hopsalot1. IRS&T scan volume of the sky like radar, when detect target can automatically start to track it unlike radar (radar tracking range = 60- 80% detection range)
2. Range estimation is based on published figures:
– for OLS-35 (50/90km against head on/ tail subsonic fighter)
– 160 km for PIRATE against supersonic fighter with AB (tail asspect)
– FSO: it is able to track (not detect) a targets like the size of Mirage 2000 at the distance of considerably more than 20 nm (37 km).Aircraft Illustrated, FEB, 2009, Rafale from the cockpit (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?86497-Rafale-News-V/page18)
-F-22 detection and tracking in head on engagement from 50 km rather suite well to above IRST performance
3. I didn’t say 4th gen planes will consistently detect stealthy aircraft at 50km – current US F-15C/E, F-16, F/A-18E/F don’t have IRST so they just can’t detect stealthy plane from 50 km.
4. Like I said earlier only one german EF had IRST (probably test aircraft two seater, Luftwaffe EF don’t use PIRATE at all) – so the chance to detect F-22 by radar was rather small ( but the pilot didn’t said they were never able to get within 20NM of the F-22s – but that was difficult without IRST and Raptor dominate BVR).
Sorry, but up to now you didn’t prove me anything.
Yes, IRSTs are capable of searching for targets, as their name implies, but they can not search large volumes of the sky with nearly the same speed and precision as a radar and they can generally track only small numbers of targets. It is not a given that they can establish a consistent track once a target is detected. Like any other sensor there will be cases where detection is marginal and tracking may be unreliable or intermittent.
Yes there are a lot of different range claims floating around the internet but you have to understand that IRST performance is highly dependent on geometry, atmospheric conditions and the target. (both type of aircraft and throttle setting)
None of this is to say that an IRST isn’t a valuable tool but an IRST is absolutely not a substitute for a radar. Any aircraft forced to fight reliant on an IRST while its opponent was able to use a radar would be fighting at a serious disadvantage. (and that of course is the point of reducing RCS)
hopsalotThe Aim 120D has a rocket engine, and that is what I described there.
The AIM-120D does have a rocket engine so you are correct about that at least.
Essentially everything else you have written here is wrong as has been shown over and over again at this point.
hopsalotSo now we have discussion on the same level (speculation vs speculation).
Please prove me that 4+ gen fighter will be unable to track LO target from ~50km.
Prove your unsupported assertion isn’t true? :rolleyes:
Advanced counter stealth technology will became more mature than 20 years ago – lets see at F-35 and Su-35 sensors (L-band AESA, IRST, EOTS, etc).
Sure, and everyone that is still developing combat aircraft is making stealth a top priority. That should tell you where they see the likely future balance of stealth vs counter-stealth.
Eurofighter pilots train with LO plane (F-22) and think that IR sensor can detect such plane from BVR usefull range (EF-2000 hasn’t got LRF, and can use PIRATE to cue BVRAAM in totally passive way – I read about that in EF review 1/2009 page 17). Everything indicates that other 4+ gen fighter has similar capabilities.
Lets see what EF pilots said at Farnborough (after Red Flag):http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/#.UohyL-IgVy0
They train against Raptor, and one Luftwave EF-2000 had PIRATE (two seater) so they probably test IRST in real condition against real F-22.
They said that Pirate was “capable to find” a stealthy target at 50km, “especially if it is large and hot.”
That doesn’t actually tell us anything useful. The F-22s could have been in afterburners at the time, or that could have been from a favorable geometry, and of course it doesn’t say a thing about whether or not the Eurofighter in question was actually able to maintain a track or obtain useful range information.
I love how on the internet that one little snippet turns into “4th generation planes will consistently detect stealthy aircraft at 50km under real world conditions.” 😎
Naturally you ignore the part where the Eurofighter unit commander said of the F-22: “Its unique capabilities are overwhelming,” or where the Eurofighter pilots stated they were never able to get within 20NM of the F-22s.
The bottom line is that the Eurofighter is an extremely capable aircraft, nobody questions that, but 5th generation fighters are most certainly the future and any 4th generation fighter opposing 5th generation aircraft will be fighting at a substantial disadvantage.
hopsalotYou didn’t provide any serious sources, so your arguments are only poor speculation.
First you post this.
Then this:
1.Performance difference between the Aim-120D and Meteor is not much lower than between the Aim-120C and Aim-7:
-Meteor has 3 x NEZ of AIM-120C-5
-AIM-120D has 50 % better maximum range than C model (not NEZ)
-AIM-7M NEZ is little worse than AIM-120B ( see BVR engagement difference betwen 1991 & 1999 – around 25-30 km for both missiles)
-according RAF AIM-120C-5 has 10% better operational range than AIM-120B
2. IRST will not required a LRF for totally passive BVR shoot (see last EF world). Dynamic ranging, sensor fusion, MIDS solve this problem (Ef-2000, Rafale, Su-35, F-35 can use IRST alone to fire BVRAAM).
