Tu22mAre you really so naive or you are just trolling? Its not that Lockheed does not know what the range with EFT’s is. Lockheed probably also can calculate what the Acceleration would be given same drag and a thrust increase of 5000 Pounds (what P&W has demonstrated earlier with the F135) but they are not going to publish it in an official document until such a time someone actually offers such capability, or demands a CAPABILITY requirement where Lockheed think it is productive to BID with that specification in its presentation. Lockheed are not going to come out and say, ELTA is working on a particular tank for the F-35I, so tha combat radius would be XXX nm. Why would they do that? Are they offering it to anyone else? Has anyone else demanded it ? Lockheed were tasked to develop 426 gallon tanks and DID so…They produced data to the government and the program that showed aerodynamic and range performance with that. Integration of that tank would come at a later stage as the OPERATORS have deemed other capability as more important by a certian date (hence it is out of SDD as far as integration goes, along with some weapons)
So for crying out loud, Do not make the retarded allegation that LOCKHEED DOES NOT KNOW what range increase a particular tank would cause them. They will not go out and start offering performance data on a product that is not for SALE to any operator. When a operator in the future asks for such a product or capability addition (Such as range increse in a bomb truck config.) they can offer the existing products (426 Gallon tanks that the developed, 600 Gallon tanks that are being developed by ELTA or the CFT’s being developed by IAI) or new ones. You do not start advertising capabilities that you are not selling. Lockheed is also telling the WORLD what the range and performance increase would be with the increments P&W are looking at (Such as 2-4% thrust/fuel burn advance) because such a capability has not yet been offered as a product. When it is, they will advertise the difference. .
Im not making those claims, you did. But when it comes to estimates of range, speed, accelleration and so on LM has concistently been wrong.
And these are the performance numbers that are easy to calculate.
Its not my claim, it is the claim of all those developing it, the governments investing in it and those backing it up with REAL money…Sorry but i do not base my opinion on a forum post, I listen and try to understand what the developers are developing, what the operators are demanding and what the tacticians are planning.
Dont take my word for it. GWAP made a pretty solid analysis and they compared real life to marketing, sortie efficiency. They even compared succesrate in equal mission types.
All i have given you are the measured results and their conclusions, conclusions based on measurable data rather than marketing claims by fanboys.
Read the part on marketing vs reality. Im sure you would be thrilled 🙂
Tu22mWhat I am telling you is that technology, tactics and capability changes with time. Its been 20 years since the Gulf War. Technology being designed now will last you till 2050..The people with the sort of information to make a call (Those that have actual classified and declassified breifings evals etc) have made it.
No. What you are saying (even though you might not understand it) is that the next time will be different.
I am saying that maybe we should look at history to see how the reality matches the claims.
You claim stealth will make it possible to penetrate IADS. Fine. Lets see how it worked in the past, when nobody had even seen a stealth ac and where the technological gap was 10-30 years.
It turned out that with similar flight profiles the F16 was safer to fly. Not only in total losses but in losses per attack sortie as well. Heck, even the A10 was less likely to be shot down.
The systems you are talking about now (like the S400) will have a technological lag of ca 10 years. Shorad will lag 5 years or less. These systems have been developed after stealth became a known threat.
Yet you are confident that despite the SAM producers knowing the threat in advance this time they wont be able to design radars that can track said stealth ac (like radars from the 60s could).
And you claim it despite knowing that F117 type targets can be tracked at ranges over 70km by semi modern mobile radars.
How come you know exactly how effective the F35 (which is still in development) will be in the future?
What makes it more interesting is that not even LM knows the most simple things about the ac like what range it will get in the end or according to you how much range EFTs will give.
Tu22mWhat I am telling you is that technology, tactics and capability changes with time. Its been 20 years since the Gulf War. Technology being designed now will last you till 2050..The people with the sort of information to make a call (Those that have actual classified and declassified breifings evals etc) have made it.
No. What you are saying (even though you might not understand it) is that the next time will be different.
