hopsalotThe Scorpion might be a good choice considering where the progress of LG Cannon rounds is going. That bay looks to be a good spot to put the 30mm from the Apache or some other med-caliber & low-recoil cannon.
Keep in mind that even a “cheap” APKWS is $30k and a Hellfire $115k.
In all seriousness I don’t see a need for a cannon and any cannon fired from a turret at 15k ft+ isn’t going to be worth anything.
On a longer timeline I don’t see any reason to think a laser couldn’t be put on the Scorpion. Here is an article on an effort to integrate one into the Predator-C, which also has a bay with a 3,000lb capacity.
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/09/drones-armed-high-energy-lasers-may-arrive-2017/121583/
Certainly this isn’t to say that what fits in a Predator C would fit in a Scorpion, but it suggests the size of the bay is in the right ballpark.
A laser would drop the cost per engagement down to practically zero and would be the ultimate low collateral damage weapon… even more so than a cannon.
hopsalotThe Scorpion might be a good choice considering where the progress of LG Cannon rounds is going. That bay looks to be a good spot to put the 30mm from the Apache or some other med-caliber & low-recoil cannon.
Keep in mind that even a “cheap” APKWS is $30k and a Hellfire $115k.
Two words:
Laser
hopsalotYes, so do it, if your country would share your self -sufficent attitude and wouldn’t accept neither a pro bono advice from old time allies, you just deserve to end up in the same way it ended up with the LCS and the Zumwalt (ok, maybe this time without wasting so many money).
Just doesn’t bother us with this sad joke of Animo in consulendo liber anymore in such a case.
The Scorpion is a completely different aircraft built around a completely different operational concept. If you don’t see that then your advice really isn’t worth much, regardless of cost.
The AMX is a more or less traditional CAS/interdiction aircraft. I won’t waste time defining what it is, but will instead focus on how the Scorpion differs…
The Scorpion is designed as an armed ISR platform with an emphasis on loitering at altitude and employing precision guided weapons, again from altitude. Freed from any requirement to operate at low altitude, and with the benefit of the roughly 30 years of technological progress that separates it from the AMX, the Scorpion will be far cheaper and more capable in its intended role than the AMX could hope to be.
The Scorpion uses highly efficient commercial engines along with many other commercial components, modern composites, etc. It is designed with a 20,000hr airframe life…
Basically if the USAF is looking for a more or less traditional aircraft then it already has the A-10, F-15, F-16. If it is looking for a non-traditional aircraft along the lines of the Scorpion then the AMX really can’t come close to what it offers.
hopsalotUSMC touts F-35B as ‘killing machine’
Source:
FlightGlobal.com
I find it telling that even our resident fanboys have given up on calling everyone with first hand experience with the F-35 a liar at this point.
If this report had come out only a year ago we would have had a gaggle of them slapping their keyboards and insisting that everyone involved in the recent exercises must have been bought off by LM.
hopsalotIt sounds like Stephen Hawking after a night of drinking.
hopsalotThat is awesome!
Really pisses me of how red and blue politicians gave away all of ours, almost freely.
Five is about the fewest you can buy if you want to be able to maintain continuous coverage for any length of time… and even then it would become challenging if the crisis was of long duration.
It really is a shame how far many forces have allowed their capabilities to deteriorate. These are not things that can be restored on short notice, you either have them at the onset of the conflict or you don’t.
hopsalot3 days ago the iraqi Prime minister announced that the iraqi air force F16s have conducted a bombing raid in Syria on Al bu kamal for the first time. It was done with the knowledge of the Syrian and Russian commands.
This is the first official military action by Iraq outside its territory since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Yesterday, presumably in reaction to this, the Saudi Foreign Minister Al Jubair visited Iraq and sounded disheveled and surprisingly humble in tone.
Its noteworthy that this is the first visit by a Saudi minister to Iraq for over 27 years.
What connection are you trying to draw between these events?
