JSRAlthough it is about Dassault but relevant point is fight over very modest finanical commitment . If $200m purchase can kill jobs that what big things can be expected.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21599&catid=74&Itemid=30
U.S. drones would kill French jobs – Dassault
The battle for drones funding has soured relations between EADS and the French government and put EADS directly at odds with Dassault Aviation in which it owns a 47 percent stake as a result of the complex history of French defence companies.
JSRSAM systems don’t have speed or altitude, yet they’re perfectly capable of shooting down a target. it would be nice to have, but it’s not a necessity
Role of SAM is different as it does not need to go towards the target but target has to come to it. and SAM are by order of 5 times heavier than AAM for similar range.
cruise missiles are certainly an option, and the discussion is ongoing. for me the main argument is loiter and economies: a cruis missile, even advanced models, have limited loiter time, even if they allow for it. future UCAVs will be able to loiter for days on end, meaning you don’t have to send replacement aircraft, seriously cutting down the transit times, and meaning the UCAV will always be ready to strike when the enemy moves e.g. his fighters from their bomb-resistant bunkers. patience is the trademark of a great hunter
You can only loiter in uncontested airspace where is there is no SAM/Figther and for uncontested airspcace low end air to ground UCAV or UAV with survellence is fine. Mulitple UAV or AWACS can be used that can give targeting data to cruise missiles or fighters. that can approach the target much faster than some thing buzzing around all the time.
you seem to have misread my post, I said F-117 style tactics, as in get in unseen, hit and run back home, without the enemy knowing you were there. this is how any modern stealth aircraft operates, but I mentioned the F-117 as the most proven user of this tactic
It is the same low speed, low power (No defensive or offensive suite) sneak tactics of F117 that are now part of history.
and I’m glad you mentioned long ranged strike assets: the Chinese will probably soon have the ability to take out US carriers at extreme ranges, meaning the F-35 will lack the endurance to be of much use. the USN knows this, and it’s why they’re betting heavily on the UCAV which its extreme range, where the USAF is dragging its feet
What Chinese lacks is intercontinental bombers and airrefuellers. that can lunch barrage of supersonic cruise missiles at great distances.
when you have subsonic long range UCAV it will take days to come back to its base and reload it with few short range bombs.
hm, Boeing, LMT, NG, BAe, Dassault, Mig and many Asian aircraft builders seem to disagree with you on that. but perhaps you know better than 90% of the planet’s military aircraft builders
No one is giving them money on scale of F-35 & T-50 to make viable UCAV fleet that can do air to air battle and can lunch strike weopons with great energy for 21st century battle.
with 5G fighters you can still use the outside Payloan for long range Standoff weopon release and use the internal weopons when your are closer to the target. everything done at great speeds.
you simply cannot do it with low speed flying wing concept UCAV.
actually, modern cruise missiles cost about $2 million each, with costs rising. so to hit 25 targets, that’ll cost you $50 million, and any misses cost another $2 million
They will not cost $2m if you order them in great quantities and stop wasting money on useless high end UCAV R&D.
a UCAV on the other hand is expected to cost about $50 million, and will cary by my guess 8 SDBs per sortie. so it needs to do only about 3 missions to earn back its cost when compared to cruise missiles. and on top of that it can loiter for extreme time, adapting to situations as needed, and if it misses it can just attack again
UCAV expected to cost (Its good you drop $1m swarming UCAV idea) $50m only when you built them in thousands and spend hundreds of billions on R&D and production line. otherwise you will get only two X-47B for $1.8b that is using existing parts bin. Nothing like new F135 engine from ground up.
don’t get me wrong, cruise missiles are an excellent weapon, but they’re still extremely expensive, and best used against static high value targets. for anything else you’re better off with fighters or bombers, and in this role too the UCAV offers serious advantages in cost and capacity compared to older (manned) aircraft
cruise missile come in variety, sizes and speeds. not all of them expensive and infrastructure needed for them is alot cheape. with newer Radar satellites & high powered AWACS coming online in next couple of years. the role of BM/Cruise missiles will change to real time attacking at much greater speed than UCAVs.
hm, you seem to be mistaken, this is the UAV/UCAV thread, the F-35 thread is the other one
I am giving you example that if UCAV is such great concept there wont be need for F-35 program or next generation bomber.
