Senior Moderator
Posts: 3224
(7/30/05 3:37 pm) Reply
New aircraft roles
I'm looking into the debate about Typhoon/Rafale/F-35/F22 funding, development, capabilities and design, not from the point of view of a pilot or video-gamer or weapons-buff, but as a way of asking what operations the different nations are envisaging - how they see the role of their military capacity in the next 20-30 years. I'd like some help from the people here who are knowledgeable about the technological side of these matters.
Just to bring everyone up to date, the Pentagon has just changed the shape of the playing field by talking about possible cuts in the JSF programme. news.ft.com/cms/s/bc2b188...511c8.html
Apart from atavistic conflicts like Greece and Turkey, and even there (sub-sea rights), economics is a big part of warfare - diplomatic policy is often centrally concerned with economic relations, and sometimes vice-versa, so one could possibly paraphrase Clausewitz by saying that war is economic relations by other means.
In any conflict, the US can afford to send in a whole caboodle of kit, each element serving specific purposes, supressing particular threats, hitting targets in a variety of ways. European powers with lower military budgets need a multi-role capacity and make-do strategy, as of course do all the potential customers for the new aircraft.
The Rafale - Typhoon split was not just because the French, with typical arrogance, demanded overall control and a 50% workshare. It was also because they saw military intervention in different ways, they wanted a lighter aircraft, for instance, laying greater stress on the use of carriers than the British (at the time).
British (and Italian) participation in the JSF programme could turn out to be the worst transatlantic hash-up since Skybolt was cancelled, as another FT article here explains.
Apart from the apparent unexpectedly high cost of adapting the aircraft to true multi-role use, another problem is the fact that the US wants to restrict access to the key stealth tech elements of the new plane, even to a 'tier-one' customer like the UK, which has contributed to the research that has gone into JSF development.
All this suggests that the the Interparliamentary European Security and Defence Assembly was right in stressing the need for a concerted policy concerning the future of the European defence aeronautics industry. The report to the council of this organization, presented here, makes the point pretty clearly.
In order for that to happen, there has to be a shared set of priorities involved. But is this possible?
This is the stuff that rarely appears in tech-buff discussions or aircraft company sites, and what I'd like to see discussed. Detailed knowledge of what the aircraft have been designed to do would help.
What sort of aircraft do France, Britain and Germany need and what for?
Is France's choice of capacities determined by African and other ex-colonial interests and an ability for limited but effective world-wide independent intervention against lesser opponents? Rafale is a succesful multi-role platform - but at what cost in terms of fighting opponents equipped with the latest upgrades to Soviet technology? How will this affect its marketability as an eventual export replacement for the Mirage 2000?
Is the US now primarily envisaging some eventual conflict with distant China and is that partly why the JSF may be in trouble? Is it in fact made irrelevant in US eyes by the eventual arrival of the F22 and, in the meantime, replaceable by upgrades to the latest design versions of the F15 for air combat and to the Hornet for strike?
Does Italy even know what it wants and why, and is UK capacity seen mainly in terms of a Middle East role. How does the technology correspond to that? Is Typhoon over-optimised for air superiority at the expense of a strike capacity? In other words, is it designed as a support plane for US missions, relying on the Yanks to do the actual mass murder ...er... sorry, to take out the tactical objectives.
Similarly, how irrelevant is strike capability to Germany; does it still think exclusively in terms of shooting down Russian planes? And what the hell did the Swedes build the useless Grippen for (with a US controlled engine supply)?
And finally, how much is the whole enterprise geared to lucrative export sales and what clues are there about that? Do particular components manufacturers have a special product that indicate that they might be good bets for a stock exchange punt?
Si vis pacem, para bellum and all that. Question is, what war? And even more to the point, Cui Bono?
Any help which would help me not making an idiot of myself with elementary blunders would be appreciated. This is an area I know very little about so far.