I am saying that maybe we should look at history to see how the reality matches the claims.
You claim stealth will make it possible to penetrate IADS. Fine. Lets see how it worked in the past, when nobody had even seen a stealth ac and where the technological gap was 10-30 years.
It turned out that with similar flight profiles the F16 was safer to fly. Not only in total losses but in losses per attack sortie as well. Heck, even the A10 was less likely to be shot down.
The systems you are talking about now (like the S400) will have a technological lag of ca 10 years. Shorad will lag 5 years or less. These systems have been developed after stealth became a known threat.
Yet you are confident that despite the SAM producers knowing the threat in advance this time they wont be able to design radars that can track said stealth ac (like radars from the 60s could).
And you claim it despite knowing that F117 type targets can be tracked at ranges over 70km by semi modern mobile radars. Low alt penetration gives you a radar horizon of less than 20 km.
Tu22mHow many years has it been since desert storm ?
I used statistics from Allied Force in 1999 as well… and we had pretty much the exact same outcome.
2 night time losses, 1 F117 and 1 F16 + 1 damaged F117.
2 A-10 shot, but survived, daytime.
Evidently a Harrier crashed as well for some reason.
I know what you are aiming at here. “This time is different”, which is also the title of a great book you should read. History shows us that it rarely is the case.
Tu22mswedish air force already ordered Gripen E, so they wont be a customer or finacier
They have funded the FS2020. SAAB are just seeking external partners. What this means is that SAAB probably have doubts about the Swedish gvt actually staying in the project and thus they are seeking external partners.
What the end result of FS2020 will be is fairly open. Currently it states that it will be a testbed using available (ie from Gripen E) avionics and it will be used to test stealth capabilities in a fighter. The end result is stilll pretty open so if Korea want a twin engines stealth fighter made cheap then it will fit in the FS2020 guidelines perfectly.
If they want to design something J20-like in size and exceeding the F22 in costs then maybe Lockheed are the ones to talk to.
My guess here is that Sweden only will get 12-22 stealth fighters while letting Gripen (whatever version) be the main work horse.
Tu22mNote: I didn’t even bother to read the doc.
No. At least from my memory 4 A10 were shot down, two crash landed
F16: can’t remember (quick internet search says 7)
F15E: 2If the 117 was the night queen of Baghdad it’s not only because she was painted in black and looked bad!
Sigh.. page 101
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220978[/ATTACH]
Maybe it is you that should do some reading… The document is GAO OPERATION DESERT STORM Evaluation of the Air Campaign.
Page 27
In Desert Storm, neither cost nor stealth technology was found to be a determinant of survivability.
Advocates of the A-10 can, for example, argue that it, unlike
the F- 117, operated both day and night; attacked both fixed and mobile
targets employing both guided and unguided bombs; and like the F- 117,
suffered no casualties when operating at night and at medium altitude.
Similarly, other aircraft also performed missions the F-1 17 was unable to
and were used successfully-and without losses-against similar types of
strategic targets. Each aircraft of the various types has both strengths and
limitations; each aircraft can do things the other cannot. Therefore,
despite a sharp contrast in program unit costs, we find it inappropriate,
given their use, performance, and effectiveness demonstrated in Desert
Storm, to rate one more generally “capable” than the other.
Now that is sober argumentation right there. I wish we had more debate like that on this forum.
They go on to marketing claims vs reality as well…
Texas Instruments
Claim: “TI Paveway III: one target, one bomb.”
Reality: Of a selected sample of 20 targets attacked by F-117s and F-111 Fs with GBU-24s and GBU-27s, no single aimpoint was struck by only 1 LGB-the average was 4, the maximum 10.
