seahawkand to be honest people seem to overestimate the super cruise ability of fighter
it may be really good thing in the past but now it not as important as stealth and electronic otherwise mig-31 is the best fighter 😉
btw it seem that in bad weather ( lots of cloud ) then no fighters can beat f-35 because if their irst not working then no matter how kinematic advantage they have they will only see f-35 within 50 km or less (even with the most powerful fighter radar now )=> well within NEZ of meteor or aim-120d
even in nice weather f-35 only have problem when it go against fighter with rcs = 0.1 m2 or below but except f-15se ,all these rafale , ef-2000 , lca , f-18 e/f , Gripen hang their missiles external on rack which will increase Rcs A LOT so the f-35 always have first lock advantage ,
the f-15se IRST dont have laser finder range like EOTS on f-35 so it still have disadvantage in lock , shot distance against the f-35 even if they have equal rcs
Unfortunately the planes your listed ar no longer the most modern designs. I suggest you take a look at Pak-Fa and the Chinese fighter designs under development.
Eurofighter RCS depends on the angle. However I can say that it can be surprisingly high and surprisingly low, but all design criteria have been over achieved. In a hot war scenario (when money is no problem) it should do ok in its original envisaged role.
seahawkI would say so.
seahawkback to the rafale stuff…
While it seems obvious that the amount of weapons it could carry in that “silent” version is limited, I’d say that they probably made it easy to remove the “coffins” so that once that reduced RCS is less important it can have again full carrying capabilities.
The number of weapons carried by a F-35 in stealth configuration is even smaller. The Rafale approach seems way more practical.
seahawkThat all depends on how much you spent to up-grade the system. Radar, optical systems, improved missiles, warheads, etc. HQ-2 has even gotten a passive phased array radar which does away allows to track and engage several targets at the same time. Better missiles motors, improved steering systems have also made the missile more lethal. In its up-graded form it is still a valid system.
seahawkArea rule fuselage design. The F-100 is “fat” compared to the F-8.
seahawkThat was far from TopGun, it was even far from the daily bounces between NATO aircraft. It was something along the line of BFM tactics, with both parties following a scripted sequence of manoeuvres.
The basic use of the MiG-23 would have been similar to the MiG-23, with a pair of fighters being directed by GCI to intercept enemy planes. The better avionics of the MiG-23 should have been an advantage, especially the use of BVR missiles. In the offensive role MiG-23 fighters would use their speed to make slashing attacks against NATO CAPs to open a gap for strikers. High Speed and the use of BVR would give them a decent chance to fire the first shot, which allows them to gain in initiative in the merge, but the high fuel use would mean that they would bingo quickly, especially if they want to get out at high speeds as well. The experience of forgein MiG-23 users can be called a mixed bag. The plane had some serious problems with the avionics in the early versions and was hard to master. Many pilots preferred the MiG-21, which was more nimble.
seahawkThe practical choice would be to get the cheapest trainer aircraft and add new F-16s for the ANG that can also be used as first posting for future F-22 pilots. The USAF could learn something from the IDF/AF in that regard.
seahawkUse your attack choppers for what?
Against a well equipped enemy, you will surely have to adjust your tactics. The COIN style offensive approach at medium altitude and far out from friendly ground troops, operating over likely enemy troop concentrations, will be not working. On the other hand using them as highly mobile ATGM and fire support teams, will be. Nothing can stall an enemy armored attack as quickly and as effective as flight of AHs launching their ATGM load. Nothing can stall an infantry attack as quickly as an AH laying down guided air-burst FFAR (yes those are on the way) and chain gun fire. As a defensive asset the attack helicopter is still invaluable.
seahawkGreat idea to add an old airframe with dubious OEM support and totally foreign avionics to the fleet. Perhaps the RAF could rebuilt some Sunderland flying boats, re-engine them with RR engines, add the avionics of the MR.4 as a easy solution.
seahawkF-35 will be good. The problem, that even the USAF seems to grasp right now, is that numbers can not be ignored. Even if they would have a fleet purely made up of F-22 and F-35, it would mean that those high value platforms would be flying circles in the sky, doing CAP, HVCAP or BARCAP, because those missions have to be flown, regardless of the fighter type you assign to them. But the planes flying those necessary missions will be missing for offensive air ops. So there is a point from which more effective planes can no longer compensate reduced numbers and you actually give up offensive capability.
