LokeSu-35 versus Typhoon: Analysis from RUSI’s Justin Bronk
Which aircraft, all things being equal, would have an advantage?
I would certainly still take a Typhoon going into a hypothetical ‘all things equal’ scenario, because of its superior kinematics at high altitudes and speeds which allow it to have control of an engagement except in specific scenarios.
http://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35-versus-typhoon-analysis-from-rusis-justin-bronk/
LokeAnd against the Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale?
Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DCT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.
Justin Bronk is a Research Fellow at the Military Sciences at Royal United Services Institute.
http://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35-versus-typhoon-analysis-from-rusis-justin-bronk/
LokeBut the main purpose of the weapon, also known as the small advanced capabilities missile (SACM) would be to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles, such as the long-range, Chinese-made PL-12 and Russian-made Vympel RVV-BD.
“I know that MSDM and SACM and all of those things are responses to those threats in some way as a self defence capability for our aircraft,” St. John says.
St. John estimates the air force could be ready to launch a competition in 18 to 30 months for the new weapon, which, if funded, would add to the internal-carriage arsenal of the F-22 and F-35.
I must admit I find this to be rather odd — why on earth are they developing this now — for internal carriage with F-22 and F-35? I thought those planes were supposed to have a huge advantage due to stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, data links, etc?
Or do they develop this now because they fear that China (or Russia) is making more progress than previously believed?
This would be great for the 4. gen and 4.5 gen fighter jets, if it works it would increase survivability significantly I would guess.
LokeSpeaking at a 9 March forum in Washington DC to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Operation Desert Storm, Work questioned the wisdom of moving to an all fifth-generation fighter force at the expense of higher overall fighter numbers, saying the air force will probably need to maintain its Lockheed Martin F-16s and Boeing F-15s into the 2040s “and possibly beyond”.
Even if the department were awash with cash, Work says he doesn’t know if it would be wiser to pump that money into legacy fleet upgrades or into buying more F-35s.
“I really worry about the size of the air force,” he says. “If you told me we were going to go down from 54 tactical fighter squadrons to 45 but they’d all be F-35s, I’m not certain I’d say that’s a good thing, simply because the air force’s operational tempo right now is driving the force into a bad place.”
Wow.
He is not 100% positive regarding the F-35. And he is not the first US official to raise concerns regarding the F-35 in recent days. Also very surprising that he says F-16 and F-15 could be operated until “2040s and possibly beyond”.
LokeWhy on earth would you think that is “the end?”
What would an F-16 do in the same profile? You just posted a slide showing an F-16 profile with only two drop tanks (+conformals) where it reached 630nmi in a hi-lo-lo-hi profile. Do you think that is directly comparable to a Rafale flying at high altitude the whole way with three tanks?
edit:
For example:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i.htm
The end?
Of course not… there is too little detail to make a direct comparison.
Indeed F-16 in that config probably has a quite significant range — however keep in mind the figures quoted above from Sintra for the Rafale was without the CFT.
This whole discussion started with me speculating around what range and loadout capabilities Rafale would get with CFT. Most likely it would be rather impressive. It also has 5 hardpoints to carry heavy stuff — more than other medium sized fighters.
Also; although the block 50/52+ is somewhat lighter than the Rafale, the Block 60 is not; seems empty weight is around 10t, same as Rafale. However MTOW seems to be 20.9t, wheras Rafale MTOW is 24.5t.
F-16 block 60:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html
Rafale specs:
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data/
LokeMalaysia? I thought UAE were negotiating to pass their M2K’s to Iraq so they could buy a decent number of Rafale.
I don’t know if UAE still want a stronger engine? If yes then perhaps it would take a bit longer for that deal.
He disclosed that the UAE which was considering to buy the fighter a few years ago had asked that the engine thrust be increased between eight to nine tons before abandoning the project.
Loke* Saab is currently working hard to sell the Gripen in “countries such as Croatia and Bulgaria,” and the Swedish government is negotiating with Slovakia on eight planes.
* A contract for at least 40 planes are expected to start in Finland.
* A contract on the 30-36 plan, expected to launch in Belgium.
* A previously interrupted procurement in Malaysia are expected to resume this year.
