FBWAdd systems like Nebo-M into the S-400 equation, and I wouldn’t want to be enforcing a no-fly zone in F-35s, F-22s, or T-50s either.
Vhf-uhf radar complicates the game for sure. IADS ( like Nebo-m with 40r6, etc)all have one huge inherent weakness, even mobile radars take time to set up, move about. Stay in one place and radiate for too long and you become the hunted not the hunter. U.S. studied the issue of vhf radars on stealth in the 1980’s. They are still building LO assets. To my knowledge, they never really released any recommendations or findings, I looked. The DRFM countermeasures of new intergated defensive avionics suites are an interesting possibility.
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-SET-080///MP-…
I would also make a guess that there are still issues with long wavelength radar being susceptible to false returns and jamming as in the past. As I stated before, i dont think simply having a low radar sig is enough. Jamming, decoys, probably UCAVs are going to be critical to penetrating defended airspace.
FBWCome on! If you go back to my post when that whole thing went down, I went out of my way to compliment you over your extensive research, and interesting ideas. I took issue with personal attacks on professional credentials of others, and general hostile tone.
FBWhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-lockheed-fighter-exclusive-idUSBREA0N0ID20140124
more of the same: price, performance be damned, software defines modern combat aircraft development.
FBWOne cant compare costs between tenders. They include different stuff.
I agree with you, that’s why I computed the costs for those three contracts. The problem with the Gripen contract is that the Gripen NG did not exist in 2008. LM said the F-35 would cost 85m and stuck to that until they were told to stop quoting that price. The contracts signed are all representative of ToT, partial production in country, and training/maintenance costs. There is no such thing as flyaway cost as you pointed out. The bottom line is simple: Brazil is going to pay at least 125m for 36 Gripen, probably including the lease of the Gripen c, India will pay a minimum of 160 per, and Japan 190m for the F-35. There are no apples to apples comps because each nation requires different weapons integration, offsets, training needs. Msphere said flyaway is a lie, he is right in a way. The Gripen is going to require more than a simple engine and hardware upgrade. As I said before, Gripen software was written in ADA, how easy is it to upgrade the Raptor? Block 4 software for the F-35 isn’t even being introduced yet. Rafale and Gripen do not have UAI, every new weapon will require new software and testing. There is no doubt the Gripen is cheaper, now. The Gripen NG lifetime costs are not known, there is not one production example anywhere. Lifetime costs based on the Gripen C are better compared to a block 50-52 f-16 than a Rafale, F-35, and the like.
FBWhttp://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_24_2014_p0-657750.xml&p=1
Thompson
Sweetman
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_20_2014_p16-654936.xml
And the war over cost continues…..
In 2008 SAAB made a fixed price offer of 85 Gripen NG at 4.8 billion euros to the Dutch government. Gripen NG = Gripen E.
The offer included training. simulators, spares and support.
This I want to see the article on this offer. Because that would mean they were screwing the Brazilians, or your price quoted is inaccurate. See my post above:http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2107669#post2107669
FBWFor the end user, flyaway prices are useless trash invented by those striving to hide real cost of the aircraft. The only cost that really counts for the end user is the system procurement cost and operating cost. Everything else is bullsh!t (unless you got a special situation where you want to replace one aircraft under special conditions, for example an attrition loss)
No, because every deal is different. By that thinking, here are some recent contracts:
Rafale/India deal, 20 billion (rumored to be rising higher)= 160,000,000 per aircraft
Japan F-35 deal 7 billion (ish)= 190,000,000 per aircraft
Brazilian Gripen deal 4.5 billion= 125,000,000 per aircraft
Anyone think these number accurately reflect the procurement cost? Djcross did a good job of breaking costs down above.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8967552/Japan-picks-Lockheeds-F-35-in-7bn-fighter-deal.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303773704579267722161813140
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf-dassault-rafale-mmrca-deal-aircraft/1/171460.html
FBWI agree with many of your points FBW, but disagree on one : combat systems are far more integrated on eurocanards than on any “4th gen” US plane (except planned F18 NG). See data fusion for ex.
No argument from me, Rafale and Typhoon are in that transitional threshold that blur any attempts simply categorize aircraft as fourth gen, 4+, and all that nonsense. Top notch avionics and sensor integration, exceptional performance. Weapons pods and conformal tanks should keep them relevant for their service lives. Gripen is really not a contemporary of the other two: design was frozen in the late 80’s, ADA computer Lang, only FBW issues delayed introduction until 90’s, Gripen NG should be competitive. My only worry with Eurofighter is whether there will be a commitment for upgrades by all nations in the consortium. The praetorian DASS and AESA upgrades seem to be at a snails pace.
FBWSomeone said that all the ones that complained where ppl who hadnt flown the F35. That was obviously bs.
But sure. Most problems are block specific. And as ive said several times before… The F35s biggest problem isn’t performance. It is the cost and logistics and the fact that it isn’t the best choice in the most common uses for it’s smaller customers.
Valid point about smaller nations and cost. Most of the nations that I assume you are referring to are European and NATO members. For these nations, they probably weighing the cost of the F-35 with the benefit of integration with other (read U.S.) members. The frequency of operations such as Libya, Afghanistan, Balkans, make the idea of a fighter that is common across NATO members attractive. As I alluded to on a different thread, an aircraft good enough for air policing your airspace may not be the preferred airframe for interventions. Politics aside on whether these interventions are popular or controversial, they have been commonplace over the last 20 odd years. Member nations that support the NATO doctrine will want to be part of the F-35 program, with the exception of France, but they’ve always been a participant on their terms, no?
