drabslabStealth is only important to combat high tech enemies, it has absolutely no value against e.g. the Taliban. So we should consider it in the context of a full conflict against a high tech enemy.
Such enemy will be able to merge the signals from all its sources, ranging from human beings watching or hearing a plane fly by to heat signatures, to incoming passive radar (if such exists) signals.
The value of passive radar is that a large number of inexpensive, almost undetectable receivers can use whatever signal that is emitted by anyone. This includes civil broadcasts but also a large number of inexpensive military emitters on trucks that can also be placed anywhere.
This technology does away (at least when it works) with the need of having big centralised classic radar centers.
The Iraq war started with F-117, undetectable by radar, invading Iraq airspace to take down such centralised radar stations and other key installations.
Not only would passive radar be able to see those F-117, with net centric technology spreading that data to fighters and air defence missiles … , it would also deprive those F-117 [and other first day of the war assets] of their core targets.
Could we conclude that stealth HAS BEEN a real advantage for the US when it was, on a limited scale, introduced thirty years ago for very specific missions but that today it has become “just another” consideration in the design of a fighter plane?
Said differently, designing the f-117 in the 1970’s solely around the stealth idea was a brilliant move, today 30+ years later , defending the need of a f-35 with stealth as main (if not only) argument is largely outdated?
drabslabInteresting to see that the MOD is prepared to say that the funding blackhole is almost closed:
http://bfbs.com/news/uk/mods-%C2%A338b-black-hole-almost-balanced-54971.html
I notice that they are saying various future projects can be funded now albeit with the Merlin and Puma upgrades as well as Type 26 nothing new news wise. With the draw down Afghanistan I hope the Army will take its turn this time when a pound of flesh has to be cut away… the RAF and Royal Navy have suffered far more then the boys in green due to Afghanistan.
Hopefully the MOD will get the message and ensure that future procurement is far more off the shelf without hordes of officers from all three services redesigning (and often ruining plus multiplying in price) a perfectly good piece of equipment. I know I know I’m banging on about FRES again…how hard can it to be to buy an AFV/APC?!:p
A 38 billion funding black hole closed in a couple of months in times of austerity????
I don’t believe it. It seems far more likely (certainly considering the “honest” reputation of the british political class”) that this hole never existed in reality but was artificially created for political purposes.
Have any drastic measures been taken recently eliminating defense parts which are not in the interest of the current group of “leaders”?
drabslabAn initiative with huge potential.
But really strange to see how a product with worldwide access without any addiitonal costs or resource implications is promoted as if it is only targetting the british market.
I guess that the chance that I get an answer is close to nill but I really would like to know why this product is promoted in this way
drabslabSince there is no “official” definition of fighter generations, I have not “changed” anything.
I have always said that the defining feature of a 5th Gen fighter is a VLO airframe.
This looks like a very fair and straightforward definition to me. It overcomes the limitation of only looking at radar signature to define the stealthiness of the plane and it is, as a design focus fairly new.
However, it is also very important to notice that this definition depends as much on the capabilites of sensors as it depends on the design of the plane itself.
In this respect, a WO I airplane was also VLO in its time.
Question is whether we should use definitions which can simply cease to exist with evolution of other technologies like SAM or whether we should use definitions that really reflect the capabilities of the plane like supersonic flight, the presence of a radar…
drabslabOn joint missions the F-35 will not be sharing data unless there is a BACN-type capability in the area if there is any chance that it could give away the F-35’s position or endanger the mission.
So F-35 can’t work jointly with most NATO allies then as no IFF or data exchange/communication is possible with planes not equiped with BACN?
That’s just perfect.
It looks more and more that the only mission of the F-35 is to make buckets of money for Lockheed Martin.
But I probably do not understand anything (as usual) just like I don’t understand why the Lockheed Martin littoral combat ships can’t get out of the harbor, and pilots of the F-22 (PILOTS) are appearing on a TV show and end their career stating that the stealthy F-22 is too dangerous to fly.
drabslabF-35; the myth comes to an end
drabslabWell not useless (you’re talking about the CVFs here aren’t you?).
just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight
This is something the US has been trying in about every conflict since WW II.
