FBW….in fact there are many that can fly supersonic ten times further (1500 miles) than the F-35…..even if the F-35 is carrying 8 tons of fuel internally (just 3 tons less than the Su-35 which has 2200 km range on internal fuel).
One western aircraft that could carry out most missions required by the Belgian Air Force is of course the SAAB Gripen….which has true supercruise! (no afterburner)
First part- really? I didn’t know the Concorde was available for sale as a fighter aircraft. 1,500 miles supersonic? no, not one fighter aircraft.
Second part- The Saab claiming Gripen “true supercruise”, is like L-M touting the passenger capacity of the F-35.
FBWIf you are curious, the pictures of the damage to first F-15 hit are over at F-16.net courtesy of a poster “basher”.
Tough birds, those F-15’s. Nice if the RSAF applied some intelligent tactics when operating in a hostile airspace. Rule one, don’t deploy flares and hit ‘burners at same time, an evasive turn might help too. (Ha, just read Eagle’s post. Yes, what he said)
FBWIt seems that Belgium will buy F-35s later rather than sooner then…
No, that’s what is so dumb about this non-scandal. The original study suggested an out of service date for the F-16’s as 2028-9. The RFP sets IOC as 2027 and FOC as ‘29-‘30. It also sets out the buy rate.
In other words, thank goodness the F-16’s are structurally fit to fly till 2029. Because that’s when Belgium will have enough F-35’s, pilots trained, and support to replace them.
If your smart, you don’t wait until your fighter aircraft are out of fatigue life to start replacing them (and face the possibility of costly upgrades to keep them relevant)…. unless your Canada.
Still does not address the question, just because the block 15 MLU can fly six more years, are they operationally suitable into the 2020’s?
This is dumb. Btw, can we move this to appropriate thread?
FBWThis Belgian “scandal” over the F-16 remaining service life is shocking in the ignorance being displayed (just reading through the stories, it would seem that no one read the documents regarding F-16 replacement. Even if some of the F-16’s can last a few years longer, they are on a tight schedule based on the number of aircraft to be purchased per year and IOC, FOC.
1. The question isn’t whether the F-16’s could last 6 more years based on fatigue life, in fact they better because the F-16 replacement plan called for an IOC of 2027 FOC of 2030 (the same timeframe as the expected fatigue life of the F-16’s). The question is why does anyone think it’s a good idea to delay the replacement of F-16 block 15 MLU into another decade.
2. As Vandeput himself said “Our F16s will soon be 40 years old, the latter will approach 50 years. But are they still operationally relevant? Are we going to fly our pilots in aircraft of 65 years old? “
This isn’t just a case of “structurally, we will have to invest very little to allow these aircraft to fly 6 more years”. It is also a question of what upgrades will be needed to allow the F-16’s to achieve their missions in the 2020’s. They still have APG-66(v)2
FBWNo it isn’t. uS debt is now 21T over GDP of 19T (yeah right). That’s also not including liabilities.
Why are we on this topic? Does anyone have enough sense to avoid being dragged into this JSR level discourse (I’ll give St. John the benefit of the doubt he’s relatively new, perhaps didn’t know). Can we keep it relatively aviation related?
And while I realize that US debt is a popular topic in Russian media and forums, it is obvious most of the discourse borders on fanciful daydreams of a coming calamity based on simplistic understanding.
No offense meant directly toward you sepheronx, I know you didn’t start this digression,
FBWMission capable rates 2017- apologize if someone posted (I remember seeing it earlier this month and wanted to repost)-
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/03/05/fewer-planes-are-ready-to-fly-air-force-mission-capable-rates-decline-amid-pilot-crisis/
F-22 nosediving mission capable rates in the midst of the RAMMP, and modernization. Another impact of such a small fleet. There is no way to plug in attrition, or BAI aircraft to replace those down for upgrades.
For reference-
9 aircraft at a time are undergoing SRP- which takes about 1/3 of a year to complete.
Several are undergoing 3.2A upgrades.
Inlet coating repair at several depots (entire fleet rotated through)- roughly 90 days for each.
FBWwhich is well beyond its design specification and then you have successful IRBM intercepts by THAAD and ICBM intercepts by GBI.
GBI has a capability against rudimentary ICBM. Each carries one EKV and intercept would occur after warhead and decoy deployment. Against an ICBM with multiple MIRV and decoys, the GBI is of limited value.
The entire planned fleet of 44 interceptors wouldn’t guarantee a defense against 10 MIRV equipped ICBM’s (even accepting the B.S. oft quoted 97% success rate).
FBWhttps://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/03/13/air-force-orders-freeze-on-public-outreach/
Defense (and military aviation-pertinent to this forum) is about to become a lot less interesting with stricter OPSEC rules coming into effect as well as a media freeze. The US had enjoyed a pretty open policy on this, and I get the need for it (even documents not cleared for public release regarding Congressional testimony on weapon systems were leaking to the internet). There are some interesting projects on the horizon, it would seem the level of access to information to these will be far less than in the past, at least for now.