Lockheed
Claim:
“During the first night, 30 F-i 17s struck 37 high-value targets, inflicting damage that collapsed Saddam Hussein’s air defense system and all but eliminated Iraq’s ability to wage coordinated war.”Reality:
On the first night, 21 of the 37 targets to which F-117s were tasked were reported hit; of these, the F-117s missed 40 percent of their air defense targets. BDA on 11 of the F-117 strategic air defense targets confirmed only 2 complete kills. Numerous aircraft, other than the F-1 17, were involved in suppressing the Iraqi lADS, which did not show a marked falloff in aircraft kills until day five.
We can all join the fanboy wagon here but facts are facts.
There is no doubt that stealth offers good capabilities, but please. Chill. It never has and never will be the end of all other or a silver bullet.
For the majority of situations it is not needed. The majority of attack runs can be performed at low alt making use of the radar horizon as an effective cover. But in those rare occasions where it’s not possible then stealth may be what enables an attack.
Likewise in air combat. Maneuverablity, EWS, the missiles carried and the signature of the ac itself all have to work together. If we just take one metric, lie or misslead about all other we will just end up crying out one aspect that makes that particular aircraft a favourite “my has stealth and a TV-helmet, my MiG 31 is the fastest, my Su35 has the most powerful jammer and 3D thrust vectoring etc”.
Can we just please sober up and discuss like adults who actually try to understand the whole picture before we all ride separate ways on our fanboy trains and call eachother retards because statistics arent supporting the desired outcome?
Tu22mIt’s not the cumulative sorties number my friend, it’s the number of target destroyed. Get a pocket calculator, a sheet of paper and draw three columns. In the first one write the number of target destroyed in the sortie, on the second one the nbr of losses sustained and on the last one the number of plane supporting the strike. Sum it all and then draw your own conclusion.
A B2 can annihilate for example 16 targets in a single sortie. This is what a country are expecting now: a sustainable way of conducting operations. And I am not speaking of the denied zone where non-stealthy jet can’t operates without expecting a tremendous amount of losses.
Unfortunately those numbers arent public, all we have is the total effect from the air campaign and single incidents.
However this was done by GWAP and they concluded the cheapest way to kill many targets was the A10. It also happened to be great at taking a beating.
For example, nonstealthy aircraft, such as the F-111F and F-16, also suffered no losses when
operating at night, and the A-10s experienced neither damage nor losses at night. Each of these three
aircraft types flew at least as many night strikes as the F-117.
The high-cost F-117 stealth fighter and the low-cost A-10 both
experienced 100-percent survivability when operating at night.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf
Another fun thing is that according to GWAP the F16 was more effective in actually hitting the targets. Night time losses can be summed up as follows from Desert Storm + Allied force.
F117 – 1 damaged, 1 lost (8:15 in march is night as it is dark in Serbia at that time…)
F-16 – 0 damaged, 1 lost
A-10 – 0 damaged, 0 lost
Do your own calculations 🙂 (This is from page 101 in the GWAP report + the known losses in the Allied Force)
And by the way, the 2nd alleged 117 was not rebuilt since there was no point of rebuilding a damaged plane that was part of a fleet nearly being decommissioned (another example of the miss-use of number and stats).
Ok, so they had one damaged and one destroyed. It still isnt better than any other ac in the same wars or in equal conditions.
Tu22mAgain, my standpoint is completely different: an European air force covering a relatively small country, with primary missions of interception, air policing and air superiority. A-G work of secondary importance.
What does it mean? long range is mostly useless, aircraft are launching lightly loaded (two Fox-3, two Winders, one bag). Transonic acceleration and agility with light load are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Stealth and sensor fusion are not mandatory, A-G work can be covered by stand-off missiles. As you can see, all first-day-of-war-striker qualities of future F-35 are of almost zero importance here. The plus points the bird gets for advanced sensors are immediately lost due to poor kinematics, hence the +10% score.
It is unimportant whether F-35 will be more or less advanced than Typhoon or Rafale.. For the purpose listed this bird is the worst choice of all.
Comprende?
From a European perspective I think Gripen E makes the most sense for most countries. With RBS15MkIII + KEPD350 they could reach all land based targets (such as airfields and ships) without ever needing to penetrate defended airspace.
