Are you sure that are the accurate internal fuel capacities ? The fuel capacities usually associated with these birds are:
JAS-39 (A,C): 794 US gal (3,008 liters)
JAS-39 (B,D): 754 US gal (2,852 liters)
Tejas: Around 2460 Kgs ~3000 liters.

No argument is better than the sources used…

But i used several so it should check out.
Tejas 2458kg http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2011/feb%202011%20.pdf
Gripen… of course unofficial source for the 4000kg http://jas39gripen.blogspot.se/ Max fuel according to SAAB is 7 tonnes… including external stores. That sort of throws out the 6tonne figure.

Based on your numbers (that actually fell pretty accurate) the NG or E version should have 4150 litres of fuel.

I should stop hunting numbers in the middle of the night, things get messed up when i do.

but AESA change frequency so fast , and quite close to the noise 🙁 , not to mention that you actually dont know the noise level of the environment caused it not stay the same all the time , even the reflect from fighter’s own radar and data link also create noise to it’s RWR , and if that fighter also use AESA or frequency hoping data link then the situation will get even more complicated

missile can use Doppler effect to find the real target so chaff are quite useless , most fighter only have 3-4 towed decoy , and often can carry maximum of 18-20 decoy like MALD-J or ITALD

Frequency hopping is useless against barrage jamming and that accounts for a false dopplereffect too.

Remember the example with the flashlight. You see a light that is 1/10th as bright, but he can only see your reflection. Its like ff1987 said, stealth is just as much about evading enemy radar as being able to do silent launches.

Data links that are beamed, like the next patch to TIDLS, wont be able to get intercepted. Or, in theory its possible if you are inside the beam..

in fact pylon reflect a lot , and even the missile and pod also have huge RCS , that why stealth fighter need internal weapon bay ,
secondly BOL ,BOZ only carry chaff or towed decoy both of that almost have no effect on enemy fighter radar ( chaff can be reject by doppler effect , towed decoy can’t repeat signal from AESA radar because they change frequency too fast ) => useless again missile guide by data link or IIR so they could never provide the level of protection that MALD-J and ITALD can provide 🙂

No, dopplereffect cant take care of the chaffs because of the following:
1 They are moving
2 The returns are larger than the original target
3 The target makes a split S so it wont give away a noticeable dopplereffect due to the perpendicular motion. The chaffs will also give small dopplereffects so tracking will probably fail.
4 There are a lot of false echoes.
5 Its up to the seeker in the missile to track the target, and that seeker is a pesa or a weak aesa when that time comes.

And towed decoys are supposed to give larger reflections and lure the HOJ systems. With barrage jamming the tiny missile seeker wont be able to track as it should so it will switch to HOJ, and that makes it target the towed decoy.

And i didn’t really talk about the kill , i just say , by using tatic the F-35 can still come near and get the first lock ,first shot at 4th or 4.5th gen fighter even if they were equipped with MALD-j and good IRST , and i have said before using the tatic the f-35 only fly half the distance as enemy fighter so it always get out of the IRST coverage before the enemy can get into th 80 km range , well unless the enemy can fly at mach 3.2

All fighters can get close to the enemy by using tactics. Flying like this will make it hard to get BVR kills… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbp6JlBpDjs

In the Finnish army trials for countermeasure systems to their FA18s the BOL was successful in 57 out of 57 trials, that might sort of give a hint on where we are when it comes to missile effectiveness.

And close engagements is sort of the last thing you would want in the F35.

i dont know much about it about it but all information i can find say that it almost imposible for RWR to detected AESA radar :confused: , may be because the AESA changing the frequency too fast then ?
and Btw AESA radar like apg-77 change frequency 1000 times/sec so the power in each frequency may be 1/1000th ?

may be it like trying to detected enemy aircraft in ground clutter :p , even when the RCS is big that still a very hard work

I’ve read some interesting papers from the Swedish army on background clutter and how one can use jamming to pretty much hide the airplanes and what tactics to use with it. Lets just say you have a copule of stealth drones behind your airplanes that randomly emitts signals and then go quiet and then emitt and go quiet etc.


