LokeIf the A-50 used its jammer in International Airspace..?
Comon, whats so serious about that??
Edit: btw, what kind of jamming capability does the A-50 have, afaik it has none. The A-50 an AWACS not ELINT platform..? And besides, its not like it could interfere or Jamm the whole baltic sea Airspace.. the range of such equipment is not that powerfull.If you look at this pic, it was taken from one of our oli rig in the North Sea back in 2007.
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2497/fimg0002m72c5886qg2.jpgThat Russian fleet crippled our Heli transportation service for 8 hours, which is serious enough consider we need the Skies clear if an emergency happens(injuries etc).
What we(NoAF) did, was to dispatch one Falcon and Jammed the Comunication between the Fighters and their Carrier, and problem fixed, The Russian fleet got the message and moved on. Norway filed an official complaint and The Russian official apologized. The Oil rigs is positioned in International airspace, but it was far worse than this nonsens in the baltic sea..
The main issue was that Sweden does not have 24-hour QRA, like we do in NATO.
Your example shows — I don’t know what? That Russia is a friendly and non-aggressive neighbour? Since we need to jam their communications to get them away from our oil rigs?
Russia considers NATO expansion to be a threat: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/05/us-russia-defence-doctrine-idUSTRE6144LA20100205
At the same time NATO (and Norway) works hard to consider Russia a partner. It’s not easy to build a partnership with a partner that consider your actions to be a threat…
LokeHere is a graph that puts you info in perspective.
I don’t understand much of that slide to be honest, could somebody try to explain it? Your comment above Spud; does it relate to djcross’ posting above? Does that basically mean that the “less than legacy” is (as you would expect) relates to a bloated inefficient US system? If that is used as a benchmark then it’s easier to come up with a “small increase” in costs. However other countries may be operating more efficiently already, and might therefore experience a huge cost increase.
As already stated, Norway predicted 40% increase in cost per flight hour compared to what Norway used to pay for their F-16.
Let’s see how this develops.
LokeRecommended reading:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/ward-toc.htm
The number of a/c is certainly a very important parameter.
LokeSigh — why can’t people debate in this thread instead of in the News thread?
With regards to cost estimates: Let’s wait and see.
Norwegian MoD a couple of years ago estimated that F-35 costs per flight hours will be 40% higher than the F-16. Since they they stopped estimating costs per hour, claiming it is “impossible” to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Instead they report an estimate for total costs, I think that is currently at 230 billion NOK (aprox. 40 billion USD) for 30 years. This number should include costs to purchase 52 F-35, weapons, fuel, salaries, upgrades, etc. Everything.
It will be expensive, but also very capable.
LokeI try to get more information on the index and how it actually works.
It is maintained by “Statistisk Sentralbyrå” (SSB) in Norway, this is an organization responsible for official statistics in Norway:
http://www.ssb.no/en/forside;jsessionid=44BE67A63150163C1992F5E0D56D377E.kpld-as-prod11
What the Norwegian MoD has told so far is that they are using this index because 1) there is no “modern fighter price index” and 2) this index is the one that was to believed to be the most representative for things like modern fighter jets.
Presumably if we were to buy e.g. new submarines we would use the same index.
LokeFor a different perspective may I suggest that both Hopsalot and Msphere read my latest post in the F-35 debate thread — perhaps you could also consider moving your discussion there since that is actually the F-35 thread?
On a related note, does anybody know what the 3.3 billion USD package for 22 Gripen E to Switzerland actually contains? I try to somehow compare it to what Norway pays for the F-35 but it’s difficult without knowing what the package contains.
LokeI have received a bit more information on the Norwegian cost estimates for F-35 and how they came to be.
Norway decided to buy F-35 in 2008. The cost estimate was 42 billion NOK (56 planes).
The estimate of today (2013) is much higher (62.6 billion NOK, 10.9 billion USD) for 54 F-35.
It seems that the majority of the cost is related to the use of an “index”; we all know that as time pass by things get more expensive, this is often referred to as inflation. However if you want to purchase a specific item, the cost of that product over time may increase much faster or slower than the average inflation. For instance the cost of building a house in Norway has increased much more than the average inflation.
What they did in Norway was that they found an index they believed would be representative for estimating the future cost growth of high-tech equipment like fighter jets.
Thus the increase is mainly related to the use of that index, and not specific to the F-35 program at all.
Of course they do get information from LM as well, but the interesting thing is that so far it seems that the index has described the cost increases remarkably well.
This should mean that the cost increase in the F-35 program has not been dramatically high (if this index is representative at all!).
I wonder however how the cost of other planes like e.g. Gripen NG will develop. Gripen NG contains much less “new” technology compared to the F-35 therefore I would expect a much flatter curve, but still you would expect a higher cost increase for Gripen NG than you would for e.g. cars.
For PAK FA and J-20 however one should expect that the index used in Norway is more relevant since those planes contain a much higher percentage of newly developed stuff than e.g. the Gripen NG. OTOH they are not being developed in Western high-cost countries, so who knows how that will affect things?
LokeDesigned To Be A Pilot’s Delight
With a longer range, fast software updates and improved sensors, Gripen E is designed to be a pilot’s delight. Björn Johansson, Chief Engineer, Gripen E/F, describes Gripen E’s features and capabilities from a pilot’s perspective in one of his recent presentations.
Johansson explains that Gripen E’s improved sensors means a better detection range and a wider field of view. This gives a better picture of the battle field enabling a pilot to be more accurate during the flight. Not only this, the new sensor fusion/decision support minimizes workload as well.
Johansson further adds that electronic warfare system in Gripen E gives better warning/protection, owing to better frequency coverage, improved direction accuracy, improved jamming capability and automatic activation of countermeasures.
