Tu22mASRAAM super agile ?
You dont understand! It will start every chase with a 180+ degree turn without letting it affect the range. I read it on the internet.
Tu22m1) flares is useless against almost every WVR missiles at the moment ( Aim-9X , ASRAAM , ..etc ) that why they plan to put DIRCM on F-35 ( no other gen 4 , 4.5 fighter jet have that )
Modern flairs, like BOL, are still pretty effective as has been demonstrated in trials vs heat seeking missiles in 2008/2009. IIRC the result was 12 missiles fired and all foiled by the flairs.
DIRCM, is that like a modern version of Shtora? What happened for AT-missiles was that they changed the dynamic range to ignore the flashes and now the russian tanks have no Shtora and use smoke + Arena instead.
One system has been proven to work and that is (for the time being) modern dispensable countermeasures. Just think about it, each dispenser (BOL) holds 160 flairs (and each jet has 6 + 4) that get dispersed via the vortexes. Lets just say that 200 get released. How does your missile keep track of the target that does a split S behind the burning objects that move in the same direction? And once the target gets found again, what G tolerances and speeds will the missile have to endure?
…Or you go the Shtora/dircm way that has ben defeated in the tank arena.
2) missiles can be jammed but Apg-81 likely not , and it can use datalink to correct the missile
So you have to be close enough and at high enough altitude to make sure the target doesnt find cover from the APG81.
4) since WW2 how often do you have the huge amount of aircraft from both side on the sky :confused: ( it always 1 sides dominate the other , and not even the F-22 or T-50 be able to win if enemy out number it by 3 , 4 times )
Exactly. But the F22 and T50 can go to guns or bail out from the situation while the F35 sits there.
5) in WVR in the past , agile is necessary but now and in the future the problem be solve by super agile missiles ( aim-9X , ASRAAM , CUDA ..etc )
DAS and JHMCS
As demonstrated in the 70s HMDS and wide angle seekers help out a lot, but if you want to hit someone behind your missiles will bleed energy + the enemy will engage you first.
6) and people always talk about what if the missiles dont work ? , what if radar dont work ? , what if there is ROE problem and they have to come close … etc
how about what if cannon dont work ? ( jammed )
what if super agile jet run out of bullet ? ( most fighter dont carry more than 200 bullets EF-2000 , Su-30 , rafale ..etc )
what if F-35 shotdown several enemy at BVR and use number to dominate at WVR ?
The problem is that the missile seeker is small and easier to jam. That means you need to get closer to the enemy to make sure you get the kill. If you get closer you will be in range as well.
I say it again. Missiles are not the silver bullets here. Good carrier kinematics can make a shorter range missile hit targets further away than a carrier with bad kinematics and better missiles. Saying that better missiles will make kinematic performance a thing of the past is assuming you will fight an enemy from the stone age.
Tu22m1. you agree or not it still the truth
I think it might be good to be careful about boasting capabilities that early.
In WVR you need to be small, fast, agile and have a lot of countermeasures. F35 is neither and it can’t fit the same amount of flairs as the older jets.
WVR is the place where the F35 doesnt want to be. Period.
But carrying a lot of missiles while having troubles maneuvering is ok in BVR assuming you can find the targets in time. Unfortunately we are missing the key problems.
1 How can we guarantee that the situation is tailored for our own jet at the time of engagement? (Nobody can)
2 Is there any guarantee that the missiles wont be jammed? (No)
3 Is there any guarantee that the missiles will be maneuverable enough or fast enough to kill the target at the range of engagement? (Depends, if its over 20 nm the answer is usually no)
4 Do you have enough missiles to destroy all enemy targets? (If they get a cheaper jet, like Gripen, Rafale or MiG 29 (or cheaper jets like MiG 21 Bison) the answer is most likely no)
5 If none of the points can be guaranteed, is there an option to escape from the situation and re arm? (unless you are USAF the answer is no)
And depending on the enemy there might not even be airfields close enough to the battle to give the opportunity for air-air battles. It’s about more than just who has the shiniest toy right now.
Tu22mThis is a stretch. Stealth drones are also A LOT MORE RISKIER to base your strike missions on. They have NEVER been tested against a credible EW threat, or against a credible IADS. Manned strike assets have operated. They have also not demonstrated key Parameters that can only be done when they are operational (in limited numbers) on carrier decks. There is sound reason behind USAF and USN decisions to go slow and take BABY STEPS before they begin to fly.