Edited by: BibleRiot at: 7/30/05 3:42 pm
I personally see the Typhoon and Rafale as big blunders and something that was obsolete before they even entered service. The first Eurofighter prototype flew what...in the mid 1980s. This plane is not stealthy...it is not a true 5th generation aircraft like the F-22. It has all the high technology Europe could afford to put in it...but its still a platform that doesn't offer any special capabilities over other platforms already in existance. Its not a stealth aircraft, it doesn't have super manuvrability...its just a 4th generation aircraft loaded with more high-tech equipment.
And since they know this...they have developed specializes weapons like the French and the British short-range stealth cruise missile which is designed to be carried by the Typhoon and launched against enemy targets at stand-off ranges. The weapon was first tested in Iraq in 2003 by British Tornaodes. But why waste so many billion of dollars...for an aircarft which is 10 years behind its time already...and which in another 10 years will be considered obsolete??
I think they went ahead with this for purely political reasons...to keep the European consortium going...even though they knew they had a far inferior plane in their hands.
Rafale on the other hand is actually a better aircraft. It has some stealth design and at least the French have put some sort of a more sophisticated radar cancellation system which makes it a bit more stealthy by sort of canelling the enemy's radar waves. But its still only a slight improvement in terms of a platform over the Mirage 2000. The Rafale too is an aircraft decades in the making. It is based on the failed Mirage 4000 of the late 70s. So they have a platform which is only slightly more versitile than the Mirage 2000...but of course has better electronics and better weapons. But its also not a true fifth generation aircraft.
All these aircraft in a few years will be totally outclassed by the F-22 and F-35. They have true stealth capabilities...which allows the aircraft themselves to fly into the most dangerous aeas and drop bombs..instead of relying on stand-off weapons like the Typhoon. They won't be seen on an enemy's aircraft radar until it is too late...while a Typhoon and a Rafale will be seen on an F-22 radar long before it itself is detected. So 10 yeasr from now...the Europeans will be in a position where they will either have to buy American...as they have done in the past in the 60s and 70s...or start another design for a true fifth generation aircrft...but by that time they'll be too far behind.
I think Eurofighter and Rafale were both political decisions more than anything. Eurofighter should have been dropped in the mid 80s already...when it was obvious the plane itself as a platofrm offered nothing new or improvement over the existing systems.
They were also developed with exports in mind. No nation can afford to buy F-22s or F-35s...and the US certainly isn't going to be selling many nations such technology. I don't know if the F-35s to be sold in Europe will probably be downgraded compared to the US version. So the Europeasn were hoping their planes...being less capable but also far cheaper...may get export orders from places like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia or others. Unfortunately for them...the Russians got into this export business in the 90s...and they dominate the market. No one will buy a Eurofighter...when for half the price they can get the latest Su-30s which outmanuvers, out-shoots and has better technology than even the Eurofighter itself. Thats why China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam...heck even Brazil...have bought Su-30s or will in the near future. And if it weren't for US political pressure...even South Korea and others would have bought Su-30s.
The Rafale has some export potential...particularly Saudi Arabia and other nations in the Middle East...but thats about it. It can't compete in other markets against whatever the Russians can sell. Eurofighter on the other hand has zero chances of export...so it was a big blunder in my opinion.
The US may be cutting F-35s...but thast to be expected. They order 2500 of them initially...this number alwasy goes down. But no matter what...there will be many hundreds of them in US service, and several hundred F-22s as well. The US is not going to rely on upgraded F-15s and F-18s for the future...they are stop-gap measures till these 5th generation aircraft come along. But the sad part is...the upgraded F-15s and F-18s are already more capable and advanced than the Eurofighter or Rafale...same as the Russian Su-30s and Su-35s (which are just upgraded SU-27s). So what the hell was Europe thinking??
