The kill chain is broken.
The interesting combination here is early warning radars and dormant popup threats. Anyways, this was my claim:
“F117 type targets can be tracked at ranges over 70km by semi modern mobile radars.”
Is it true or false?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221017[/ATTACH]
From http://www.kbradar.by/text/pages-view-37.html
Tu22mIn this case they have not even come out with any numbers because there is no NEED TO DO SO. There is also plenty of capability in the pipeline that they have also not come out with (specs) does it mean they don not know it? Do you think Lockheed cannot calclate acceleration data on the F-35 with an engine that adds 2-5 K more thrust? They have not provided that information despite of P&W already having demonstrated that fromt he F135. Does this mean Lockheed do not know this? Or could a possible reason be that there are no plans to offer such a capability yet?The 426 gallon tanks have been developed by Lockheed, their shape has been altered in order to get more range out of bla bla bla
Do you expect Lockheed to come out and tell what range they provide even before design has been finalize?
So many words, so little substance. I gave you the excerpt from Lockheeds own presentation.
I know you have troubles understanding words, even the ones from LM. But read the f-ing quote from their presentation instead of asking me to tell you why they do what they do over at LM. I dont work there, ask their marketing department why they presented the range of the F35 with EFTs in Norway, not me.
Easy to calculate once the design has been frozen. With the 426 gallon tanks LMA can tell you the range increase, with tanks that have not yet been finally drawn up they cannot…Especially when no one has asked for such a capability other than the nation making the damn tanks..(Israel)
Doesnt stop them from touting numbers in Norway.
Do answer the questions i posed. Can you categorize each and every mission flown by stealth jets to date interms of threat and compare that with those flown by legacy crafts? Those that do make the call, do have access to such things..
GWAP and GCO have a 235 page report on that subject that I have urged you to read and I have also given you parts of their conclusions. I linked to the 40 page summary (or whatever the page count was).
But beware, there are no graphics. So im not expecting anything from you.
Tu22mI would love to see hard evidence for these claimsâŠ
But I suppose that it all depends on what you mean by âtrackâ. Stealth platforms are not invisible to radar, but their low observability degrades radar performance to the point where the resulting data is too poor to be militarily useable.
I agree to some extent but, in the end we have a mix of dB return, antenna size, filtering, sensitivity and power output that will determine if the missile seeker will be capable to distinguish the target from clutter.
Radars will be able to track stealth aircrafts, the question is at what range.
Manufacturers claim for Vostok radar.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221017[/ATTACH]
350km in un jammed environment and 57 jammed environment.
The radars designed in the 90s are designed in an era where stealth isnt the same unexpected element as it was for systems designed in the 60s, and yet these old systems where capable of tracking the F117. So now stealth has evolved along with the radars and all of a sudden stealth will be even more effective than before.
Im sorry. I dont by that sort of logic.
ps sorry for using apa as a source. Im on my cellphone.
Sign In