Tbh I think even the Hornets or Mirages would do just fine. The job they have to do is to be fast on site and be able to launch long range missiles at enemy airfields. If the country really want to drive a fine piece of machinery and think the Gripen E has too short loiter time then the Rafale is a good choice.
Issues are over, are you sure? I don’t think I have seen any announcement about signing of the contract?
Rafale won the tender, and now we see the normal operating procedure of Indian military procurement. It is supposed to take time and it’s the exact same thing when you deal with arabs even if you buy something for 10$.
If India breaks out from the deal now… only Russia will actually trust them enough to do any business with them. So what we see is negotiations.
Tu22mSubsonic acceleration is very similar to what a clean F-16C will get you..This is definitely not UN-impressive especially when the viper cannot conduct any mission while flying clean..According to Beasley who is amongst a few pilots to have flown both the F-22 and F-35, the subsonic acc is very similar between the two fighters. Transonic acceleration figures are quite a bit high, this is the obvious tradeoff here for stealth, range and other design constraints of the JSF (Single engine, Multiple platform requirements etc etc )…We would still have to look at transonic acceleration in the CONTEXT of a loaded competitor especially where the viper has to carry quite a bit of extra fuel to have a fighting chance of coming anywhere close to the sort of range the F-35 is going to give you. The penalty that weapons and especially larger bombs give you will be far less on a F-35 than a viper or any other platform that carries such loads externally. To form a complete picture you have to look at everything integrated in terms of ACTUAL COMBAT RELEVANT performance….
Gripen A, in a typical intercept mission <200nm away, would accelerate from mach 0,5 to mach 1,15 in 30 seconds and would have a top speed @ around 1,8-2 mach. Thats typical intercept missions from real life here in Europe.
In the Libya war a typical mission was to go from Sigonella and do recce (or strike missions if you flew Raffie) 300-600nm+ away excl time on station. Having the ability to use EFTs makes these missions work. If they would get into trouble over hostile territory they drop the EFTs and the performance you then have to compare with is a 4,5th gen fighter with only ~6 missiles.
These examples are from real intercept missions (typical) as well as from real war. And it shows why the option to have EFTs stil play a role.
Btw, speaking of stealth… In Allied Force we had <36 F117. If we assume 2 F117 per sqdn and a sortie rate of 2 per day and ac over 78 days we get 2808 sorties. During allied force about 10’000 strike sorties where conducted meaning that the F16, Tornado, A10, FA18s etc conducted over 7’000 strike sorties + some 25’000 other sorties.
In this operation 3,4% of all F117s produced where lost (one got damaged so it went out of service on apr 30 and one shoot down on day 3), or 5,1% of all F117s deployed while conducting less than 30% of the strike missions. If only one F117 loss is accepted then it still is a high rate of loss.
Meanwhile the A10s flying the riskiest missions only had 2 damaged ac, but no hull losses, and only 1 F16 was lost. The interesting part here is that the A10s typically fly very low where all kinds of shlt can hit them and the fighters flew at +10’000 ft. So we see old jets being fairly survivable at medium altitude and higher as well as old designs being survivable at low altitudes.
Tu22mNo one is going to release a classified FTD report just to convince you..
But many of the numbers are already released.
We know max sustained G.
Subsonic acceleration with ~54% fuel, from m0,6-0,95 17,9 sec. for F35A
Accelleration mach 0,8-1,2 in 61 sec for F35A, 104-112sec for F35C @30k ft.
Those are by no means impressive numbers.
Tu22mI think I know what “Tactical Mnvr Wt” is… it is with fuel for equal range to the F16. Thats how they have done it before, like in this lovely chart.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220887[/ATTACH]
Obviously they want to compare with the old Gripen C as well because there is no public information on Gripen E/NG… They don’t specify what Rafale version either. :stupid: Anyways…
In the first chart it is an F16 with full tank vs an F35 with ~4400kg fuel. (For the F35A ~54% fuel) based on [F35 combat radius]/[F16 combat radius on internal fuel]x[F35 internal capacity]. Ie the same way they usually count.