The top picture is just an extreme version of a high clutter/noise environment and the lower is LPI spikes. The F35 is very close to the noise level in pic 2 at distance, the closer you get with your emissions the higher the spikes/returns will get and when they are above the threshold you will spot the F35. In a peace time environment the F35 can be spotted at +45 km head on, in a war timw scenario with AWACS in the background the noise level might easily double. With random jamming (but constand barrage jamming) from multiple sources that emit a few bursts, disapear and then appear some place else (networked jamming) it will be hard to figure out if the returns are real or if someone is messing with you. The key is to make your radars filter threshold to up and thus ignoring the real targets.

So the LPI signals are weaker than normal, and old systems will ignore them while new ones (like SPECTRA) will find them.

In Pic 9, try to imagine finding a target that reflects around 0db. (This is what the missile is facing closer to the jammers). And then a burst of 40+ targets (a fighter can drop over 1000 depending on config) that all are refclecting 0db to +40db depending on output, all of them moving in different directions and clutter coming from various angles. I dont think that the missiles ever will win this battle unless the targets EWS is old.

actually even the powerful radar like irbis-e can only see F-35 from about 45 km ,Raven ES-05 will not be a problem 😮 , the main threat is the enemy’s main IRST that can look out to 80 km , have coverage angle of about 60 degree ,out of that coverage then the F-35 be safe :diablo: (iam talking about irst like EOTS , ols-35 ,OFS ,aas-42 not something like AAR-54 , DAS ) and in fact the cruise speed of most aircrafts is 800 km/h ( yeah i know there some supercruise fighter out there but not many ) and when the F-35 detected the enemy formation it can fly perpendicular at top speed of mach 1.6 for 46 km then it will get out of enemy’s irst coverage angle ( 80*tan (30 degree )= 46 ) , and F-35 do have quite long range of about 2200 km
P/s : at the moment there is no drop -able pylon so i think the enemy’s aircraft that have RCS of atleast 1 m2 and have cruise speed of about 800 km/h , they will be detected and track by the F-35 from 160 km , to get in the 80 km range for the irst to work they will have to fly for about 90-80 km
while to get out of enemy’s IRST cover angle the F-35 only have to fly for 46 km :), and the biggest advantage of F-35 is that it can see the enemy first

Depends. Pylons dont reflect that much. But i agree that IRST will get more and more attention. And this is an area where the Eurofighters and Russians are very strong.

But when we talk about decoys and dispensers… the BOL system (used by pretty much everyone) carries 160 dispensable packs in every unit. And there is one unit in every pylon.

So for a tiny fighter like Gripen E it will have 4 integraded units and at least 6-10 in the pylons. This equates to 1600-2240 disposables/decoys (chaffs/flairs or a mix).. per plane. With a jamming pod they fit more in the pod.

Does this give you an idea on how hard it is to actually hit a fighter jet with a missile (if they are prepared)?

Remember, all BVR kills have been against enemies that havent used any form of countermeasure (jammers, dispensers etc). (If anyone has a single source proving this statement wrong please post it)

BOL http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Electronic_Warfare_Solutions/Counter_Measure_Dispenser_Systems/BOL_Advanced_Countermeasure_Dispenser/Technical_specifications/
Pod http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Electronic_Warfare_Solutions/Integrated_EW_Systems/BOZ_EC_CM_pod_with_MAW1/Technical_specifications/

I know I only post SAAB stuff, but i just feel comfortable navigationg their site. I know many others have similar systems, this is just an example mkay?

I bet you got your info from this link 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_HAL_Tejas

The recommendations to design a bird around a proven engine were given while designing these two. HF-25 and HF-73, as design upgrade of HF-24 and for DPSA.

I stand corrected and yes, that was my source. Still, the design looks very much like the Mirage III and other fighters from that era (1960-1975) so I didn’t bother to question it.

So maybe it isnt a disaster as a project, it’s just 23 years of waiting for a design that would have been modern in 1965.

About the second part.

I hate to divert this thread, but 2-4 years from now, India would be making more parts of Tejas at home than Sweden would be making of Gripen. In fact, everything, except the engine of course.

That is completely true. Its cheaper for SAAB to outsource parts of the work than to do everything themselves. But they hold the blueprints, they build the controlsystem, they assemple the jets etc. To redesign the fuel nozzles, the control stick and start a production line of composits that are old within ten years isnt economical. Maybe it will be for India since they have low salaries and can export the composite materials due to the lower production costs. If SAAB would do all that in Sweden the fighter would cost more than the Rafale or EF2000.

