Assumptions, assumptions…

Only in that I am taking the word of rcolistete posted here, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3/page100

The Raven ES-05 AESA radar is not ready. Only in 2021 onwards it will have all air-to-air and then (2023-2026) air-to-surface modes operational.

I talked to a Saab enginner in LAAD 2015 (April, Rio de Janeiro), stating that this radar will only have all modes completed in the first half of next decade.

Based on that info, I would not classify the Gripen NG as full multi-role until A2G radar modes are operational.

how reliable is below information. but Israel is definitely pushing these countries to buy overprice Euro weopons.

I think we can safely discount that source given the US has already sold the most advanced F-15 model available to Saudi Arabia.

Excellent post Vnomad. Thank you for sharing.
I particularly like the emphasis put on the strategical meanings of having such platform. Pedantically speaking, It’s great that they didn’t miss this primordial aspect. Even in a press report.

Its even better that they chose a RAAF F-35A for the picture, the kangaroo emblem makes the jet look more lethal and capable!

Andrew Jackson has flown Australian Super Hornets, so no, not old 4th generation planes about to be replaced, but brand new 4.5 Gen jets.

To add to that, if you want to see Jacko you can watch the Australian 60 minutes review of the F-35 aired last month. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn0FHDhEK4

Was a bit of a puff piece but as I posted previously, there are a few nuggets on info in there that are interesting.

The good question is who is that particular guy being paid by today.. What he tells us is important, but even more important is what he doesn’t.

I find it very moving that you make the effort to study the bias and perspective of a commenter whenever something negative is reported… and at the same time completely ignore the fact that people you’re trying to refer to often are on the manufacturer’s payroll.. Kind of double standard, IMHO..

Because that is the main reason for me to disregard a source.. For you obviously not which I find quite hilarious if you ask me..

I think you are now beginning to understand. I don’t have any particular attachment to Billie Flynn and if you put his comment in the context of what he said and when he was said it was presumptuous and clearly talking about a very specific set of conditions. The quote was useful for how it demonstrated, quite clearly, your bias.

As for how I evaluate sources, I have had the same skepticism about pro F-35 articles as I have about negative F-35 articles, nor do I favour one manufacturer over another. I do post on other forums so have a proven track record of this stance.

Wheeler: so what? Most F-35 reports from early stages of the project were wrong so many times (performance, timelines, cost..), why can’t be POGO?
Picard: again, so what? Is it forbidden to like Rafale when you do the reporting on the F-35? Does all F-35 reporting have to be done by F-35 fans?
Hartung: so, he did criticize LM for corruption before, in what way does this disqualify him?

The way I see it, the only sources you find appropriate and credible are Koll Aid drinkers and head nickers, that speaks volumes about how objective you are..

Again, Wheeler is not interested in the truth, he is interested in selling his position.
Picard is not interested in the truth given he clearly can’t objectively evaluate the facts.
Hartung also cannot objectively look at the facts, he as with Wheeler is interested in selling his position.

As for who I believe, I place a lot of value in the non manufacturer military aircrew who have commented on the aircraft so far, such as the recent Norwegian article, RAAF aircrew, or the guys at Fighter Sweep. These guys are able to objectively evaluate the jet, and have the knowledge and experience to back up their assessment. I also place value in the opinions of people who have access to classified data and in those who show an ability to balance what is being said and critically evaluate it. Finally, I make my own assessment based on my experience and knowledge, understanding that I bring with my assessment my own set of bias.

What is a head nicker?

Of course not.. Whatever the manufacturers claim, is OK with me.. :eagerness:
BTW, Eurofighter test pilot has claimed the F-35 stood no chance against Typhoon.. Now be nice and simply accept this as a proven fact, please.. Thank you..

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-will-never-beat-the-eurofighter-2013-2

The good news is that instead of listening to a Eurofighter pilot who has never flown the F-35 we have Bill Flynn, who has flown both, as well as the F-16, F-18, F-4 and Tornado. From you first link,

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

So in this instance who do we believe the guy who has flown and has classified knowledge of both aircraft or the guy who has flown and has classified knowledge of only one of them?

