:rolleyes:

After countless missions in defended airspace destroying numerous high value targets, one single plane gets shot down due primarily to flawed mission planning.

They tracked it before it reached the coast (as the operator stated in a documentary) and they waited till it got close enough to be a pretty certain kill.

Two F117 where actually hit, one crashed and one was taken out of service after it returned.

One has to remember that NATO had total air superiority, tons of fake targets and a pretty large fleet of active jets in the area. I have to say that I’m impressed that the Serbs had any working SAMs considering the superiority in the air by NATO. But this is the result at least for the SAMs. (From Wiki)

47 UAVs shot down[47] (at least two Predators or similar LO type)
Two AH-64 Apaches crashe
One F-117A shot down[49]
One F-117A damaged[50]
One F-16C shot down[51]
Two A-10 Thunderbolt II’s shot down[52]
Two A-10

This is a total of at least 4 LO or VLO targets if you count the predator as LO. And its made by heavily suppressed SAM-sites that (at the time) used over 30 years old SAM-systems.

Modern SAMs against modern stealth jets will probably fair better.

EDIT: The RQ1 averaged around 0,06m^2 in RCS with a minimum RCS (same as the F22 and F35 figures) at <0,0001m^2 @ 3GHZ or <0,01m^2 in the X-band. http://www.efieldsolutions.com/example_rcs_predator.pdf

Numbers might be wrong but they are still interesting and I think they qualify the Predator as a LO/VLO platform.

It is actualy the other way around .

The F-35 ‘s main way to penetrate an adverse airspace is not to fly on the deck but to fly high and fast and if possible , without external stores to preserve its Low Obvervability . Its airframe and engine are made for .
At low level where the air density is maximum , it might be draggy which would further decrease its range . If you add external fuel tanks , its RCS suffers . Nobody knows how the aircraft will fare at low level , moreover with external stores , not even LM , yet .

Cheers .

Sorry, missread the quote as 3 generations behind EWS39 and 2,5 after Spectra. It didnt make much sense to me.

Hi Tu22m
According to swiss 2008 evaluation SPECTRA was rank higher as EW system than EWS39 and Praetorian.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u9A1B1CJxwY/TziFDQ6i_YI/AAAAAAAACYw/Zw1pk2MaDoQ/s1600/Swiss_eval_AP1.png

The leaked documents are for the latest Rafale and Eurofighter and the old Gripen C or Gripen E/MS21 with risc adjusted penalty.

You can see that on the endurance part.
Gripen E offers 1300km + 30 min loiter on A2A mission, @mach 0,9 thats 1670 km + 10 min loiter while Eurofighter offers (or offered) 1389km + 10 min loiter. Gripen C clocks in @ around 833km + XXmin loiter. If thats the number they use then it is correctly placed in the chart.

Based on the performance figures i’m certain the chart is for Gripen C while the others are the latest tranches (since they had flying demos while the Gripen Demo came in later). There are plenty of giveaways that its the Gripen C, I just took the most obvious one.

EDIT: Anyways. Ill try to stay on topic from now on.

The ALQ-131 is two generations behind Praetorian/EWS 39 and 2.5 generations behind Spectra . It is really out-dated stuff … The ALQ-184/187 are a bit newer but still can ‘t be compared with the latest European Systems .

Cheers .

What makes Spectra less advanced than EWS39? The only difference my poor eyesight has spotted i that Spectra has a rear AESA jammer while the current EWS 39 doesnt. No other information has been found by me.

Would you have the balls to risk outmaneuvring an incoming AMRAAM? Me not.

Anyway, fair enough, let’s stick to the F-35 news.

Or just respond in the dedicated thread?

I dont think its about having or not having big balls. When you get the warning that there is an incoming missile maneuvering is one thing that is done, another is starting to use jammers, decoys etc and if there is time counter engage.

You can’t put Gripen E avionics into an aircraft & sell it to Argentina. The British government would veto the sale – and can do so. Look at where crucial parts of those avionics come from.

That might be true. But if the option was on the table it would fit the limited budget of the Argentinian AF pretty well.

There are plenty of frendlier mations in eastern Europe, like Bulgaria, Serbia, Slovakia etc and we also have the Asian region.

But most likely you are about 100% correct regarding Argentina.

Did they? What low observable “things” did the Soviets design and manufacture?:confused:

Results? 🙂

Jokes aside though. Piotr Ufimtsevs work is the start of stealth as we know it. Other low observable Soviet constructions are the MiG 21. The Bison version is pretty hard to detect with legacy radar systems.

AFAIK, neither the F-4 nor the F-5 have seen combat in decades (unless… Kosovo?)

Does getting shoot down 2012 by Syrian SAMs count as combat mission?
http://theaviationist.com/2012/06/22/tuaf-f4-shot-down/

Thats the F4 at least, IIRC it flew some CAP in Unified Protector.

Size gives flexibility.
Usually larger jets can fit larger radomes, carry more weapons and carry them longer. And size isnt necessarily congruent with higher RCS as the Su35S proves.

Small jets are usually cheaper, more nimble and better dogfighters, easier to maintain etc.

It’s easier to strengthen a small fuselage and bulkheads for a lower loadfactor than doing it on a larger jet. One simply cannot rely on scaling up the old solutions.