You think the Saudi Foreign Minister scheduled a visit on 2 days notice because of the bombing raid? Why on earth would he feel any rush?
hopsalotDairy farmer would rather customers buy milk rather than cow, news at 11′.
Last I checked Flightglobal/Flight International don’t build fighters. (or sell milk, but I guess I can’t say for sure they don’t sell milk)
hopsalotI haven’t followed the Gripen E much.
Is the wing on C and E identical?
Per this chart pretty much, 30m^2 vs 31m^2:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
hopsalotIt looks like no one wants to purchase aircraft from the US anymore. The UAE was a long-time user of US fighters.
Yeah, nobody.
hopsalotYes, since midi 2014 Saab reports Gripen NG empty mass being 8.0 tonnes :
http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-ng/technical-brochure-gripen-ng-english-ver.2-jan-2015_low.pdf
Instead of 7.0-7.2 tonnes cited between 2008-2013.
There are many consequences :
* as MTOW is the the same, 16.5 ton., then the external payload is (16.5 – 8.0 – 3.4 of internal fuel) tonnes = 5.1 tonnes;
* worse climbing rate and acceleration;
* T/W becomes worse than many air fighters. For example, with after burn, empty mass + 1/2 internal fuel + 1 tonne payload (air-to-air missiles, pylons, gun ammunition, etc) :
– Eurofighter : 2 x 90 kN (18,355 kg) / [11,000 kg + 2,500 kg + 1,000 kg = 14,500 kg] = 1.2659 -> 1.27
– F-15K (F100-PW-229) : 2 x 129.7 kN (26,472 kg) / [17,010 kg + 3,067 kg + 1,000 kg = 21,077 kg] = 1.2560 -> 1.26
– F-16C Block 50 (GE F110) : 129 kN (13,154 kg) / [8,581 kg + 1,625 kg + 1,000 kg = 11,206 kg] = 1.1738 -> 1.17
– F/A-18C Hornet : 2 x 78.7 kN (16,050 kg) / [10,810 kg + 2,463 kg + 1,000 kg = 14,273 kg] = 1.1245 -> 1.12
– F/A-18E Super Hornet : 2 x 97.9 kN (19,966 kg) / [14,552 kg + 3,390 kg + 1,000 kg = 18,942 kg] = 1.0541 -> 1.05
– F-35A : 40,000 lb (18,144 kg) / [13,290 kg + 4,139 kg + 1,000 kg = 18,429 kg] = 0.9845 -> 0.98
– F-35B : 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)/ [14,651 kg + 3,162 kg + 1,000 kg = 18,813 kg] = 0.9644 -> 0.96
– F-35C : 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)/ [15,785 kg + 4,479 kg + 1,000 kg = 21,264 kg] = 0.8533 -> 0.85
– Gripen C : 80.5 kN (8209 kg) / [6,800 kg + 1,200 kg + 1,000 kg = 9,000 kg] = 0.9127 -> 0.91
– Gripen E (< 2012) : 98 kN (9993 kg) / [7,100 kg + 1,700 kg + 1,000 kg = 9,800 kg] = 1.0197 -> 1.02
– Gripen E (< 2014): 98 kN (9993 kg) / [7,800 kg + 1,700 kg + 1,000 kg = 10,500 kg] = 0.9517 -> 0.95
– Gripen E (>= 2014) : 98 kN (9993 kg) / [8,000 kg + 1,700 kg + 1,000 kg = 10,700 kg] = 0.9339 -> 0.93
– Gripen M : 98 kN (9993 kg) / [8,400-8,800 kg + 1,700 kg + 1,000 kg = 11,100-11,500 kg] = 0.8690-0.9003 -> 0.87-0.90
– MiG-29K : 2 x 9,000 kg (18,000 kg) / [12,723 kg + 2,280 kg + 1,000 kg = 16,003 kg] = 1.1248 -> 1.12
– Mirage 2000-5 : 95 kN (9687 kg) / [7,500 kg + 1,580 kg + 1,000 kg = 10,060 kg] = 0.9629 -> 0.96
– Rafale C F3 : 2 x 75 kN (15,296 kg) / [9,850 kg + 2,350 kg + 1,000 kg = 13,200 kg] = 1.1588 ->1.16
– Rafale M F3 : 2 x 75 kN (15,296 kg) / [10,710 kg + 2,350 kg + 1,000 kg = 14,060 kg] = 1.0879 -> 1.09
– Su-35 : 2 x 14,500 kg (29,000 kg) / [18,400 kg + 5,750 kg + 1,000 kg = 25,150 kg] = 1.1531 -> 1.15So Gripen E will have better A2A T/W than F-35C and Gripen C. Gripen M would be a lot worse in T/W than Hornet, Super Hornet, MiG-29K, Rafale M.