Sure, but stealth drones like the Predator C are more mature and more operational than the F35.
Drones have longer endurance and dont have to be stationed close to the battles. So we have a couple of scenarios for the F35.
1 F117 style bombings that followed package Q.
– Stealth drones superior thanks to lower rcs, longe loiter time, and no risc for the pilots.
2 Yom Kippur style bombings
– Most 4,5 gen fighters superior to F35 thanks to longer range, higher speeds with similar payload as well as better WVR performance (most likely encounters)… and they are cheaper.
3 If we are talking about war vs Russia or China the first thing that would happen is that airfields would get hammered by cruise missiles, tactical nukes and Yom Kippur style low alt bomb raids. Even in that case the drones will outlive the front line fighters since they can be stationed far from the action whereas the fighter jets fairly soon will have no place to land near the action.
So there wont be many jets at or ahead of the front line due to the physical limitations of range and operational airfields. F35 wont change that. Air refueling might solve some of the range issues but its risky to rely on and it is a natural choke point.
And please note, we are talking about physical limitations of any fleet here. These are the options on the table. When we are talking about Russian Flankers they have a radius of over 900 nm meaning that they can be stationed 300 nm further away from the front line than the F35. And that is without drop tanks.
So how does this motivate the purchase of the F35? It is well tailored for the US but offer little or no gain for most single jet countries apart from political alliances.
Tu22mWait a second. Affordability was a primary design requirement, and LMA had publicly claimed that the cost of operation would be equal to or better than the F-16 (USAF) and F-18 (USN).
The fuel per sortie is 4’320 gallons for the F35 and usually 1’790 gallons for the F16C (1030 internally + 2×370 gallons). With fuel prices at 2,99 or 3$ per gallon that means 12’960 $ just for fuel on the F35 vs 5’370 $ for the F16C each sortie.
As of now NO drop tanks on the F-35, In the future, we do not know what LMA will pursue and what the added result of that would be (Conformal vs wing mounted etc etc) I have read around 700 with 2 600+ gallon tanks, but again those are not facts set in stone…Anyways, the point here is simple , the F-35 will be substantially more expensive to operate then either the F-16 or F-18 and it is rather optimistic to expect the program to pull back the cost to “LITTLE EXPENSIVE” as the program head has opined or wished..According to Congressman Ford (Member of the House Armed Services Committee), the F-35C is expected to cost 35,000 $ per hour..
I just got for the numbers presented in Norway.
I just find it amusing how anyone can claim that costs are in favor of the F35… Its not true for aquisition, support, fuel consumption and nor is it when compared for the fleet size (since stealth drones are way cheaper and better at strike missions).
But I still want to point out that there are situations where the F35 is useful.
Tu22m460 nmi with 370 gallon wing tanks.
570 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks.
630 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks and conformal fuel tanks.Loadout is 2x2k bombs and the tanks are dropped when empty.
That can get expensive real fast.
In the same comparison:
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x2000lbs bombs – 623 nm (the 590/584 nm figure + maneuvering)
The numbers compared are F35 @584 vs F16 460-630nm where the F35 with drop tanks can go <678nm.
When talking about costs the F35 carries (with 30% fuel in drop tanks) 5’610 gallons or 4’320 gallons without them while the F16 carries 1030 gallons internally + 1200 in drop tanks + ~450 gallons.
So all in all you need 4’320 gallons in the F35 vs 2’680 gallons in the F16. That is ~5’000$ extra per flight and ac for the F35 if the drop tanks arent jetisoned.
So now we can compare the fuel and drop tank costs in a sober manner. How much does an empty 600 gallon drop tank cost?
Tu22mWho in their right mind actually believes Package Q is relevant today when stealth drones are available?
UCLASS/X47x (stealthier than F35 with extreme loiter time + cheaper) will be fielded in 2019.
Predator C is already fielded and in use (most likely stealthier than the F35 with better range).
These drones will cost about 15% in acquisition compared to the F35 and in comparison almost have zero logistical footprint.
The future “Package Q” will consist primarily of drones that…
A: target and track high value targets to make cruise missile strikes easier
B: engage high value targets
And then there will be fighter jets that use standoff weapons in the early hours of the war and then they will mostly do CAS as the enemy air force has been decimated.
The focus will be closer to the Israeli doctrine in the Yom Kippur war. Step 1, kill the enemy airfields and do it in a pre emptive surprise attack. This can be done by a very low alt/high speed ingress (like the Israelis did) or a high alt stealth attack (like the F117 or stealth drones).