It often went another way!
drabslabA nice pic.
Indeed, a very nice picture, also one that demonstrates two major weaknesses of the whole stealth idea:
– external stores ruin stealth
– no matter how stealthy the jet, the obligatory tanker certainly is not
drabslabhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643
Interesting reading.
F-15s and -16s (with many upgrades) vs. SA-15s, SA-5s, some Fulcrums and some old Tomcats.
1. Iran does not need nuclear energy; they have plenty of oil , and I guess, gas as well, for free.
Hence, they can not have any reason to go nuclear (and pay fortunes for it), except that this nuclear can give them something “extra” which oil can’t give.
The question is what this extra is. A nuclear bomb?
2. In our western minds, the attempt to build the bomb makes no sense (and it probably doesn’t really) because Israel, the US, UK, France, Japan… are all able to eliminate the nuclear facilities with one decent attack and military speaking, Iran does not have the capacity to strike back.
Hence:
Or the Iranian leaders are so out of touch with reality that they do not see the obvious …
Or their constant provocations serve a purpose that we do not understand.
In the first case a military strike could help them finding reality back, but in the second scenario this is exactly what they want to achieve.
I really wonder what they are after :confused:
drabslabRafale is a defence product and is therefore excluded from the WTO rules of international trade.
The french can even give it away for free if they like, nobody can object.
drabslabIn these days custiomers play a creative game of
No research and development can go full steam under such circumstances.
To this you can add that aircraft manufacturers are trying to beat competition in a shrinking market by making the most ridicoulous promises and the result is exactly what we see all around us, be it the F-35 or the Tigre
drabslabI have just been on the phone to the wife of one who is pregnant and in pieces worrying. She received a message about a hour ago simply saying -“I now know where I’m going.
She will in any case be very happy that you are posting this on a public forum thereby alarming every potential enemy that the UK may be coming in 🙁
drabslabNo, I do. I have been there and also have many friends living there, in both parts.
I am born and live in belgium for 50 years which is a slight difference from having been there.
Franckly (but without wanting to seem aggressive), I find your sweeping statements on how much the two belgian communities hate each other not appropriate.
The fact is that Belgium has a quite unfortunate history and both communities have ended up with a painfull legacy and struggle hard to digest it.
Instead on focussing on the difficulties, it would be much more possitive and constructive to bring under the attention of the world that despite huge differences there are no flemish or wallon extremists who “solve” those differences with bombs and bullets.
There is no fighting in the streets and there will never be any fighting, and that is somethign a large part of the world can learn a lot from.
Such message would also be much friendlier towards those friends you have in the country.
As this should be a discussion on airplanes, I am happy to continue this conversation using the private message facility; I could, however, not let this message unanswered on the public forum.
drabslabThe rancor and hatred felt between Wallonian and Dutch speaking people in Belgium is approximately 10 times higher than in Canada between Anglo Canadians and Quebec ,In Zürich you can speak French with anyone, the French language is present everywhere, in Belgium on the other hand if you take the train from Brussels and go to north ,the French language vanishes all together, in cities like Gent or Brügge French is tantamount with family insult and nudity !
Very obviously, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about
drabslabYou have to ask why Dassault did not offer this price before. There was a selection process. Gripen was chosen on the basis of the 3 bids submitted. If Dassault had priced their bid differently, they might have got the deal but they chose not to offer their best price. Coming back after the winner has been selected to say that you could have offered a better deal than the one you chose to offer, so having lost at the price you offered you would now like to offer a lower price is not very business-like IMO. It tends to confirm my view that Dassault are below par as far as marketing and selling Rafale are concerned.
How many times has France now completely ruined its chances to sell the Rafale?
Switserland, Marocco, Brazil, India… how many more?
Do they actually want to sell the rafale? or does Dassault want to move a way from military aircraft building and into civil work?
Sign In