The only thing that keeps these planes LOOK as a good idea is the fact that the Russians havn't gotten a fifth generation aircraft YET. Only the US does...so peopel think well the US is an ally so it not so bad. But the RUssians did fly two fifth generation aircraft prototypes many years ago and are still SLOWLY working on a third design. The S-37 flew in 1997 and the MiG I-42 flew a few months later...and these were designs in the class of the F-22 which had supermanuvrability, thrust vector engines, true stealth designs as well as the Russian version of the radar cancellation system the Rafale uses (the Russians reportadly use a system that creates a plasma field around the aircraft...making it completely invisible to radar...but this has yet to be seen on an aircraft) and electronics and weapon systems that put even the F-22 to shame. And now Russia is working on the PAK-FA...a sort of combination of the two designs which proved far too expensive for Russia to handle...so they'll make a smaller fifth-generation aircraft in the class of the F-35. But 10 years from now Russia may have something ready...and by then the European systems will be totally outclassed.
The Grippen actually was a smarter design. It was something which at least enetred service many years ago...unlike the Eurofighter or Rafale whicha re only now entering service. And it was an aircraft which offered the same capabilities as they do...but only many years ago. Sweden needed this system. The Swedesh fighters that were in service were obsolete and needed replacement. Developing their own design was very smart. They got an airplane which is very capable for their needs...a 4th + generation aircraft which can compete as equal to any of the other European designs...but at MUCH lower costs and much better servicability. And it has seen great export success...and in the future may see even more. Half the East European air forces that joined NATO are getting Grippens. Hungary has already gotten its first 6 Grippens I think. Czech is going to get them very soon. Romania, Bulgaria, and maybe Croatia are also looking into the aircraft. Its affordable for people who can't afford expensive big systems like Typhoon or Rafale...or who for political reasons don't want to buy Russian.
But I think EUrofighter and Rafale were very bad ideas. They offer nothing which doesn't already exist and hasn't existed for years...so in the near future they will be totally outclassed. You can see what real aircraft producing nations do...they develop real fifth generation aircraft and by the time they get them...theyr on the leading edge. If they want better performance in the meantime...they just upgrade their existing 4th generation designs...like the F-15 or the Su-27...and get an aircarft which is better in every term to whatever the Europeans spends decades and billions on developing...an aircraft the US or the Ruskies spend a couple of years upgrading an existing design on.
Either get it right the first time or don't do it at all.
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3227
(7/31/05 2:34 am) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
Kapedani, thanks for the response. Provocative as ever but challenging. One thing’s for sure; researching this has altered my attitude to European arms sales to China.
As I said earlier, the real debate here isn’t about comparing capabilities and getting a boner about the best stats, but looking at optimization and asking why the planes were made that way. That means taking into account flexibilities, basing and the logistics of deployment, realpolitik, media management, the research imperatives you mentioned, answerability for costs, and above all the conceivable opponents.
Quote:Pentagon officials are considering proposals to cut the $245bn (€203bn) Joint Strike Fighter programme by at least 70 per cent as part of a department-wide review of all weapons systems, according to people briefed on internal Pentagon discussions.
One of the proposals includes axing the version of the JSF being built for the US air force, which would see the 2,400-fighter programme cut by 1,700 aircraft.
Any decision to cut the number of aircraft produced would drive up the costs of the remaining fighters, since development costs, which have risen from $25bn when the programme was launched in 1996 to $45bn today, would be spread out over a smaller number of aircraft.
Dov Zakheim, who until recently served as the Pentagon's budget director, said such economics was the reason he believed the programme would survive. "If they rolled it back too far, the price goes through the roof," said Mr Zakheim. "People will have to pull out, and it's tantamount to killing the programme. Financial Times 30.07.2005
The JSF is a good plane – in theory, if it works as predicted, if it can be delivered at a sensible price, if its software isn’t too buggy, all of which are open to question. Remember the Starfighter? JSF was meant to be relatively cheap. We’ll see if that pans out – I doubt it. Above all, it doesn’t exist yet.
But what’s it going to be for? It’s had too many people specifying it. It’s heavy, relatively short range compared to an F22, and not ideal as an interceptor – although probably superior to all existing designs except the F22. It’ll be good for bombing Arabs, blowing up bridges and supporting the marines. But hey, we can do that with an F-15, let alone the Super Hornet and Eurofighters. It’s really not much use against China. I think this is what’s behind the above proposed cuts, which could make the remaining planes prohibitively expensive.