Its a tough choice, national pride in a 100% swedish production or getting a great product at a great price that countries actually can afford.

Look, there is nothing to gain for India to just go in for a ready-made fighter in the light fighter or light-medium fighter class. ADA/DRDO/HAL have come to the 90% project completion phase for the Tejas Mk1 and abandoning that would be the most near-sighted decision ever, one that is never going to be made since it would effectively end any future fighter/UCAV development in India.

Tejas is just a failed political project to build up an industry. Its basically a fighter from the 70s with modern materials. Considering the design its similar to Mirage III and Viggen (except for the canards).

* If they where to get the Gripen they would most likely get to build it themselves = know how in manufacturing for future systems (the purpose of Tejas).
* SAAB, as always, would offer them all the know how thats needed to alter the design and make a unique Indian version. A Naval Gripen E with F414EPE has been discussed, and that could become an Indian version.
* Open architecture for weapons integration (since the critical systems are separated from wepon controls etc. This makes it easier to implement custom specific systems like new pods, apps and weapons.
…oh, and they would get one of the best modern fighters money can buy. Lets say they build teh Gripen EI as a joint development with Sweden and with most R&D and all production in India? It would probably feel good for India to develop and build a high class fighter in 5-10 years when Tejas has been a project since 1969 with finalized designphase in 1975… with flying prototypes since 2001. I say just drop it and do it right the next time. 30 years ago Tejas would be a close contender to Mirage III and Draken, but today?

The offer to Brazil is similar. If they say yes then Brazil will manufacture all Gripens sold in Latin America. That is both a great business offset AND a great way to give them know how.

EDIT: Gripen A took 15 years from decision to introduction (delays included) and 9 years from first flight to introduction. Tejas has taken 32 years from decision to flying prototype and is expected (if there wont be more delays) to enter service 12 years after flight tests. That is a total of 44 years… unless there are more delays.

The program cost that American asked for selling 24 F-16C/D Block52 to Egypt during 2009 was also 3.2 billion USD.

If Switzerland can really introduce 22 JAS-39E with the program cost of “just 3.2 billion USD” at the time of 2018, then I will say that the program is so cheap that it is almost too good to be true according to the western world’s standard:D

The price is already fixed. SAAB usually delivers on time and with the agreed price tag, in this specific case the Swedish taxpayers will take any possible additional costs. My guess is that SAAB will make a small profit from this and a larger profit from the deal with Sweden.

1-F-16 dont have any dual rack for air to air missile ( i have no idea why :confused:)
3- no software can help 1 missile to intercept 2 missiles 😀

P/s : i just think about the decoy idea again , An aircraft that have rack and pylon will have RCS = 1m2 at least , so the Apg-81 on F-35 can track them from 160 km 😎 , while 80 km is the longest range any fighter can hope to see the F-35 by IRST , the detection range by radar is even shorter , so if the F-35’s pilot detected too many targets on his radar screen he may choose to fly perpendicular to the flying direction of these targets as most fighter have radar and irst that provide a 60° -70° coverage so if the pilot fly for 40-50 km perpendicular to the enemy then he will go out side the detection coverage of enemy sensor:p ( think of it as a triangle ) he then can turn back to attack enemy , the result is that the stealth aircraft still enjoy first lock , first shoot advantage :p even the range of the IRST on both side are the same
correct me if iam wrong

1 Correct
2 Lol, i think you got me there. I was thinking if you carry 4 IRIS-T, then its only a software issue wether or not you can engage multiple targets (unless the seeker head is from the stone age).

By flying low you wont expose your pylons to the enemy and the ground creates clutter. If you fly in a place like this: http://mb.cision.com/Public/183/9317381/9e89d517aac90fa7_org.jpg then what you carry doesnt matter. The purpose is an intercept for the expected enemy route and then unleash a hell consisting of a huge amout of targets. And now you have a clean fighter if you have dropable pylons. Maybe you might keep wing tip missiles.

Another thing is the fact that the target will have warning receivers that point out where the enemy is. So whoever uses their own radar tells where they are first.