Either way there is risc of casualties and if you can get a fleet that is 7 times the size (than F35), is harder to detect (than F35) and can stick around longer (than F35) without putting pilots lifes at risc then I think that is the preferred option in the strike package.
Tu22mBesides, it will take a decade to develop it. I think the need is more urgent than that.
Luckily there will be one in 7 years, made by SAAB. There are also plans on how to make the Gripen a 5th gen fighter.
What’s needed is an order for development.
Tu22mNew update: http://storm.zoomvisionmamato.com/player/saab/objects/pq24g31a/index.php
Some interesting stuff:
1 Software patches with new capabilities (like weapon integration, datasharing etc) should be fielded in 14 days from the time when the pilots on a mission (like Libya) demand the new features. So if the pilots during day 2 of a mission find some feature that is missing they should be flying it operationally in 2 weeks.
2 The demonstrator program has a lot of new features but a lot is left out and not optimised. It’s a proof of concept.
3 Denmark + Netherlands will restart the tenders
4 The evaluated Gripen in 2008 was the first iteration och Gripen C/D and three steps behind what the current customers have. Biggest penalty in points was the short loiter time.
Tu22mOk, so what is preferred?
Bomber drones that are stealthier, cheaper and have better range than the F35 or the most expensive bombtruck on the market?
Like it or not but UCAVs are the future in the attack role.
Tu22mFor taking on Russian Tu-95s and airpolicing of US national territory, F-16 is prefectly adequate.
For war fighting against low capability opponents ala Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya- existing teen series fighters are sufficient.
Against future likely opponents – Syria, North Korea, Iran – existing teen series fighters are sufficient.
For anti-terror operations ala Yemen, MQ-1 is sufficient.
For taking on China/Russia in WWIII, current teen series backed up by F-22 is currently more than adequate. By 2040 this will probably not be the case. But then any such conflict threatens to escalate into a nuclear one so likelihood of them happening is 0.
However if you’re goal is to beat on “low lying fruit” ala Iran or Libya, then even by 2050 F15/16/18 and A-10 backed by force multipliers is still more than sufficient.
Sorry for going off topic but it is relevant to the scenarios.
The Soviets (and thus the Russians) never planned for enything else than all out nuclear war in the event of WWIII.
In the declassified documents the plan from 1964 for Western europe alone was 5’000 tactical nukes in two waves. Most delivered from systems that have longer reach than the F35 or any other known fighter. Today that would be a massive bombardment of airfields with cruise missiles and tactical nukes.
More info with maps and stuff: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?132994-The-Warsaw-Pact-War-Plan-of-1964
So if you are preparing for WW III the first option should be cheap and low maintenance with extreme to great range. And that is just to make sure you at least get to battle in a defensive scenario. In an offensive scenario a stealth fleet will help out a bit in the beginning but then you would need a place to land. At least if the enemy is Russia or China.
Just sayin..
Tu22mPS I once lived in Africa for a few years. The Minister of Supply where I lived sadly died after two or three years in his post. When his will was published his estate was worth more than 1000 times his annual salary IIRC…
Politicians are politicians. Even if they get the cheapest 4+ gen fighter that wont change.
Tu22mHehe i knew you’d react 🙂
Yeah, well… uhm. You got me.
There are limitations in the Gripen platform, but the costs isn’t one of them.
I like the Rafale too. The aircraft you get in the same weight class as a late block F16 is very impressive.
Tu22mGripen not as cheap as advertised?
Or maybe SAAF having less moneyz than expected?
The SAAB offers are always on budget and almost always on time (last known delay was 20 years ago) so I think it has more with changes in the budget/allocated funds to do than anything else.
Tu22mIts main problem is/was that no one in the US DOD asked for it to replace the F-35. Had it been SO MUCH BETTER the could have offered it instead of the X-32…
Problem was weight and size… it can be no larger than the FA18, and the weight was to be in the 22lbs/24lbs class. That has now grown by 32% from X35A to F35A.
F15SE is about 1 tonne heavier than the F35.
I dont think that it is wise to replace a lighter fighter with a heavier one and hope it will be cheaper. It’s usually the other way around unless the lighter jet is super ultra densly packed with sensors, avionics and “in house” avionics. But the second part only covers the flyaway cost. The heavier jet, if using more engines, will most likely end up having a higher operational cost as well.
Sign In