Notice that this guy, a USAF Colonel who knows what he’s talking about, but is critical of the F-22 program, identifies the F-22’s primary purpose as fighting the Chinese:
Quote:the major point relative to this program remains — The USAF has no need for an upgraded air superiority aircraft. There is no air superiority problem facing the US today anywhere in the world! Of course one can be conjured, but it is difficult. Countries having many fighters – usually US fighters
– are England, France, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Israel, and Japan. They are not going to war on us. Neither will Russia or a benign India. China will not attack the US, nor should we attack China. However, F–22 advocates seeking to justify an air superiority war, would have us involved in defending the political affiliation of a mere 15 million Taiwan Chinese against almost 1.5 billion Mainland Chinese. Further, on the subject of numbers, our “swarms” (large fleets) of F–15s and F–16s assisted by the versatile A-10, may have a chance to defend Taiwan — but a couple of squadrons of F–22s with a sortie rate about half that of the others will never even be noticed by the Mainland Chinese commanders, nor will they care. Numbers count! F–22 advocates must learn to count.... Emphasis in original
Correspondingly, knowledgeable Australians who (in my view correctly) see rising Chinese power projection in Asia as a major threat to US hegemony in the region are very pro-F22 and see the JSF as a distraction.
I take it back about the Gripen, it’s an interesting aircraft. It can carry lil ol’ Mica and eventually Meteor. It’s not a bad way for Eastern European countries to meet their NATO obligations and possibly growl at each other and the Ukranians – or is that too far away? They remain, however, dependent on US engine supplies. 60% of the engine's components are built by General Electric and shipped to Sweden. Supplies have a way of drying up very fast if the US doesn’t approve of what you’re using planes and missiles for, as the Latin Americans have found on various occasions – and have not forgotten.
In a way this is a good thing, it’s not a power projection tool. But I wouldn’t necessarily want Greece to be so dependent on US approval. The Swedes really do just want to sell the thing, and don’t intend to fight anybody, ever, unless they’re absolutely forced to. Perhaps the same could be said of those who buy the Gripen, apart from the South Africans, who enjoy such crushing military and economic superiority over the rest of Africa that just about anything will do. In fact, they only really need jets for police actions; for strategic purposes, they can just shut their neighbours’ electricity off as they see fit.
The Latin Americans will not buy, although the cost-benefit advantage would have been considerable. Chile and Thailand seems pretty committed to the F16 now. Brazil did not take up Gripen’s best offer, back in 2003, and might even co-produce the Su-35 instead, if they dare. They’re not very keen on the US at the moment. Also Dassault and allies own 20% of Brazil’s biggest aeronautics firm, EMBRAER. Way it goes.
Like the F22 and the Russian planes, the Rafale does seem to have been designed with maneuverability in mind. One wonders why, since there are endless people saying that it’s the capacities of the more advanced short-range missiles that matter in a dogfight, not the plane. I really don’t know. You, presumably have a view?
The supercruise ability of the Rafale and Typhoon puts them in a separate class when it comes to pursuit and evasion. While the Rafale has quite a good fuelweight ratio, which makes it a better supercruiser or gives it a longer range, or a bigger range of weapons than the Typhoon, the latter is supposedly a better BVR platform – both are good features for wiping out some Arab or African airforce without sustaining unpopular casualities. Nobody knows how good Rafale’s Spectra is, even the French, but it can carry a bloody great payload once the enemy have no more planes left.
Gripen is marketed by BAe who are almost as good at errr ..encouraging ... Generals and Ministers as Dassault are Nonetheless, as I mentioned, I think an upgraded Rafale does seem to have longer term export niche, as and when the Mirage 2000 needs replacing. Some time to go yet for most airforces. Perhaps as you say it’s intended for rich Arab states who buy stuff they don’t have real pilots for, like the F18. However, its main purpose is to meet France’s requirements, which do not currently include singlehandedly fighting the Russians or anybody equipped with Su37’s carrying the latest Russian tech, but to wipe out opposition equipped with older tech, and then to do a lot of damage in the next wave, even if the Americans are busy elsewhere.