* Indonesia procurement of fighter believed, unlike what has been reported in the media, remains open. “I think we have a good chance, and we have a good dialogue with Indonesia,” said Richard Smith and mentioned that the country is considering combining fighter purchase with the purchase of radar systems.
* Saab has been in Colombia for discussions, because it intends to replace its aging fighter fleet.
* India: Saab have considerable hope that the recently declared intentions of cooperation under the motto “Make in India”, published by Prime Minister Stephen Löfvens and Saab’s CEO Håkan Buskhe’s visit to the Indian Prime Minister in mid-February will lead to something.
Switzerland was not mentioned, but during a question and answer session after the presentation said Richard Smith, Saab believe they have a good position ahead of an expected and decided resumed fighter procurement process, which is expected next year or possibly the year. A formal contract in progress not yet explain why it was not included in the review, he said.
Hmm, rather optimistic I think. Belgium is a NATO country which has operated F-16 in close collaboration with other NATO F-16 countries, in particular the Netherlands. Current F-16 users within NATO are switching to F-35, I would be surprised if Belgium also does not do this (and rather operate a smaller number of a/c).
Finland: difficult to say. If price is sufficiently low they will go for the F-35 — they have expressed a keen interest in “stealth”
Regarding Brazil’s purchase of 36 Gripen said Richard Smith, the process goes according to plan. A development center is being built adjacent to a testing facility in the city of Gavião Peixoto, and last autumn arrived 50 Brazilian engineers with families to Linköping to learn aircraft construction at the company’s facilities on the plains of Östergötland. Eventually, 350 Brazilian engineers to be trained in Sweden through programs of between two weeks and two years.
So it seems things are progressing well with the Brazilian tech transfer and collaboration. A hint to India…?
Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-information/telegram/?NewsId=69720cfa-a915-4960-bb01-2b42ae19e100
LokeThe main diference is that i’ve used Lockheed Martin numbers for internal fuel.
They quote 2852 kg’s of internal fuel on LM page. Either that’s the number for the twin seater (bit strange the rest of the numbers and the image is of a single seater), or they got it wrong (it happens) or an old rumour, avionics and structural reinforcements have eaten internal space in their latest incarnations, is true (i doubt it). On top of that the Rafale has more wet external pylons.
But let’s keep it simple, the most common operational configuration used by the Rafale, six 340 kg’s AASM, three 2000l external’s, four aam’s and an LDP has a combat radii (Hi-Hi) north of 750NM, a typical CAP configuration, three 2000l external and six aam’s has a combat radii of 920 NM, I think that this pretty much kills the discussion.Cheers
Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds internal (3,175 kilograms);
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon.aspx
LokeParis is beginning to acknowledge the possibility that India might not buy the Rafale fighter because of sharp differences over the price, and New Delhi’s insistence on enforceable guarantees regarding the fighter’s delivery, performance and availability.
A senior French official with a close view of the on-going negotiations between New Delhi and Paris for 36 Rafale fighters told Business Standard on condition of anonymity: “If some people in the MoD do not want to allow the Rafale deal to go through, so be it. We are currently building it for Egypt and Qatar, and we could have another customer in Malaysia.”
Underlining the irritation at repeated US offers to set up an assembly line in India to build the American F-16 Super Viper, the French official taunted: “If you don’t want the Rafale, go ahead and build the F-16 here. You can build it in India and supply it to Pakistan also.”
He was referring to Washington’s announcement last month of the sale to Pakistan of eight advanced Block 50/52 F-16 fighters for $699 million. Simultaneously, a senior Lockheed Martin official had publicly offered to “move our [F-16] production line from the US to India.”
Sour grapes?
LokeThe F-16 outranges the F-18.
Are you sure about that? The Hornet is bigger and heavier but also carries much more internal fuel than the F-16.
LokeWhile hitting 10.5-11 g is possible… it strikes me as unlikely and a strange use of airframe fatigue life.
Because the aircraft would have to be moving fairly fast just to achieve such a high g-load it wouldn’t necessarily look all that impressive from the ground and would leave awfully little margin for error.
