It looks everyone agree that with 2.5G one will be probably dead, so what do you think how much G enough (and in which condition?) to evade a missile like R-77 or AMRAAM?

USAF looking for additional 60 F-22, reports Reuters:

WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) – The U.S. Air Force is seeking to buy about 60 more top-of-the-line Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) F-22 fighter jets, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Wednesday, despite Pentagon efforts to end the program.

Adm. Mike Mullen said the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, had talked about buying “60 or so” more of the radar-evading “Raptors” beyond the 183 now on order, which would bring the total to 243.

That is far less than the 750 the Air Force once planned to buy and well below the 381 the Air Force more recently has said it needs to guarantee air supremacy. But it is still more than the current administration’s cap of 183 in production.

“We’re going to work our way through that,” Mullen said, citing the Air Force’s drive to get 60 more F-22s. “I am concerned that it is such an expensive system.”

The F-22, which costs about $142 million apiece in fiscal 2008 not including development costs, is designed to dominate enemy airspace at the start of a war and clear the way for other warplanes, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is also being developed by Lockheed.

The F-35 is a family of radar-evading fighters that Pentagon officials now say will cost about half that of an F-22, once production ramps up. The F-35 is being developed with eight foreign partners: Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

Mullen said the U.S. military’s future was with the F-35, but cautioned that new weapons systems often ran into schedule delays, which could fuel a need for additional F-22s.

“It’s very important we have capability to bridge to that (F-35) system with respect to the broad range of capabilities for the country,” Mullen said.

Defense analysts say the Air Force is promoting a plan to buy 60 F-22s under a second, three-year contract with Lockheed that would run through 2012. By one account, the Air Force plan may involve a push for ending a congressional ban on possible F-22 exports. Japan, Australia and Israel have shown interest in acquiring the F-22, designed to be the world’s top fighter.

The issue is likely to be hotly contested in Congress and is one of the first items the Obama administration will have to examine. Mullen said President-elect Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates had made it clear the new administration would carefully scrutinize all major weapons programs.

He said he was “obviously discouraged” by rising costs in so many weapons programs and it was clear that cost controls were urgently needed across the military.

Given the world financial crisis, it was imperative for all military services to “squeeze our budgets, to draw in … where we can,” Mullen said.

But Lockheed’s F-22 has drawn the ire of the Pentagon’s top arms buyer John Young. Last month he criticized the performance of the F-22, saying the fighter jet needs more than $8 billion of upgrades to be made “capable and affordable to operate.”

Absent new orders from the incoming Obama administration, Lockheed is due to inform its suppliers of shutdown plans early next year for the F-22 production line.

Congress, keen to maintain jobs linked to the fighter jet, has approved up to $140 million in bridge funds for 20 F-22s to be purchased in fiscal 2010. If Obama’s team signs on to continued production by March 1, another $383 million can be spent on parts that require a long time to produce. Lockheed, the Pentagon’s No. 1 supplier in terms of sales, produces the F-22 in partnership with Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and United Technologies Corp’s (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Pratt & Whitney, which builds its dual F-119 engines.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1034076820081210?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10272

Remeber that F-35 is too noisy? Here is the possible consequence of this situation:

Combination of CelRADAR and aqustic devices can track stealth targets.

There are lots of rumours about F-35 EW capability, its sure that F-35 has very advanced digital-RWR system, so it can easily evade radars; but if the issue is active jamming there is no more than speculations; typical AESA radar is generally narrow band system so they may not be so useful (but it will have some capability), there lots of rumours about network-attack with algorithm based signal transmission but I still wonder when these things will be avalible or how effective they will be. I think in long-run active-EW systems will be more important even for stealth aircraft so we may see stronger EW capability in F-35.

Here is a material with copy rights, so fair use only!

“”Questions raised over Norway’s JSF cost calculations

Norway’s claim that Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) will be significantly cheaper than Saab’s Gripen NGs is being challenged on several fronts.

Norway’s own analyses show that JSF purchase and operation costs could be several orders of magnitude greater than those officially declared. Furthermore, none of the costs for the US aircraft have been guaranteed in any way, whereas the Gripen package has been underwritten by the Swedish government. The pricing announcement also comes at a time when US figures show the best-case unit cost for the F-35A will be almost twice that cited in Norway.