JSRit doesn’t need speed, weapons load or altitude; it has range and stealth
why it does not need speed and altitude?. Speed & altitude gives energy to weopons for longest shot along with flexibility of hitting moving target on time.
otherwise just built thousands of ground lunched & sublunched cruise missiles that can funciton as antiship missiles against naval and ground targets. that UCAV will be destroyed on ground along with its big infrastructure.
it’ll use F-117 style tactics: it’ll sneak past the enemy lines, engage it’s target, and sneak off again, without ever being detected or shot at
F-117 is too old for modern airdefence network. You need high powered jammers that can defeat incoming missiles and radars and for that you need big engines along with large airframe like 5th generation fighters. Not to mention longest range AAM/AR/AS missiles. Just mere the threat of long range strike against critical assets like AWACS/JSTAR/Ships can off balance the whole planning of rival. 5G fighters are simply irreplaceble.
sneak this baby past enemy lines before you launch the main assault. preferibly place it near an enemy air base. use its satellite link (the same as the B-2 I believe, which is extremely hard to detect) to provide situation updates. then when the enemy launches fighters, they spring into action, firing AMRAAMs as the enemy takes off, or using SDBs to hit them while they’re still on the ground
If Sneaking is the only tactics left than your in big trouble. I am not against cheap UAV for survellence and diversionary tactics but anything more expensive like UCAV is simply non starter.
alternatively you can deploy them between the enemy air base and the Allied aircraft, waiting for enemy fighters to fly by or open fire, giving away their position. the UCAVs can than counter-attack, and sneak off again before the enemy knows what hit them
why not just send cruise missile instead of these UCAVs. latest cruise missiles have 5000km range. deployed from mulitple platforms. and i wouldnot be surprized by that time UCAV technology matures. Cruise missiles will have 10000km range. they are lighter, faster, expandable. and supersonic bomber/fighers can give it massive energy. New engines and materials can give cruise missile big boost. or You want to lunch UCAVs from bombers to give it speed?
UCAV cost too much money to develop (I figure you only concentrate on unit cost not the whole R&D infrastructure to replace Pilot)
how many T-50s have been built? yet they’re expected to be in introduced by 2016. that seems unlikely, but than a few years ago few believed the Russians even had a working prototype of a 5th gen aircraft
3 have been built. and last one has the radar and avionics suite. I have more confidence in it goes into production than some mythical UCAV that can be use as AAM in next 4 years.
where is Radar integration trials with UCAV?. and how powerfull be that radar?. what is the engine thrust?. and when will be 300kg size BVR AAM goes into UCAV?
that’s because the Russians don’t develop aircraft like the US does. they don’t go all in from scratch. they test systems one by one, using different programs and aircraft
It has nothing to do that. Certain things are unreasonable to develop. so better not even start it. as end consumer may not even afford to buy in decent numbers.
the X-47b is being built using that concept (as are European UCAVs). it’s control software has been worked on for a decade now, based on work by Boeing and experience from the Global Hawk, probably the most advanced UAV in the world. its design and frame has been worked on for a decade, tiering up from the X-47a, and using many existing parts and engine. it’s carrier landing system is being fully tested on F-18 aircraft, meaning it’ll have proven itself by the the time the X-47b actually uses it. it’s stealth or wing shape are no problem, considering NG built the B-2
this is not a completely new aircraft (uses existing bits, engine, wheels, software, hardware, communication gear) or even concept (UAVs have been around for 50 years, stealth UAVs for a while too if you consider the RQ-170). it has way less unknown factors than say the F-35, so it’ll be mature that much faster (the USN expects it to be production ready by 2018, which is probably sooner than the F-35 :D)
if B-2 was such good concept they wouldnot have stopped it. US will not need NGB bomber program.
All your saying that UCAV is using existing parts bin but that existing parts bin does not take you far in capability. some thing completely different is required to make that UCAV effective for 21st century warfare.
JSRhow can you compare X-47B to fighter. It is high subsonic speed, only 4500 lbs weopon load, only 40K altitude.
There is no evidence it can take external fuel tanks or do high altitude super cruise let alone engage in air to air combat. No EW suite.
And this for size that is 87% of F-18.
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/UCAS-D_DataSheet_final.pdf
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/X-47B_Navy_UCAS_FactSheet.pdf
Look at slow development despite NG huge experiance in previous UAVs. how many built in past 5 years?. and no one knows the production costs yet.
As i said space shuttle become unaffordable pretty soon. moving from UAV to UCAV that can do cave busting strike or air to air fight against competitive adversary is simply beyond finanacial and technical means.
BAE/Dassualt cannot even attempt anything close to X-47B let alone fighter replacement UCAV. and that X-47B will take atleast 2020 assuming full scale production is funded.
JSRWhat an incredible igorant post I read here.
How do you know Dassault products are overpriced? Which products are you talking about? Do you even know exacty how Dassault makes profit and how the company is structured? Do you actually know something about this company ? Do you know which company is the biggest supplier of weaponry for the French Armed Forces? Definitely not Dassault.
For your information, the company is doing very well and the last thing they could care of is selling the Rafale. It’s been a long time no one cares about selling jet fighters in this company. And they are right because this is not where they should be making money.
Can you explain to me what is the link between 30-year aquisition plan of Rafale fighters that deviated of 4% over budget and the current economic crisis in France?
Dassult products are clearly overpriced. see 4 years negotiation with India for M2K upgrade. Failure to sell to Switzerland. (which is basically a neighbor and can share alot things).
Endless negotiation with UAE/Brazil. even very slow delivery to French state 8 to 10 aircraft per year. No engine/radar upgrade after entering 10 years in service.
without large sales and French government investment there is no chance new things developed from Dassult.