What I’m trying to get you to understand is the context in which the comments are made, as well as the bias and perspective of the commenter, make a significant difference to both the quality and believability of the comment. I see no reason that we cannot assess the quality of the source material as presented. It happens on this board all the time, for example in the PAK-FA thread there are numerous websites and agencies that they instantly disregard.

Really? And to which manufacturers are those people (Feinstein, Hartung, Picard, Wheeler…) connected to or paid by?

Why does someone have to be paid by a manufacturer? In the case of the above,

Wheeler was from POGO, an organisation that resists every single large defence acquisition project, and has atrack history of getting things wrong time and again.

Picard has a clear bias towards the Rafale and a simple read of a few of his assessments show the large gaps of knowledge he has in basic fighter tactics and the technology associated with them.

As for Hartung, he is the director of an organisation that has the following as its mission statement,

The Arms and Security Project engages in media outreach and public education aimed at promoting reforms in U.S. policies on nuclear weapons, military spending and the arms trade. It seeks to advance the notion that diplomacy and international cooperation are the most effective tools for protecting the United States. The use of military force is largely irrelevant in addressing the greatest dangers we face, from terrorism, to nuclear proliferation, to epidemics of disease, to climate change, to inequities of wealth and income. The allocation of budgetary resources needs to be changed to reflect this reality.

https://www.ciponline.org/programs/arms-security-project
Clearly the above colours his perspective on the F-35, corruption and military procurement.

Vnomad already listed Feinstein.

It almost sounds like a medium to high altitude cruise missile with recessed ASRAAM or some other short range missiles that could independently seek their own targets once launched . It sounds great against a target rich environment but where do you come across formations of “enemy” aircraft like that now. I’d assume the mother missile would aim for the largest target.

Except the suggestion is not a 100kg ASRAAM but a 10kg missile that would struggle to host a warhead of decent size nor have the ability to cause significant damage if it was hit to kill, with hit to kill requiring an expensive seeker head that cannot fit within the size constraints. Realistically the weight and size would have to increase significantly for the mini missile to be effective, while additional weight makes the case for the launch missile less given it has to increase in size to accommodate the mini missile.

The closest parallel I can think of is launching a MANPADS sized missile from a larger missile. The problem being MANPADS are terrible missiles to intercept high energy targets and only the most recent missiles have a proximity fuse given the size constraints of the missile and warhead.

Has missile technology advanced enough that the next generation of long range AAMs could be designed to engage 2 targets? What might enable that is the fact that long range missiles will have a long range thanks to a sustained thrust ( with a ramjet motor for instance ). The missile will be able to redirect its flight after it has launched its missile submunition.

The missile submunition would not nessecarily need to be powered. If it is launched at high speed by the missile in the right direction, it should have a range of about 20km if it has a small diameter and not much drag. 20km is roughly the range of a modern IIR seeker. The mini missile would need to have a high maneuvrability ( if possible with side thrusters ) and a small warhead ( say around 2kg ) to increase the effect.

The mini missile would not weight more than about 10kg, which is about 5% of the weight of a meteor, so it wouldn’t affect the range too much. The fact that it has no motor would make is short enough to fit in a relatively short payload section, and would also reduce the cost.

The main missile would have its own warhead to intercept the second target. If there is only one target to intercept, both the submunition missile and the main missile would attack it, which would increase the pk.

I don’t think it would be worth it to have more than one sub munition, because the main missile would have to maneuver too much, which would require too much propellant, the missile would become too big.

That would be good for stealth planes because it would double the number of aircraft they could shoot down. Also long range missile are very expensive, so they would be more cost effective if they could attack a 2 targets.

So you have a missile with two seeker heads? Realistically the smaller missile will have to be loaded into the nose area, meaning it will still require a large radar sensor to provide guidance to the both missiles before it is deployed to seek its specific target.

What happens if there is only one target, how are the sub munition and the main missile going to deconflict?

What happens if the targets are too spread for the missiles to provide effective coverage. Tactics being developed for the F-35 indicate a pair of jets wil be separated by 10+ km. You would expect other 5th gen operators to adopt similar tactics and therefore your missile either cannot engage both 5th gen or becomes effective against 4th gen and below only.

The sub-munition is going to have a very very small warhead so will probably have to be hit to kill but will require that big radar seeker in the nose to guide both missiles.