So the F16 with 100% fuel is in subsonic acceleration slightly faster than the F35A carrying ca 54% fuel, with external fuel tanks + full internal fuel it is as fast as the average F35 version with 4’400kg fuel. This sounds like, yet again, a totally legit comparison from LM.
Signed: Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfightsâ„¢
Tu22m@Rocky:
“I was assuming a high speed. I would think the small wings would bleed less energy in a high g turn.“
This is a common misconception.
Turning = producing lift in desired direction.
If you have small wings you will need higher alpha to get the desired lift, in turn this gives you a very high drag/lift ratio meaning the small winged aircraft bleeds a lot more energy. This in turn has to be compensated by more thrust.
Small wings are good if you want to fly in a straight line with minimum drag.
Tu22mWell, this has been in the workings for a long time.
SAAB wants partners for a potential “Gripen stealth” or FS-2020 because the Swedish government might not want to pay for a new fighter jet. But if Sweden has a cooperation with another country, like Turkey, South Korea, Finland etc the production of FS2020 might be guaranteed.
One of the options previously mentioned was the KF-X.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220882[/ATTACH]
So when they have found a partner that, together with Swedens gvt, can guarantee the survival of the project the actual work will begin. But as i understand it the FS2020 currently is just tech demonstrator project.
Tu22mIn addition you have PILOT quotes from videos and articles (Non LM Test pilots)
Yes, and we have pilots flying the F117 as well as the B2 saying that the aircraft “handles like a dream” in interviews…
But as much as I don’t like to be picky about details I must ask. What is “Tactical Mnvr Wt”? Is that the equivalent of “50% fuel” back in the days?
Tu22mamraams are powder-coated with a magical dust that partly shield them from both inertia and friction,
and FYI classified automatically = cunningly better than anyone ever could imagine.
Looking at history we can tell that bluffing was never used as intimidation in war or tension,
i believe FUD is the abbreviation
Wow, as always you are correct Obligatory. That does explain a lot. US made missiles work on another set of physical laws than the rest of the universe.
They can, but why should they do so? Just to please you?
I gave you the quote from their own presentation in Norway. Believe me, I had nothing to do with it nor do I wish I had.
LM made the figures up all by themselves. But you probably wont listen to me saying it since you have ignored the fact even when I repeatedly have given you the excerpt of that marking brochure.
Exactly my point…No point in hanging 2-4 EFT’s on a F-35 when you have to preserve stealth (Regardless of the added range you end as a MISSION FAILURE) to counter IADS and A2AD forces. Whats important is HOW FAR CAN THE FIGHTER go with its stealth in tact.
Thats a totally different discussion. I have been talking about range in general and low alt (under radar horizon) ingress. And it doesnt matter if you have drop tanks or not when you fly at low alt. Popup threats (radars) showing up within 10-15km will find you anyway, IR seekers will find you anyway because of the short distances.
But if you want to debate the F35 as a recce platform (going at high altitude) then sure. Not having drop tanks would be preferred. But thats not the topic here because that would evolve to comparing nEuron like UCAVs to fighters and that debate has been going on for 5 or more “F35 debate threads”. Lets stay relevant here ok?
BTW Whats the combat radius of the Rafale on internal fuel?
Why does it matter? Do you see Rafale taking off without EFTs often? The thing is that Rafale can drop them whenever, the F35 can’t drop the empty tanks.
The worst deaf is the one that do not want to hear… From the presentation to Brazilian senate…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220842[/ATTACH]
Stop that witchcraft!1!1%!!1
You just can’t use sources and stuff, that just kills the debate.
Also DRAG…Stealth and internal bays adds drag compared to a fighter without bays.
I think you should tell Knaapo/Sukhoi. They forgot to add drag on Pak FA compared to the Flankers.
…stupid russians.
Sign In
