LokeOK, I see — I thought they would all be replaced. Got it.
LokeObsolete is a strong word… the currents EOTS works fine, it just isn’t state of the art. This is a similar argument to what Rafale and Eurofighter fans said about the radars in those planes… They worked fine, but weren’t on par with the latest systems available elsewhere and so discussions about a replacement (AESA) radar were ongoing even as the planes reached IOC.
The difference is the speed with which the F-35 program is implementing the upgrade. The Rafale had to wait ~10 years for its AESA radar, the Eurofighter is still waiting.
Do you miss the point on purpose?
The point is that those EOTS are hardly ever going to be used before they are being replaced… Concurrency, you know.
LokeThe assessment was specifically written to be platform independent so there is no link between Fleet A or Fleet B with specific aircraft.
I think you missed my point. In Norway the “international role” was the less demanding one; the more demanding one was the “national” role.
Seems to be the opposite in Canada.
LokeGiven the nature of the missions outlined in the CFDS, Core Mission 5: Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period is the mission that introduces the highest potential threat, particularly when dealing with a near-peer adversary, and therefore requires the more sophisticated and capable aircraft to conduct the mission. For this reason, it is assumed that Fleet B will be sufficient in size to address the commitment to NATO. In doing so, it is also assumed that Fleet B possesses sufficient capability to satisfy the NORAD commitment, if used in this role. Fleet A is assumed to be capable of satisfying the NORAD role, but inadequate for some aspects of the NATO role.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/mixed-fleet-en.page
Interesting — in the Norwegian analysis of Gripen E and F-35 it was found that Gripen E did meet the requirements to the international role, but not the (more demanding) scenarios that were envisaged in Norway.
LokeHolmes says pressing forward with the air force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance programme is the better way to make up for lower-than-planned fifth-generation fighter capacity, but cannot be a technologically exotic fighter jet that takes two or three decades to develop.
“They cost too much, they take too long, they make you drive for technology that’s so far into the future that it’s really hard to achieve and by the time you spend 30 years achieving it, it may not be exactly what you want,” he explains after the hearing.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-on-time-f-x-not-more-f-22s-422950/
How can he say such a thing, after the highly successful F-35 development program?
LokeAdditional details have emerged of Saab’s GlobalEye multirole surveillance aircraft concept launched at the Singapore Airshow 2016 in early February.
The concept is centred around the new Erieye ER (extended range) S-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) multi-mode radar that is claimed to have a detection range that has been improved by 70% over the previous generation model, which has a maximum stated range of 450 km. This has been achieved though the doubling of power output from the same power input, while also incorporating receiver and processing enhancements. Saab characterises this performance improvement as “reclaiming the detection distance” for small and future targets lost to developing stealth technologies.
Read more: http://www.janes.com/article/58620/fresh-details-of-saab-s-globaleye-surveillance-aircraft-emerge
LokeThis is an interesting illustration of the advantages of a program with the F-35’s scale and resources. The F-35 will be operational with its second targeting pod faster than some of its competition got their first…
Lockheed recently delivered the 200th EOTS sensor, which has been outpaced technologically by Lockheed’s Sniper and Northrop Grumman/Rafael’s Litening targeting pod systems because of delays in fielding, and consequently improving, the F-35. The baseline EOTS hasn’t been used in combat yet and is already outdated.
This is an interesting illustration of the huge vaste in the F-35 program.
LokeService officials admit that despite being an ideal close air support platform in high-end conflict with Russia, the long-delayed A-10 replacement, the Lockheed Martin F-35, will be too expensive to operate in the Warthog’s day-to-day role.
“[F-35] will be particularly capable in contested environments, like Russian doctrine where you would bring your air defences with you, because there will be a limited number of airplanes that can operate in that role,” USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements Lt Gen James Holmes tells a Senate Armed Services subcommittee panel on 8 March. “It would certainly be an expensive way to go after a permissive environment mission and we hope to not have to do that, so we will look at other options.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studying-future-attack-aircraft-options-422936/
oops.