FBWhttp://www.senat.fr/rap/a16-142-8/a16-142-820.html
For the record, the target of the Rafale program was in the previous LPM, for 2008-2013, of 286 aircraft. With this target, the total cost of the program for the State represented 46,6 billion euros under the economic conditions cost of the factors of 2015. According to the information gathered by your rapporteurs for opinion60 (*), this target must be re-examined later, in particular according to the observed attrition, the use of the aircraft and the number of Mirage 2000 remaining (M2000-5 and M2000D), to respect the format of 225 aircraft defined in 2013.
– Work related to the new F3R standard, whose development was launched at the end of 2013. This standard makes it possible for the Rafale F3R operation: development work, testing and instrumentation;
he development of the Rafale F4 standard, according to the LPM, must be ordered in 2018. This new standard will include an upgrade of the active antenna radar detection software and the electronic countermeasures of the aircraft; the weapon-carrying capacity will also be increased, so that the successor of the MICA (Interception, Combat and Self-Defense Missile, see below) can be installed. The objective is to have a fleet of which all aircraft would eventually have the same standard, which would facilitate both logistical support and training of pilots. In order to preserve the skills of the industrial design offices, your draftsmen would like to see the idea of anticipating 2017 the notification of the development contract of this F4 standard.
In other words, 46.6 billion based on the previous estimates from the 2008-2013 plan in 2015 cost factors. The development for F3R was started after the 2013 plan. The contracts for F4 hadn’t even been awarded yet.
Look back on previous estimates, the estimated program costs did not include future standards and upgrades:
https://www.senat.fr/rap/a04-077-7/a04-077-74.html
(program costs in 2004= 35 billion, which BTW included 294 aircraft delivered by 2015. The program added about 6 billion Euro in program costs between 2004-2015 after taking inflation into account.)
FBWThat included everything within F3. F3R and future F4 are not included in original program.
No, not according to the report. F3 standard. If you have documentation to support information to the contrary please share. And not “somebody in the know told me”, because the estimate made at the time was clear what was included.
Even the production slowdown was estimated to add over a billion Euro to program costs since those estimates, now we have a production increase for the next few years. You want to guess how these changes to production rate will impact program costs?
FBWNot to mention that an SM-3 IIA would have to be within 1000km of the launch site to intercept an ICBM in boost phase launched from Russia targeting the US. So, unless Russia want to stage all their missiles on the borders of Ukraine, Belarus, and Baltic states, the sites aren’t a threat. But then, that’s not the narrative being propagated is it?
FBWRussia knows the purpose and scope of US ABM shield. First off, do you know how many ABM weapons the US has with even limited capability against ICBM? Do you know why most US systems are worthless against ICBM?
First, there would need to be a concerted US effort and budget to create a missile shield that could seriously upset deterrence. No such plan exists. It is much more economical to create an ICBM force to overwhelm a missile defense than to create such a defense in the first place. Russia has that capability, N Korea and Iran do not. The US would like to keep it that way, so there is no strategic need for “asymmetric” nuclear deterrence from Russia.
Gonna bow out of this topic because I doubt there will be much useful discussion on this.
FBW-except it isn’t internet armchair warriors that were sceptical of these new weapons. But nice rant.
Anyway this is an aviation forum. Let’s stay on that aspect, my own digression included.
FBWAnyone with half a brain understand that Russian would love for the US to return to the table and sign a new ABM treaty.
Until that happens.. the game is on. I think the latest development has finally begun to sink in on some folks over at Pentagon and US Senators.
What US viewed as a advantage decades ago by dropping out of the ABM treaty is now a nasty thorn in their @ss.Putin knows Russia can never check US tit for tat, so they counter US with Asymetric developments..
I think that your conclusions above are flawed.
Current US ABM defenses are totally inadequate to stop Russian ICBM. Russia knows this, the US government knows this. Currently, they aren’t even properly positioned or sufficient numbers to intercept even a fraction of Russian ICBM+ SLBM.
As far as the latest developments, they are having the opposite effect on the US military and gov than you are postulating. It is seen as a bit of bizarre chest thumping, and strategically irrelevant. A nuclear powered cruise missile? Has to be the dumbest concept and disclosure in quite some time. A technical feat? Sure, but strategically irrelevant. The torpedo equally stupid. If Russia was concerned about US missile defenses and their own second strike capabilities, the answer is simple. Build more ICBM and ballistic missile submarines and develop glide vehicle warheads (which they are doing). Putin’s speech had a overall negative effect, many seeing his disclosures as a sign of bravado and bluster. I’m sure many of our Russian friends will disagree, but the reaction over Russian’s nuclear arsenal expansion is being met with alarm over the purpose, and incredulity over the execution.
FBWTo be fair, Rafale PAUC comparison suffers from higher Euro compared to the dollar then. Using the 2014 French Senat numbers of ~160 million Euro PAUC equivalent (19.6% VAT). Wouldn’t be surprised if Rafale program acquisition cost was higher than UK Typhoon costs though. Development costs shouldered by one nation, clear upgrade roadmap, and all aircraft (I believe) brought to F3 standard in cost projection. Can only imagine Typhoon development cost if tranche 1 were (or could be) modernized to a tranche 2 or 3.
Sign In