Also, putting that kind of strain on an airframe repeatedly (it would have to be done over and over again in practice to have any confidence it could be performed safely in public) would also wear the plane out quite rapidly.
And what about the effects on the pilot? going above 9G, could that not potentially cause disorientation and other effects? I believe also how a person is acting to high Gs is more variable than the airframe.
LokeThe basic number is ~3800 gallons of fuel (max internal and external) for the Gallic thingy at ten tons (clean) versus ~2800 gallons of fuel for the Viper (max internal and external) at between nine and ten tons (clean). (the numbers were taken from Dassault “Fox” publication, converted to gallons myself and LM specifications page)
There are severall official combat radii diagrams out there, and while they are not exactly an Apples to Apples comparison they dont leave much doubt on the outcome.Cheers
Hmm, I got another results. Your Gallons confuse a poor Norwegian, I prefer kg if you don’t mind:
Rafale internal: 4700 kg
F-16 internal: 3200 kg
F-16 CFT: 1383 kg
F-16 internal + CFT: 4583 kg.
Not too different from the 4700kg of internal Rafale fuel… IMHO. In particular for the F-16 block 50/52, since it is significantly lighter than the Rafale.
Due to the canard layout the Rafale will probably still have somewhat larger range, but I am not sure if the difference is that big. And both are still some way off the F-15 in range and carrying capacity. However if CFTs are added to Rafale it definitely starts to move closer to F-15 territory…. IMHO.
F-16 Internal fuel source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Specifications_.28F-16C_Block_50.29
F-16 CFT source http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714
Edit: If my math is correct the Rafale carries 2.5% more fuel internally than F-16 internal + CFT
LokeAndrew Davies from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said while the JSF program had been plagued with problems, he agreed the Government should persevere.
“The F-35 program has been far too ambitious for its own good and I don’t think we’ll ever see a program of its type again, because of the difficulties it’s run into, the expenses and the time delays that have ensued,” he said.
“That said, it’s still likely to be a remarkably capable aeroplane.”
Summarizing nicely what I have been saying for a long time…! Very capable fighter but also a delayed and very expensive development program.
It will be interesting to see if other countries can catch up faster than currently believed (in particular those countries that tend to base new stuff on spying and not so much their own innovations…)
LokePRAGUE The government on Wednesday approved the deployment of five Czech Gripen protection of Icelandic airspace. Heaven will be there, pilots with JAS-39 Gripen guard in October, the first troops will depart for Iceland in September. The approval of the proposal of the Ministry of Defence informed the press department of the Straka Academy.
Defense Minister Martin Stropnický told reporters that the mission comes at around 36 million crowns from the defense budget. Send soldiers must now be approved by both houses of parliament, he said.
The Czechs were guarding the airspace of Iceland twice, most recently last summer. This year will be on the Island again deployed five interceptor machines. Four will be directly involved in the surveillance, the fifth will be ready as a backup.
Defense Ministry reckons that the mission will last from September 26 to November 10 and will be sent to 75 soldiers. Thomas Maruscak from the press department of the General Staff has previously said that it would “live cash” should last at least 21 days. The cost will be approximately 36 million.
Google translated from: http://www.lidovky.cz/pet-gripenu-poleti-v-rijnu-znovu-chranit-vzdusny-prostor-na-island-11k-/zpravy-domov.aspx?c=A160316_161137_ln_domov_ELE
36 million koruna with today’s exchange rate is 1.47 million USD. Not too bad for sending 5 a/c and a detachment of 75 soldiers to Iceland for 6 1/2 weeks! Actually it sounds surprisingly cheap? Did something got lost in translation? What does ‘”live cash” should last at least 21 days’ mean?
Lokethese days there are several more advanced methods for confusing the enemy’s radar:
To be used instead of the deployment of a towed decoy or reliance on on-board repeaters, the pre-programmable BriteCloud will use its inbuilt computer to jam ground radars and incoming missiles by generating a false target. Selex, which says it has already proven the technology, claims the technique will result in “large miss distances”, including when used against mobile surface-to-air missile threats.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/selex-unveils-britecloud-decoy-for-gripen-392688/
However the chaff probably still play a role? Perhaps using something like Britecloud together with a chaff will make it rather hard?
Sign In