It isn’t just thrust to weight that has suffered, it is wing loading. The Gripen E adds quite a bit of weight without adding meaningfully to its wing area meaning maneuverability will have to suffer.
In a lot of ways this is just standard… all fighter designs have tended to get heavier as additional features are added over team and it is clear the Gripen E is no exception to this rule. There is no such thing as a free lunch…
hopsalotRostec of Russia is to co-develop a 5th generation light fighter with UAE ministry of defence.
– based on Mig-29
– production “anticipated” to take place in UAE
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/russias-rostec-to-co-develop-5th-gen-fighter-with-uae
This makes slightly less sense than the India report…
India at least has a need for a fairly large number of aircraft and has some experience producing aircraft.
hopsalotwouldnt su-30 in turn be able to ID f-35 if -35 are radar active ?
As other have said, there is the issue of LPI, but also of multiple F-35s in the sky with only 1-2 of them emitting.
on top of locating it that is
and why would EOTS have a longer range at which it can ID su-30 then the other way around ?
EOTS has a video capability. It can actually show the pilot a highly zoomed image of a target for a BVR “visual” ID. The Su-30 does not have a similar capability.
hopsalotFirst, what do you think that the F-35 would have such a great advantage?
The Su-35 also has RCS reduction measures, unlike the F-15 and F-16 used in the Red Flag AFAIK.
Frankly, you need to do some basic research. The types of RCS improvements available on a 4th generation fighter don’t offer anywhere near the level of RCS achieved in the F-35. (even more advanced concepts like the Advanced Super Hornet or Silent Eagle that brought the weapons internal in some loadouts aren’t close to competitive)
While not at all at the same lvl of the opponent, those also have to be considered in the equation, above all if the F-35 would shoot itself in the foot using just LPI mode i.e. so forfeiting the doppler effect.
What makes you think operating in a LPI mode forfeits doppler ranging?
Same can be said with all those things you list: they are not a F-35 exclusive, about all current production fighters have something similar.
All other current fighters have LPI directional datalinks? How about a built in long range camera capability. (Rafale has this)
What about the F-35’s LO airframe and internal weapons carriage? What about its sensor fusion?
Like I said above, basic research.
And no, a difference of -10db means not a ten time greater detection range, actually it’s less than the double.
Spend some quality time with google and get an idea how big the difference is. I will give you a hint, we aren’t talking about a 10dB improvement.
This whole post mirrors the sorts of things we had people posting 15+ years ago. “Sure the F-22 may be stealthier than other fighters, but will it be stealthier enough to matter in the real world?”
hopsalotjust like the su-35, the f-35 has to ID the target with the IR camera, and those ranges will be similar.
it then becomes a contest who can turn away and fly away fastest
Not at all…
The F-35 has a range of options to ID the Sukhoi, including NCTR via its radar, ESM by classifying the Sukhoi’s emissions, deconfliction by consulting higher C&C, long-range optical identification via its EOTS, etc.
Most importantly the F-35 would have time to think and observe before being called on to make a decision. It’s ability to detect and track the Sukhoi 100 miles away would allow it to decide if it even wished to close that distance.
Sign In