OK, that’s the real stuff; now the cheap debating points, an indulgence you seem incapable of resisting and I am equally prone to.
The idea that the F-15 Eagle is a match, I don’t buy and neither does anybody else. The point about the Rafale is that it’s flexible. If it’s up against something good, it can carry appropriate weapons to cut down detectability and to improve performance. It’s perhaps not as good an interceptor as the Typhoon because it’s not designed to be, but it’s still better than any huge noisy F15, or more to the point any agile-but-massive Russian equivalent that it’s going to meet – say an Su27 or Su30. With the appropriate air to air arms spec to cut down the RCS profile (good table here) , the Rafale is simply going to find them first, and fire a better missile, so it comes down to how many of them there are. Not many will be the usual answer. Whereas with an F-15C, you’re not so certain of winning that initial encounter with, say, an Angolan Su-27 (assuming it’s in the air) before you scoot off home on supercruise if necessary. Even one loss can make for a bad press at home when fighting an ‘inferior’ enemy. And an F18E costs about as much as the Eurofighters.
Finally, you think it’s a bit late – in fact it’s too damn early for the French Government, who don’t actually want to replace their Mirages and Super-Etendards quite yet, which is why production is being phased in quite slowly even now the thing is ready. Oh, and before you get too excited about Russian tech, I’ve read that the East Germans revealed quite a lot about Russian bluesky projects, and that the SU-35 has a French made cockpit to provide the multi-function displays. Edited by: BibleRiot at: 7/31/05 2:38 am
Re: New aircraft roles
If you want to be the best in the world...there is a very heavy price you need to pay. If you'r willing to pay that price...you will be undisputed for 20-30 years to come. If you'r not willing to pay the price...then your enemies will be willing to pay it.
Quote:Pentagon officials are considering proposals to cut the $245bn (€203bn) Joint Strike Fighter programme by at least 70 per cent as part of a department-wide review of all weapons systems, according to people briefed on internal Pentagon discussions.
Well...those are proposals. I don't think the proposal will be THAT drastic...though I don't think they will make 2500 aircraft either. The JSF is designed to be an aircraft to replace all others...F-16s, Harriers and F-18s. If you think about it...in US service alone there are over 5,000 aircraft of these types in service!!! Even if you replace them on a 1 to 2 basis...you'll still need 2,500 JSFs. And F-16s and Harriers HAVE to go...there's no upgrade proposals for them around (for US F-16s at least...there are some for export) and the Harrier is hoplesly obsolete. The F-18 can be upgraded as the F-18E/F...which would mean it will still be around until 2020-2025 maybe. I think no matter what...they will NEED to build several thosuand JSFs anyway. If they don't...America WILL lose air suportiority.
I think the danger out there is a LOT bigger than you make it. Don't look at Iraq...Iraq in total had 5 flyable aircraft in 2003. But don't forget that even in 1991...when the US through good intelligence and overwhelming numbers was able to defeat the Iraqi AD...the Coalition still lost 70 aircraft and more than 100 aircraft in total were hit by Iraqi AD. Although the "official" number of lost Coalition planes is a bit lower...thats becasue its not counting planes that were taken out of service later on after they returned to base becasue of heavy damage to enemy fire. One source I have read said that the US lost 26 F-16s alone over Iraq in 1991...many made it back to base but were so heavily damaged they were discarded.
Now in 1991 they were facing 1960s technology in terms of SAMs. But today the SAMs nations like Syria and Iran have are 1980s technology...Sa-15s, Sa-11, and the most dreaded of all SAMs, the S-300. F-16s and F-15s will find themselves in a LOT of trouble when faced with such types of SAMs. Even older systems from the 70s will be pretty deadly. And worst...to escape these threats they will be forced to fly at lower altitudes...putting them into range of IR homing missiles which are even more deadly and numerous.