On 20 November Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Minister of Defence Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen announced that Lockheed Martin would supply 48 F-35As for NOK18 billion (USD2.59 billion, at current exchange rates). This translates into a unit cost of just under USD54 million (NOK374.7 million) per aircraft.

However, the US Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 budget plan calculates the unit cost of an F-35A at USD96.8 million, assuming a production run of 1,763 aircraft. Early production aircraft will cost as much as USD237 million each. The price of Norway’s aircraft should, therefore, be somewhere in between.

Norway’s announced unit cost also contrasts sharply with the officially sanctioned price of USD15.2 billion for Israel’s 75 JSFs, which, with extensive support and equipment costs included, works out at more than USD200 million per aircraft.

Neither do Norway’s announced figures appear to be in tune with its own studies. A Holte Consulting report for the Norwegian Ministry of Defence estimates a package of 48 F-35As would cost between NOK39.5 and NOK59.7 billion (average NOK49.5 billion). According to Stoltenberg these same aircraft will cost only NOK18 billion.

The Swedish offer to Norway guaranteed a ‘total operational’ price of NOK24 billion for 48 fully equipped Gripen NGs with active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track system, datalinks and electronic warfare (EW) systems. That price also included all pilot and technician training, simulators, mission planning and support systems, spares and logistics – “everything except weapons and fuel”, according to one source in Norway. The price was in current-year Kroner and delivery dates were fixed. There is no information on how the rival JSF price was structured.

In Norway’s October 2008 Project 7600 Future Fighter Capability report the best estimate for a 30-year life cycle cost (LCC) for 56 JSFs was NOK165 billion. The report says that no cost data could be acquired from Sweden and so the Gripen NG’s LCC was estimated to be an arbitrary NOK30 billion higher at NOK195 billion.

In fact Sweden guaranteed a price of NOK11 billion for a 20-year LCC package that would cover all operational support costs, including system updates over a continuous three-year cycle. Twenty years was the term specified under Norway’s request for binding information and the Swedish price included all fuel, lubricant and other consumables. The Swedish team based its figures on Gripen’s 120,000 hours of operational flying plus the contracted support costs for the Czech and Hungarian air forces.

Finally, Sweden offered Norway a quote for another 10 Gripen NGs and 10 additional years of LCCs. The complete Gripen NG package for 58 aircraft and 30 years’ LCC support was NOK55 billion.

With a project debrief scheduled for early December, Norway’s calculations on the cost of its new fighters will no doubt be further scrutinised.

Speaking to Jane’s , Saab chief executive officer Åke Svensson said his company and the Swedish government were waiting for the 4 December debrief on the Norwegian selection. “We need more information. Otherwise everything is speculation and we are looking for facts. We don’t recognise the evaluation performance or the financial figures. There were over 1,000 provisions in the Norwegian request and we believe we were compliant with all of them, so it’s strange to be told we don’t meet the Norwegian Air Force’s requirements. From what everyone has read about the JSF programme the price they have quoted is surprisingly low, if it’s true. There might need to be a government-to-government discussion to explain that.”

“Our mindset,” continued Svensson, “was this would be the beginning of a 30-year relationship around a fantastic high-tech product that was going to launch a new era of co-operation for government and industry alike, as part of the wider evolution of Europe in the post-Cold War world. Gripen was to be the catalyst for business with 200 companies throughout Norway. Now Norway has decided not to take that opportunity and so we will review everything on a case-by-case basis. Some of it may be able to continue, but the total level will certainly be less.”
© 2008 Jane’s Information Group””

Thanks for the link, but these system may work well against slow aircrafts. So what about pretty fast modern jet?

About Sineva from Janes news:

“……….The Sineva is a third-generation liquid-propellant SLBM, commissioned in July 2007 and successfully tested in December of that year. In different modifications it can carry four or 10 nuclear individually targetable re-entry vehicles, each with a yield of 100-500 kT. The RSM-54 can also be mounted with conventional or low-yield nuclear warheads to deliver pinpoint strikes…….”

It is interesting to see low-yield nuclear and conventional warhead; this might be new doctrine of Russian military.

You sure about that? I’m not sure how you add a bigger airframe and more fuel and get a lighter missile. :confused:

Yeah I’m sure about it, but MSE is only 3kg lighter:)