And now we have moved on from countermeasures and missile seekers to “first shoot” ranges. Also… jamming will make the effective range shorter… way shorter. In the case of F15C vs Su30MKI the F15 could not get any sort of missile lock on at ny range! And that is a pretty large target. We will see how good the new AESAs are, but add a jamming pods (ALQ-218 and ALQ-99) on a few fighters and it will be borderline impossubru to rely on radar alone.

I think that the pilots trying to get a lock on a group of 8 F16, out of which 3 have ALQ-218+ALQ-99, jamming as soon as they are found and responding by sending off some 50 target drones to loiter in the area will fell like this:

What is the most logical thing to do? The fighters that sent of the target drones are now in a pretty clean config and can chase the F35s (or whatever the enemy would be) pretty far… and noone knows where the genuine targets are (except for one side…). Personally i would just rely more on tactics, countermeasures and IR missiles since the F35 cutaways show that it has very few dispensers. Just use MICA IR and some extra jamming pods and i have a hard time seeing how that would make you number two in BVR encounters.

But this whole mind experiment is fun and it might actually work. PS… how do you fly perpendicular to an object that loiters for 4-500km and follows GPS-coordinates, aka has no straight line in the path? DS

EDIT: Just because a human can se a burning candle up to 48 km away it doesnt mean we can repeat it with high clutter (like daylight, fog etc)

RoE never let’s you take the gloves off. HOJ would make a difference and newer AMRAAM is multi mode, allowing dual active and passive strategies at the same time. You don’t want to rely on electronics for survival, they are simply a situational tool. Eventually you want to get away from them.

Thats why electronic jamming is just one of the countermeasures used.

Networked jamming from multiple sources go a long way to defeat multimode trackers.

And then you still have to beat chaffs + towed decoys + possible hardkill systems like IRIS-T.

I think the comparison is based too much on the “official metrics” and speculation.

Has there, to this date, been any confirmed BVR kill on any airplane that has used jammers and taken evasive maneuvers?

AFAIK it hasn’t.

This is the playing field today, radar homing missiles:
Jamming. The missile seekers radar will pretty much always have a disadvantage against jammers. A small radar will pretty much always lose that figh. Barrage jamming, DRFM jamming (works well today), networked jamming (cross eye jamming with interrupted transmisisons) etc.

Better seekers (radars) wont make jamming useless. So one could add a new function like Home on Jam. But that works poorly when its tracking three targets that appear in different places all the time (networked jamming + cross eye jamming). And still… barrage jamming will be effective even with better seekers.

Decoys. Chaffs + jamming from random directions where there suddenly are 40 new targets, 20 larger than the original one, 20 of roughly the same size… + reflections from the jammers + split S that gives RCS-spikes and totally changes shape and RCS of original target… Which reflection is now what? All targets give doppler effects that could be genuine too…

Combine this with standard jamming and it starts to get clear why missiles will have a hard time hitting the planes. Stealth or no stealth.

The difference here between gen 4++ fighters and F35 is that the old ones usually carries towed decoys while the F35 only have them in external pylons… and external pylons are not standard for the F35. So the F35 will be harder to find, but it will have less countermeasures (by count).

And these are just a few of the problems for the missiles themselves that have to be overcome before we can disqus flight performance, radar range etc. In a high clutter environment… what performance is expected from a small radar anyways? And at what ranges do we expect to get a lock on?? Im sceptic about if its possible to get a lock on without alerting the enemy if one is using the onboard radar…

Just look at this video from Axalp. Is it fair to say that max range is totally irrelevant here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbp6JlBpDjs

So to sum it up:
The F35, as well as all other modern fighters, will have a great advantage over AAM if they can jam, drop decoys (towed ones of chaffs).

The main bottleneck when it comes to survival agains the missiles wont be the stealth, it will be the jam resistance in the missiles (that always will have troubles unless they are huge). During the coming 10 years AESA will probably become standard on all BVR-missiles, still… todays EWS systems will be hard to defeat, even with the new seekers.

In twenty years we might be able to crack the jamming of today. But by then both sides will have evolved.

Maybe when we have autonomous LOAL on BVR IR missiles we can start measuring flight characteristics och the various sorts and start calculating.