The "enemy" nations havn't stood still...they have been buying weapons from the Russians like crazy. F-16s and F-15s had considerable trouble when faced with 1960s technology in Iraq. Harriers proved very vulnerable. Tornades proved very vulnaerable too. Every aircraft proved vulnerable. In the hands of some better operators with a better command...that 1960s technology may have been even worse. Would the Coalition have been able to keep up operations if 200 aircraft were hit instead of 100? Not for long. But today Iran doesn't have Sa-2s and Sa-3s...they have American-made HAWKs which have been improved and modernized many times over the years and are still being modernized by Iran. They have S-300s from Russia. They have their own locally manufactured copies of the Russian S-200. Syria has Sa-15s and a lot more. So they havn't stood still. The US can't afford to stand still either becasue if it goes to war against them it will suffer much heavier losses.
So what is the solution?? The solution HAS to be a an aircraft so stealthy that it can operate at high altitudes without fear of these SAMs...and out of reach of the IR SAMs. Thats the whole strategy of the JSF...stay at medium or high altitude...dropping GPS guided munition without fear of enemy action becasue the enemy can't detect it. Doing that with F-16s and F-15s is good today only if you'r doing it against dead donkeys like the Iraqi AD or the Serb AD (which was overall FAR poorer than the Iraqi one) or against non-existant AD like in Afghanistan...but you can't do that against any opponent with any serious weapon systems.
The US needs the JSF...it can't just equip its froces with the F-22...its too expensive, and not up for all the roles that aircraft of that class are needed for.
Quote:Above all, it doesn’t exist yet.
It does...remember...the F-35 had a competiton against the Boeing design and won out. The first F-35 has flown...but of course its many years from service entry.
Quote:It’s heavy, relatively short range compared to an F22, and not ideal as an interceptor – although probably superior to all existing designs except the F22.
Yes but F-22 can't operate from carriers or vertically take off from landing ships And I wouldn't want to be in a Harrier in 2020 taking on 2020 AD...
Quote:It’ll be good for bombing Arabs, blowing up bridges and supporting the marines. But hey, we can do that with an F-15, let alone the Super Hornet and Eurofighters.
Don't confuse Arabs with Iraqis. And no...F-16s, F-15s, F-18s and not even Eurofighter can do such things in high threat areas...not after sustaining considerable losses putting down that AD.
Quote:However, F–22 advocates seeking to justify an air superiority war, would have us involved in defending the political affiliation of a mere 15 million Taiwan Chinese against almost 1.5 billion Mainland Chinese. Further, on the subject of numbers, our “swarms” (large fleets) of F–15s and F–16s assisted by the versatile A-10, may have a chance to defend Taiwan — but a couple of squadrons of F–22s with a sortie rate about half that of the others will never even be noticed by the Mainland Chinese commanders, nor will they care. Numbers count! F–22 advocates must learn to count.... Emphasis in original
Ho!! 2 squadrosn of F-22s will achieve air supriority against the Russians...let alone the Chinese. Aircraft which cannot be seen by enemy aircraft at a good enough range (becasue F-22 isn't invisible...more on that below on the RCS thing) but whcih can see you and fire their AMRAAMs at 50km range...they will certainly be noticed. Nothing the Chinese have now can match the F-22 even closely!! No atter how many Su-30s and Su-27s they may have...they can't match the F-22 at all. But an Su-30...not only can it match an F-15...it outmatches an F-15 in every class. Chinese Su-30s equipped with radars that outrange the F-15s radars...and equipped with R-77 missiles which outrange the AMRAAM...will be able to take on F-15s. The person who wins in air comabt is the person who sees the enemy first and who shoots first. Once you do that...you'v already won the fight. In the future the Chinese will be equipped primarely with Su-27s, Su-30s and their new J-10...all equipped with the latest radars from Phozotron which outrange anything the US has out there (except the F-22's radar) and armed with R-77s. These will be more than a formidable force against the current US fighters.