LokeThree more Gripens delivered to RTAF
Following a four day flight from Sweden passing many countries and a last stop at Port Blair, three Gripen C aircraft touched down at Wing 7, Surat Thani, on Friday, 5 April.
http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=603
They now have a total of 9 Gripen.
LokeSo does Su-27 (I am not even talking about Su-35)
Any links to prove this?
Both pilot would know they could see longer ranges with their radars, so why should they not turn it on?
Wrong, check the thread by Mercurius. Emissions are detected earlier, if one assumes a modern RWR.
If you are referring to encrypted two-way datalinks, it does, even Su-27S with TKS-2-27 datalink has it. If you are referring to tightbeam communication no operational aircraft has it.
No, referring to tightbeam communication. NG will have it; it’s a massive upgrade of the Gripen C, similarly, Su-35 is a massive upgrade of the Su-27. A pity for the Su-35 pilot if it does not have it..
While datalinks, off-board guidance to target, info feed, handing over the missile guidence, etc are relatively new features on most western aircraft, but those were already present -albeit on a simpler form- on MiG-23, Su-15 via Lazur datalink.
This are not new feature on western aircraft, and this was not really what I was talking about. The key is the sensor fusion of all the data from different sources.
Anyway, does Su-35 have RCS-reduced pylons and drop tanks? 😉
LokeInteroperability will be given via LINK16, albeit an LPI-link would be desirable, but such a link shouldn’t necessarily be limited to Typhoon <=> F-35 as it would be short sighted.
DJcross is right — but don’t the Typhoon have satcom?
LokeDuring an exercise with Polish airforce, two MiG-29 9.12As (Flying cap) fired on Blk52+ F-16 (flying escort for Su-22 bombers) at 80 kilometers, R-27R missile’s max range. Given that, they must have detected, tracked, and locked on F-16s long before that. This conlcudes either N010 radar is a technological marvel -which is clearly not the case- OR an F-16 has A LOT larger (read: 5+ times larger) RCS than just 1 m2.
The 1m2 RCS estimate for F-16 I believe refers to a clean airframe. The Polish F-16 probably did not have low-RCS stuff having beneath. Also, there could be other factors involved (see below)
While Boeing is working to reduce the Super Hornet’s signature for future international variants, the F/A-18E/F already has a fair number of features built-in to reduce its radar cross section. This is an excerpt from the jet’s Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) manual which describes some of those features.
[…]“To allow the aircraft to achieve it’s full RCS reduction potential, a missionized kit consisting of twelve more EMIS III radar bulkhead shields, are installed for combat missions only. Additionally, SUU-79 pylons can be fitted with a set of LO hardware.”
More at the link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/03/usn-looking-at-adding-conforma.html
Some observations:
1. a lot of attention to details is needed to reduce the RCS
2. To arrive at low RCS values you most likely need to build it into the airframe at the design stage(it was actually a bit of luck that the F-16 ended up with a quite low RCS).
3. If you don’t have a “true” VLO a/c then things like pylons, missiles, drop tanks, pods etc. becomes very important, once you have “fixed” your airframe. The only way to reduce the RCS further is to have low RCS pylons, missiles, and drop tanks.
I would be surprised if there are no RCS reduction efforts on the Rafale pylons, drop tanks and pods. And modern missiles are of course quite low RCS.
Is there any information on RCS reduction of Su-35 pylons, drop tanks and pods? That could be a good indication on the overall RCS reduction efforts.
LokeWHAT sensor fusion are you refering? Radar, IRST, Datalink, RWR are also present on Su-35.
Rafale has quite exstensive sensor fusion. This makes it possible to often arrive at a firing solution operating in a completely silent mode, without transmitting any data.
The Gripen uses interferometry to locate the source with an accuracy of 1 degree. If several Gripens are in the area they will share the information. They can then improve the location dramatically by triangulation.
I believe both Rafale and Typhoon can do the same. In addition this data will be fused with data from other sensors, e.g. sensors that detects radio communications, and IR sensors.
If the Su-35 has similar sensor fusion then it can use the same tricks against the Rafale. In such a scenario perhaps both the Su-35 and Rafale will stay silent and not use their radars. The a/c with the most sensitive passive sensors and best filtering software/sensor fusion software will then most likely be in the best position, quite independent of the power of their radars, and their RCS values!
Is there some description of sensor fusion and networking of the Su-35?
Does it have beamed data links?
LokeIf the Netherlands picks another jet, then they would want to sell back those F-35 to another country in “new” conditions.
Or it could be that the Dutch already decided that they would operate another jet, hence no need to evaluate the F-35.
It is difficult to imagine that Holland will pick a different jet.
As demonstrated in a previous posting, a SH package will most likely be only marginally cheaper.
Gripen NG will be somewhat cheaper, but even a complete Gripen NG package does not come cheaply (3.3 billion USD for 22 Gripen E to Switzerland). Also, as a close US ally and NATO country the threshold for buying non-US fighters is VERY high.
Thus if they really want to save money they should buy new F-16 instead — then they can keep existing infrastructure. They would save a lot of money that way.
Otherwise, I don’t see an alternative to the F-35. Since it seems F-16 is not on the table, most likely the F-35 will “win” this “competition” just like it “won” in Norway and will “win” in Canada.
Perhaps the politicians don’t realize this yet but once the air force and the MoD explain all this to them, the outcome is a given.
LokeBump.
It appears South africa has deployed 4 Gripens armed with IRIS-T to the CAR region.
They will be based in neighbouring Uganda or Zambia.
IRIS-T only? No a2g munitions?
Sign In