3.I don’t think that any 5th gen fighter ( including F-35, PAK FA, F-22A ) will totally dominate the sky in that way like f-22 in red flag… 144:0
-Pk of BVR missile will be rather much smaller than red flag 75-80% in EW environment (ex Ef-2000 pilot achieved 16 kills from 18 missile shoot… in red flag, in real life AMRAAM achieve ~50% in BVR vs poor targets)
-advanced 4.5 gen fighter will detect, track 5th gen from military usefull range (+50km) by IRST + RWR + radar sensor fusion (Su-35, Rafale, EF-2000, Gripen NG, F-15SE, SH roadmap)
-Su-35 will have 12 AAM (including R-27ET BVR IR weapon and RVV-BD with quite high speed and good range)
-Rafale will use its MICA NG IR BVR weapon + Meteor
I didn’t said 5th gen will not have advantageous in BVR (especially F-22 and PAK FA with great kinematics), but not as big as you think ( 144:0 was possible only in red flag environment scenario against 4th gen fighter without IRST, sensor fusion, and good tactics against stealthy jet). In future real war scenario every advanced air force will be capable to deal with LO aircrafts.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are some facts mixed in there… but there is an awful awful lot of speculation and pure guesswork in there as well, particularly the bit about 4th generation fighters being able to consistently track 5th generation aircraft at 50km.
hopsalotCan’t use the IRST (uses active LRF for ranging). Can’t use radar (gives away position to RWRs). It would appear BVR combat has become nonviable.
Fortunately, the missile launch platform doesn’t need to self designate the target. It can be done by a radiating aircraft at long range and targeting data safely handed off to the shooter.
That assumes you can use your datalink without being located by its emissions, which is not the case for 4th generation and older aircraft…
The F-35 with its MADL will be able to operate as part of a network without giving away its location. As you correctly stated this will allow F-35s to engage targets using off-board targeting and passive sensors. (the capabilities of which are greatly enhanced by networking)
4th generation jets meanwhile will not be stealthy against radar sensors, will not be able to employ their own radars without revealing themselves, and will not be able to participate in a network without revealing themselves. I suppose hypothetically they could set their datalinks to a receive only mode as the F-22 does with Link-16, but this is a less than ideal solution of course…
hopsalotI think history has shown that older jets typically have performed better than stealth bombers (maybe the B2 could be called an exception).
In Iraq we saw it for the F111, A10, F16 vs the F117. Att types carried out more sorties, had better mission success ratio and cost a lot less while having the exact same losses when operated in the same mission profiles.
Incredibly simplistic. The F-117s were not flying the same missions as the other jets.
But costs are not the same as for 4,5th gen fighters. Firstly, we already know that it will use more than 40% more fuel than the Rafale, just from going by weight. (relevant because weight –> more thrust needed for the same speed)
We are also talking about an aircraft that will need 40% more building material than the Rafale (including more expensive materials due to the compromises in weight and space management internally).
And do note that Rafale is roughly 25-35% up from Gripen NG in terms of weight and fuel (F404/RM8 isnt the most fuel efficient engine).
The F-35 is a bigger jet with more thrust than a Rafale… but then it is smaller than something like an Su-30… everything is tradeoffs.
Regarding technological edge, that is highly speculative. Considering the messed up approach of software blocks with everything included I think that the upgrading of the F35 will be a lot more expensive and offer fewer advantages compared to say the Gripen Es approach with split avionics core. (in the F35 there is a physical split, but the software is still compiled in blocks meaning more bugs and longer TTM –> higher costs).
No, it really isn’t. The F-35 is a newer jet with a newer concept of operations and newer technology throughout. The F-35 also benefits from being a vastly larger program than something like the Gripen. Upgrade costs will be shared across a fleet of far greater size.
At the same time we already know that…
* the APG81 will use GaAs, and not GaN as the european fighters
The APG-81 does use GaAs, but so do the Europeans so there is really no difference there.
* we know that the european fighters (at least Gripen) will use a moving plate on the radar, while the APG 81 is fixed
The APG-81 is fixed, as is the Rafale. The Gripen NG and Eurofighter will use a swashplate.