FBWSanem
to clarify my original post, I was actually thinking of modern day stealth aircraft: F-22, F-35, B-2, RQ-170, T-50, J-20, UCAVs…
and the fact that most of them are based on 2000-2010 era stealth technology that is likely to become outdated as sensor technology catches up, for example optical sensors like the Argus which shows mind numbing results
What band do targeting radars use and why? X-band mostly. Surveillance radars use longer wavelengths, Detecting and tracking LO/VLO aircraft is not as easy as some would claim. Doing it in a wartime situation with ECM and Decoys, and Cruise missiles targeting AD networks, probably a very difficult proposition.
I think the disconnect in your “stealth will become irrelevant” comes to how newer generations of fighter do and will operate. The overused “fifth” generation aircraft have reduced radar visibility, integrated defensive EW suite, secure communications and networking, and reduced ir sig. Radar signature, as part of the overall package, isn’t decreasing in importance, just become one piece of the overall capability.
The problem for the opfor is: if you radiate, your emission will be detected at a greater distance than your radar can detect the target, your comms can be detected, and IRST cannot surveil the large sections of the sky at the same time.
Many believe that IRST offers the solution to detection LO aircraft, but the limitations of a relying on a single sensor severely limit situational awareness. Think about it like this: find a friend, put on boxing gloves and turn off all the lights. Give your friend night vision goggles and you take a narrow beam flashlight and see who takes more punches. Simplistic for sure, but illustrative of the power of situational awareness.
Take the F-35: there are groups that claim that it’s stealth is weak except in X band (unsubstantiated). Well, that’s the wavelength of aircraft radars. Even if AWACs or Ground surveillance radars detect it, they have to share that targeting data. The F-35 does include some IR sig reduction, hiding the exhaust between the twin tails, exchanging heat to the fuel, etc. F-35s can be networked together and share information and communicate with other assets securely (MADL). The Barracuda system which was adapted from the an/alr-94, it has antennas distributed around the airframe. It allows for geo-location of threats and targeting data for aam, harm, it the threat emits, it will be picked up ,catalogued, and prioritized in a shoot list. That and DAS will give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness.
The only question will be as how long this advantage will last into the future as new designs incorporate this technology.
Those who focus on radar sig are missing the other critical elements that make concept work.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15862
http://defensetech.org/2013/06/06/air-force-jsf-will-redefine-age-old-doctrine-for-fighters/
FBWThey and the command would be the first to agree, as they changed to higher altitude after finding low alt along with daytime was the most hazardous.
Many were hamstrung by targeting & weapons tho, and so didnt have the hardware for accuracy at night & high alt.
True, the reports from tornado pilots hitting airfields with JP-233’s is hair raising. The flashes lit up their aircraft like daylight.
FBWI did, when originally posted by Tu-22m, i believe, and now. I guess if we could rewind history, we could test those findings. My guess would be that the brave tornado pilots from the RAF and F-15e crews would not share with those findings. They lost comrades flying attack missions against heavily defended targets. F-117 did not lose a plane while also attacking in a SAM and flak rich environment. Again same target was hit by f-117s after failure of package Q.
– bit harsh sorry, i find that report to be the typical after the fact analysis that belittles the efforts of those who had to take the chances.
FBWAs Djcross pointed out, f-117 hit the target, package Q did not. What point are you trying to make?
FBWHaving that grid obstructing airflow though has got to effect performance. Maybe the PAKFA isn’t as fast as we have imagined. Not that it would be slow, just unexceptional.
It’s not a grid, radar blockers are used on super hornet, x-32 had one that was variable. Look up what a radar blocker looks like. First gen LO Aircraft and drones like the sentinel use a grid. Hence when sentinel crashed, there was little new tech to be gleaned from it. Aside from cameras, etc. I’m sure with the airframe designed for aero performance, Sukhoi plans on a blocker that will not unduly compromise airflow.
FBWI understand the point you are making. And would say for most nations, a LO aircraft would be overkill. The Rafale is well equipped and versatile as Libya showed. My point, going back to the original idea of this topic would be: I wouldn’t want to be the nation enforcing a no-fly zone over–fill in the blank– with the most cost effective aircraft and s-400’s below me.
FBWand as for penetrating dense defenses, the Rafale is developed to use advanced ECM suite and, if necessary, go in at treetop level. It’s equipped to do so in automatic mode, which allows to fly extremely low and fast, and there, you have pretty good chances to be outside of the view of most if not all defenders. Unless the terrain is perfectly flat, your enemy won’t be able to track you for more than a couple of seconds at most
As I said, the price of the F-35 is still a moving target. UAE balked at the cost and India seems to be feet dragging over the MMCRA deal over the cost fo the Rafale. There is no doubt the Rafale did not have the development cost of the F-35. And there is no argument the Rafale will probably be less expensive to own and operate. How much? 618 million per plane sounds a bit exact for an aircraft that has not reached IOC. Even the DoD SAR report of 1 trillion dollars is no longer valid.
This part, ,”where the french have to ask somebody having the F-35 to do it instead of them, the cost effectiveness is completely in favor of the Rafale”. , is a bit absurd. Where do you see France going to war without a coalition of allies? The Rafale program probably consumed a larger share of the French defense budget than F-35 has for the U.S. France was willing to pay that cost to keep domestic fighter production. The various tiers of F-35 partners get a slice of production and sustainment “pie”. We will have to see if that approach was more cost effective.
Click on the link about integrated ECM suites I gave. Spectra is one of many excellent systems. I make no claims about which is good, better, best, because most of these systems are highly classified. The only point I would contest is that spectra is unique.
Sign In