The economic crises are not current it just showed up now.
JSRAeroflot has 100 airplane fleet but has order 200 airplanes. which is 200% of its current size. when it reaches 300 plane size. it can surely order 300% of that fleet. i dont think 1000 planes such tall order.
Irak most of debts have written off and there is enormous capacity in Oil.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/27/iraq-oil-production-idUSL5E7MR0LV20111127
Iraq surely will want a strong airforce, airdefence & stirke weopons to deal with Turkey & others. It is just matter of time
Russia by supplying to Syria against the wishes of Arab league/Turkey has demonstrated that independence.
JSRI strongly disagree with your assesment of the situation. Sure some profit is better than no profit at all.
But while Dassault doesn’t need to pay for the cost it has already sunk into the Rafale programme, it does have to pay for the cost of the future technologies it is developing for its next projects. Most aircraft deals include a lot (if not 100%) tech transfer, so making very little profit out of them would be suicidal because if you give away your tech, and you don’t have cash to work on next generation tech, you’re just going to erode whatever competitive advantage you own, and in the end go bankrupt.
Nic
Question is not of recovering past investments to cover costs of future technologies. rather French state ability to buy overpriced dassult products. with nearly zero GDP growth rate and increasing yearly borrowing. Time for mulitple credit downgrades with increasing bond yields will come.at that point sassult will have to be sold at fire sale.
Unless Dassult is using alot of imported components from multiple sources that increase the cost of production as subcontractors profits have to built into final product.
JSRAFAIK iraq has chosen f-16 as their fighter
Those are only 18. they need 200 to 300 fighters. and with amount of Oil contracts they have done. they can surely afford it in 5 to 10 year period.
JSRhttp://www.rianovosti.com/world/20111108/168512478.html
russia is hoping to sell 90 fighters su-35 and mig-35 to MIDDLE EAST.
i dont know if russia has any contract for fighters in that region,isnt it ?
I would say it will be Irak in 5 to 10 year time. as they have most need and will have most money.
JSRAn excellent collection of UAV/UCAV news
The old air superiority UCAV thread
On Air superiority:
– it can be done: today’s air combat isn’t about heroes in open-topped prop planes fireing machine guns at each other. It’s about sensors, missiles and stealth, a human pilot on board is no longer needed, and even a disatvantage.
– it has been done: in 2003, a stripped down US Predator engaged an Iraqi Mig 23 with a Stinger. The Predator lost the fight, not because the concept is flawed, but because the Stinger missed. An F-22 armed with a single Stinger would not have done any better.
On the other hand a $500,000 UAV armed with AMRAAMs would be a nightmare for any enemy fighter pilots, for how do you fight an enemy that costs less than the missiles you fire at it, and is utterly fearless?
– it will be done, possibly sooner than most people would expect: either because one day one of their $100,000,000 million aircraft gets shot down and its pilot is killed, and they’ll have to explain why they didn’t send a drone instead. Or because air forces run out of money, and that’s looking more likely with every passing day.
– but Air Forces don’t want it to be done. It’s the last sacred area of large egos, even if it costs that much more money and human lives.
MIG-23 is 1970s era fighter. with no self protection and well integrated sensors.
UCAV with heavy loads and fighter performance is well beyond financial means.
JSRSo, active Su-27 (all derivatives) and Mig-31 totals to 400?
Comparing MIG-31 to Su-27 is the same as comparing MIG-29SMT to Su-27SK.
MIG-31 has 50% more MTOW than J-11/Su-27SM.
while there is hardly 25% difference between MIG-29SMT & Su-27SK.
There is practically little difference between MIG-29 & Su-27 interms of speed, altitude and weopons release Mach#.
MIG-31 is in different class.
JSRIt is design of engine. it will take 3 years for them to reach prototype. and couple of years more to reach certified mass production. and for that time period 9,500kg is simply pathetic. or Chinese so desperate to consider it.
JSRsure,UNLICENSET COPY 😎
I wouldnt calll it unlicesne copy as license was sold to them.
Unlicense will be if they create IL-76 copy.
JSRIn these several years, PLAAF & PLANAF have added more than 100 J11B/BS, that put number of Flankers in PLA service more than 400, a heavy fleet size only next to that of USAF/USN combined. Up to date, there are more than 200 WS10 turbofan engines in the field run, alongside more than 1000 AL31F/FN engines.
Are those 100 J-11B/BS already delivered?
1000 AL-31F/FN are salut built. It does not include Saturn/UMPO built. Total AL-31 will be closer to 1500.
JSRLol this is going to be funny…
A single Tomahawk is estimated as of 2011 at £500,000 (US$830,000) multiply that by 119 (in one night) and then come back to me with your notion of cost effective against soviet era nonexistent nonintegrated air defence…
And each sortie of airplane cost $40k per hr not to mention airframe life without ammunition. You will need mulitple refuellings just to get the same range of tomhawk missile for deep strike. as i said it before Libya show was not impressive for Rafale at thats why the deal becomes unworkable.
Sign In