* we know that the IRST systems used will be designed with a focus on airborne targets for the eurobirds while the F35 EOTS is designed for ground targets
The F-35’s IRST is a mid-wave IRST, just like that on the Mig-29, Su-27, etc. This does not mean that it is not designed for use in an air to air role. As an imaging sensor it also has the added benefit of being able to help with target ID, something that can not be done with non-imaging sensors.
* we know that at least Gripen E will carry active decoys
An interesting development, but we will see where it goes. The French have also discussed something similar.
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2013/06/rafale-developement-tragedac-and-lea.html
* the eurobirds will use the actual Meteor and not the one with clipped control surfaces
The engineers don’t think the clipped fins will make much of a difference. THe same thing was done with the AMRAAM and the difference was negligible.
* some things wont change, F35 will have lower RCS and the Eurobirds will have superior kinematic performance. The current Gripen C can pull +10G today just to mention one example (3’000ft, near corner speed). One target will be harder to see for the missile, the other will be harder to hit or get close to.
The F-35A is designed for 9G loads and can operate at AoA up to 50 degrees. (compared for instance to the Rafale’s AoA limit of 29 degrees) These are not characteristics of an unmaneuverable aircraft. Doubtless there will be areas of strength and weakness when compared to the various Eurocanards but the idea that the Eurocanards will overcome the F-35’s stealth with maneuverability is not supportable.
All fighters have their pros and cons. The F35 is by no means the end of the story for 4th gen fighters. Just look at the stuff above for a few examples.
The F-35 isn’t the end of the story for 4th generation aircraft, but certainly it signals that the end is within sight. One need only look at the response it has received on the export market to appreciate how true that is.
Another part worth noting is that the philosophy before has been to put stuff like EOTS in an external pod. The reason is simple. Upgrades cost less and you can fit larger systems in the pods with external EPU and cooliing if needed.
The F-35’s EOTS is modular and can be removed and installed as a unit. There is no penalty with regard to its ease of maintenance/upgrade relative to a pod. If anything it will be easier.
hopsalotThe good news keeps coming for the F-35. 😎
S. Korea Joint Chiefs set to back deal for 40 Lockheed F-35s -sources
Nov 15 (Reuters) – South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff were expected to endorse an “all F-35 buy” of 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets and an option for 20 more at a meeting on Nov. 22, two sources familiar with the competition said on Friday.
The Joint Chiefs’ decision must be approved by a committee chaired by the South Korean defense minister at a meeting in early December, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
A decision by the Joint Chiefs to purchase only F-35s would be a setback for Boeing Co, which had hoped to sell Seoul at least some F-15 fighters as a hedge against delays in the F-35 fighter program, which is completing development.
…
U.S. officials have said Seoul needs to make a decision by the end of the year to ensure delivery of initial F-35s in 2017 since the U.S. government must order advanced materials for the planes in coming weeks. Seoul is said to be looking at buying six F-35 fighter in the ninth batch of early production jets.
…
“Clearly the U.S will be pleased with this direction,” said one of the sources. “By committing to accept early production planes, (South) Korea will help bring down the price for early production aircraft purchased by the United States, Japan and others.”
The Eurofighter consortium, which includes BAE Systems Plc , EADS NV and Finmeccanica SpA, also submitted a bid in the South Korean competition.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/airshow-dubai-lockheed-fighter-idINL2N0J00JQ20131115
So much for the “death spiral” we heard so much about a couple years ago. With buyers lining up production is certain to ramp up substantially in the coming years. The only question now is just how much and whether the US Congress can sort out their issues.
hopsalotExcept that the cost to acquire it, is comparable or less than most 4.5G fighters. In fact the only feasible alternative for the F-35 customer looking for more options, is the Gripen NG. And the NG’s technological edge (such as it is) will not endure a decade down the line, unlike the F-35 where the size of the program ensures that it will receive a consistent stream of upgrades sanctioned and funded by the US DoD.
…and this is the key thing that people around here seem to forget. The F-35 is a fairly expensive fighter, but it is nowhere near double the cost of its competitors and its price is still falling.
Would you rather the Netherlands duplicate the deal Oman got?
The Sultanate of Oman has finally signed a long-awaited contract to buy 12 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft.
The deal, signed in Oman on Dec. 21, also includes eight Hawk jet trainers and in-service support. In all, the deal is worth £2.5 billion ($4.06 billion).
Manufacturing of the aircraft is due to begin in 2014, with first deliveries in 2017. The new Typhoons will replace Oman’s aging fleet of Sepecat Jaguars, while the new Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs) are likely to replace the fleet of Hawk 100s used for training.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_21_2012_p0-531469.xml
Now, obviously for the informed people here I am not trying to argue that the F-35’s unit price is that much lower than that of the Eurofighter and Hawk. This package obviously includes training, support, etc. (For MSphere: OMG Look! They are buying planes for $200 million each, and almost half of the order is trainers!!!!1 )
You could also use the Austria deal as an example… where they signed a two billion euro deal for just 18 early Eurofighters without multi-role capabilities. The high costs of the program later resulted in the deal being reduced to just 15 jets. (and yet where was the outrage about the Eurofighter destroying the Austrian air force’s force structure?)