seahawkFirst off all the Netherlands has no fighters deployed on their Caribbean islands in the first place. So usually a Venezuelan strike force would not encounter any defence at all. Secondly if the Dutch would have time to deploy fighters, they would not need to attack invade Venezuela, they would need to keep the enemy out of their airspace. Strikes against enemy airfields could be made using stand-off weapons. Intercepting enemy strikers should be something Meteor equipped Grippens should do well enough. Do not forget that a defending CAP would need to turn on their radar anyway, so the Stealth advantage will be lost, while strikes can stay nose cold. Secondly the long range of the Meteor missile is an advantage when it comes to taking out strikes before they release their weapons. And then there is the number problem again.
Considering the high threat level described. It would a constant CAP of at least 4 planes + 4 at ready 5 for CAP with 24 hours coverage. So that is at least 12 planes just for CAP. For 2 strike sorties it would be 8 planes as well + 4 reserve. That means at least 24 planes in total. Given a fleet readiness of 66%. They would need at least 36 planes to cover such a deployment under surge conditions. (no CAP over the Netherlands, no training, no attrition replacements) If you want to have 33% attrition reserve for the deployed force, you are looking at a fleet of 8 + 2 (down for maintenance). So bare minimum is around 46 planes under surge conditions.
So while F-35 is desirable capability wise, it comes with the drawback that price and operating costs force you to operate a small fleet, often too small to operate on its own in any meaningful way.
seahawkFor 85%+ of combat missions, F-35s are designed to operate in a 4-ship. Since a third of all combat jets are down for maintenance at any point of time, that leaves Denmark with two 4-ships. A single 4-ship has the ability to penetrate a sophisticated IADS, eliminate DCA and defending SAMs, and kill several high value targets with GBU-31s.
That is good combat performance and it doesn’t take an expensive circus of OCA fighters to defeat DCA, ARM shooters to suppress SAMs, and jammers to scramble SAM radars after the ARM shooters run out of $1M missiles. 😮 How many $1M ARMs does Denmark possess?
So you agree with my previous post, that 12 planes are not enough.
4 down for maintenance
4 for air policing over Denmark
leaves just 4 to be deployed with no spare
seahawkBae 146s – seriously? Only used airframes around which should last another 30 years doing a mission they never where designed for. Airframes and engines not even prepared to operate in the salty environment a MPA faces. And this is a better option than new (!!) C295 Persuaders?
seahawkA 12 plane flight 2 with SDB and the rest with 2 thousand pound laser JDAMS
Pound the bombs through an entrance on top of each other. the USAF is looking at this.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/penetrate-faster-harder-with-n.html
A rocket assisted bunker buster carried internally in a F-35.
Since we are discussing weapons on the drawing board this is appropriate.
Too bad that Denmark, with a fleet of 12 F-35, will hardly ever be able to launch such a mission. :diablo:
Pretty sure people suggesting that NATO nations should make their procurement decisions around participating in US-led wars of convenience on the other side of the world is new. Denmark didn’t purchase F-16s so it could assist in the invasion of Grenada.
The transition from defensive alliance against an overwhelming adversary to quasi-imperial global police force isn’t something you can just paper over, sorry.
100% correct. But this expeditionary adventures are the only possible reason for Denmark to even consider a F-35. For homeland defence F-16s, Grippen or even Korean F/A-50 would do.
seahawkWhether one agrees with it or not (I don’t — surprise!) it is astonishing the degree to which the notion of ‘NATO ops’ is now advanced as if this is an entirely unremarkable thing, that it is eminently natural that Denmark should plan its force structure around providing moral support for the United States’ global misadventures. What sleight of hand accomplished this unremarked transition for NATO? What forces contrive to sustain it amidst the public failures of the last decade, ongoing fiscal pressure, and the continued absence of anything resembling a real threat?
Well if we discard NATO ops as a potential use, we are down to air policing only. Well then it is 12 Grippen for them. I would think this would be an even better choice. (you can replace the Grippen with F-16E if you like)
Sign In