Could this be an indication that the F-35 operating costs will be higher than previously assumed?
LokeTheir own equivalent is.. or rather will be, a missile with a range of 1000 km for the TEL-launched variant, and probably 500 km+ for the air-launched variant. Or possibly a BrahMos with a nuclear payload. In either case, the platform of choice will the Su-30MKI not the Rafale.
The nuclear angle is just something that’s been floated as an explanation for the mounting absurdity and ballooning cost of the Rafale deal. There’s no real evidence or even logic to support it.
According to SIPRI 2007 yearbook, the Mirage 2000H Vajra is “reportedly” certified for nuclear gravity bomb. Perhaps the Indians on this forum can offer sources that are more substantial?
LokeYes really. Unless the idea is to integrate a nuclear variant of a Nirbhay ALCM missile (primary launch platform: Su-30MKI), onto the Rafale. A far fetched notion of no exceptional utility.
Not really. IF they buy Rafale for nuclear strike then it should be quite obvious that they will integrate their own stuff. So lack of ASMP/A export is not relevant.
LokePulse duration isn’t a function of antenna type, so that isn’t really a concern, but you are correct that the receiving aircraft would have to be able to recognize the signal it is trying to jam, which by itself is non-trivial.
Many of the same tactics that one might employ against a DRFM jammer could be employed against an active cancellation system.
You will see that I was skeptical of the viability of active cancellation if you read the ECM pod thread, and I certainly remain so… but not so much as to think the engineers that went to the effort of flight testing a system didn’t have a clue what they were doing.
I still believe that if active cancellation could be made to work it would take the form of a system that would have very narrow applicability, that would be used to address a specific RCS hot spot under very specific conditions. (which is certainly what the articles I cited described)
This is not a case where one could hope to hang a pod under their favorite 4th generation jet and achieve stealth. More like a scenario where the maker of a LO supersonic missile knows that from directly head on its ramjet intake produces a strong return, which could be mitigated if…
To make a fighter become “invisible” by active cancellation does seems absolutely impossible — however after reading more about this, perhaps one could imaging a system in which the aim is not to make it “invisible” but rather reducing the main spikes.
If you look at typical RCS diagrams you often notice spikes in certain areas. If an “active cancellation” can reduce the biggest spikes, and if the “rest” of the plane has a rather low RCS, then the overall effect could theoretically be a significant reduction in detection range.
LokeIts only you and a (very) few of our more stubbornly nationalistic French friends, that still subscribe to the notion that the Rafale may be comparable to the F-35 in a deep strike role. For practically everyone else, the difference is rather glaring.
I agree — to say that Rafale would be comparable to the F-35 in such a role, would very ignorant… roughly on the same level as saying that F-16 block 52 is comparable to the latest Rafale iteration…
LokeSnapshots from Gripen NG assembly:
LokeRight now HAL has the monopoly and takes its own sweet time to build aircraft even when Spoon Feeded through CKD/SKD/LIC prod and what not …..A private prod line would bring in competition and give IAF choice
“We are likely to get the Rafael soon… The government will also be inducting LCA in very large numbers — close to 120 as of now… They are also thinking of setting up one more line of fighter aircrafts in India under the Make in India project, so that the dwindling fighter aircraft force can be replaced at the shortest possible time. It is going to mature in a year,” Raha added. Though Raha did not expand on the matter, defence officials said the plan could be to start indigenous production of another fighter jet mostly under the PPP mode.
– See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/fighter-aircrafts-make-in-india-iaf/#sthash.a2Zwh91q.rQRd1EWZ.dpuf
“Make in India” — “another fighter jet” — Does not sound like a second Tejas line to me…
LokeVishnu was hinting as hardwiring it for N Role , Like the French M2K do it right now …….I believe French AF too uses Rafale for Deterrence
If Vishnu reads this post on this forum he can clarify
I have suggested this myself some time ago, but was immediately shot down by other posters…
Would France allow this?
Why could they not use the Su-30MKI in this role instead?
Sign In