The point is that buying modern fighters is expensive. If Belgium were buying another modern design they might be able to purchase in larger numbers, but we are only talking about the difference of a few jets.
hopsalotWhere do you get it from that one wouldn’t be able to take part in international actions with anything else than F-35?
Try reading the post I was responding to.
hopsalotIs there any national security reason for the Dutch to be part of NATO or need an airforce at all other than five or six aircraft for policing dutch airspace? Would it be cheaper for the Netherlands government transfer the air policing role to another agency & do away with the airforce altogether like New Zealand did?
It depends how the Netherlands view their place in the world and whether they want to be able to take part in international actions if necessary. To date they, along with most of NATO has found that worthwhile. On the other hand of course there are examples of places like Switzerland that have declined to do so. (New Zealand is really an extreme case due to their geography and their lack of close neighbors.)
In terms of leaving NATO and/or giving up an air force completely… sure that is possible… but air forces aren’t the kind of thing you can turn on and off like a light and while Europe is currently at peace history has shown that this isn’t necessarily a given. It was only a little over 20 years ago that the Cold War ended, and less than 15 years since fighting in the Balkans ended. I would suggest that maintaining a core military capability is a modest expense for a country with a population and economy as large as the Netherlands.
hopsalotF-35 on track to meet IOC targets, official says
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is on track to meet the US military’s planned initial operating capability (IOC) targets from late 2015, a senior programme official says.
With the 100th example having recently been rolled out from Lockheed Martin’s assembly line and contracts signed for the sixth and seventh lots of low-rate initial production, optimism is increasing, says F-35 weapons system programme manager Capt Paul Overstreet.
…
Overstreet says development testing of the Block 2B software required for the USMC’s operational jets is running around one month behind schedule, having been affected by sequestration cuts and a brief, fleet-wide grounding order that affected the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B earlier this year. However, he notes: “We are very confident that the US Marine Corps will be able to declare IOC during 2015.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-on-track-to-meet-ioc-targets-official-says-393029/
hopsalotTrue for development cost per unit. But production cost development is much more complex and has several optimum point depending on additional investment in the increased capacity. There is no simple linearity between higher numbers and lower unit cost.
I never said the relationship was linear…
hopsalotWrong. When you run something close to 100 % capacity you get the best ratio. For every set of capacity you have an optimum point. An aircraft plant of a projected output is optimised for that. In the case of the F-35 the present plant is oversized for some years already. LM is intrest to bring the output to the projected one to reach the optimum point without cutting into the own profits despite wrong timing.
You are confusing an optimal production rate for a specific production line with what would be ideal in a general sense.
Obviously any given production line will have an optimal rate. Speaking in general terms however higher production rates allow lower costs. (assuming production facilities are properly optimized)
The F-35 production line is over sized for its current production rate. The program was originally designed to ramp production faster than it actually has. Fortunately current plans call for production to start ramping up soon.
hopsalotWhat @MSphere wrote was confirmed by wikileaks sniffing on diplomacy channels with regard to US pressure on Norway,
no reason not to think that tactic isn’t at use vs all nations.
:rolleyes:
Nothing of the sort was “confirmed.” Honestly…
hopsalotDon’t you see what you did? You changed your ground when your original claim was proved wrong, then narrowed your focus when your new. broad, statement was proved wrong, introducing new criteria. Now you’re getting petulant, when they’re challenged.
Come off the high horse, mate. If you’d not been seeking an argument, you’d not have gone through all that.
In terms of combat aircraft, Italy has probably been Brazil’s biggest foreign partner since the 1960s. It’s had the most industrial collaboration, & the majority of combat aircraft have been wholly or mostly Italian-designed. Most Brazilian combat aircraft have recently had new radars fitted which were either designed & made in Italy, or designed & made in Brazil with Italian input. Yet you say that’s not significant.
You don’t even need to use the general “combat aircraft.” Combat capable trainers most certainly count as “fighters” if they are used as such. There is a long history of trainers serving in combat and there is no clear line between what constitutes a “trainer” and a “fighter” anyway.
MSphere, Swerve is correct.
Back to aviation, i’m sure this has been mentioned, but does anybody have info on the out of service date for their M2000’s?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=when+are+brazil%27s+mirage+2000s+going+out+of+service
Sign In