Stealth...changes the formula of air combat entirely. It allows the plane to see the enemy without being seen...decide the enegagement and fire first. It will win in every engagement in that way. That will scare the Chinese.
The problem is...as I said...the F-22 can't swim to Taiwan...the JSF can
Quote:Supplies have a way of drying up very fast if the US doesn’t approve of what you’re using planes and missiles for
Well...I don't think Hungary is planning on using its figthers for somethign anytime soon anyway...
Quote:Like the F22 and the Russian planes, the Rafale does seem to have been designed with maneuverability in mind. One wonders why, since there are endless people saying that it’s the capacities of the more advanced short-range missiles that matter in a dogfight, not the plane. I really don’t know. You, presumably have a view?
Well...reagrdless what people say...you want to get your plane in a position to fire your missiles FIRST...before letting the missile do its work. And if the other guy did it before you...you want to have the manuvrability to try and avoid the missile...right? But I don't think the Rafale is up to the manuvrability standrads of the F-22 or the Russian counterparts. They use thrust vectoring engines...that imrpoves their manuvrability considerably.
Quote:The supercruise ability of the Rafale and Typhoon puts them in a separate class when it comes to pursuit and evasion. While the Rafale has quite a good fuelweight ratio, which makes it a better supercruiser or gives it a longer range, or a bigger range of weapons than the Typhoon, the latter is supposedly a better BVR platform – both are good features for wiping out some Arab or African airforce without sustaining unpopular casualities. Nobody knows how good Rafale’s Spectra is, even the French, but it can carry a bloody great payload once the enemy have no more planes left
Actually...Rafale doesn't have supercruise ability. Only the Eurofighter's engine's cand o that. But that doesn't put it in a leage of its own of course...both the Americans and Russians have engines that can supercruise on their latest planes.
Secondly...The Rafale can carry 9 tons of weapons...impressive...but something that a lot of other fighters today can match and even surpass.
If Africa is what France is aiming for...I think they did a bit of an overkill...
Quote:However, its main purpose is to meet France’s requirements, which do not currently include singlehandedly fighting the Russians or anybody equipped with Su37’s carrying the latest Russian tech, but to wipe out opposition equipped with older tech, and then to do a lot of damage in the next wave, even if the Americans are busy elsewhere.
If that was the idea...I think any country France may possibly fight in the future doesn't require Rafales...Mirage 2000s are perfectly fine for that role. I don't think anyone in Sub-Saharan Africa has anything better than a MiG-21 anyway (except Angola...which has some Su-27s). I don't really know WHO France is aiming at...but I think when you designa n aircraft you don't necessarely do it with someone in mind if you are a power like France which theoretically could go against anyone in the world. So you design a plane to defeat the latest around you from any nation...not just aim for a plane to bomb Djibuti for example. You don't know what the future will be...France after all was involved in bombing Syria as well in 1983 along with the USN...and as alwasy EXPORT is one of the MAIN reasons for desiging any aircraft...France after all is a pretty good exporter of aircraft to the Middle East...and they have loyal customers there which keep buying French (though they just lost one such customer in Saddam Hussein ) So in the future when the oil rich Emirates want to replace their Mirage 200s and Mirage F-1s with something better to fight...uhmm...sand dunes...the first place they'll look at will be the Rafale.
I still think the decisionin both the Eurofigther and Rafale were entirely political and economic...becasue from a technical point of view the planes make little sense. It was just European pride that kept the Eurofighter going...and hopes for exports that kept the Rafale going. Other than that...they would have spend their money much more wisely either buying American or starting all over again once it was obvious that these 30 years in the making desigsn were hoplessly outclassed even before they entered service. It will make little sense when the RAF has Eurofighters next to JSF...the JSF totally outclassing the Eurofighter.
Sometimes such desicision are made for purely political reasons...not really militarelly.
Quote:The idea that the F-15 Eagle is a match, I don’t buy and neither does anybody else. The point about the Rafale is that it’s flexible. If it’s up against something good, it can carry appropriate weapons to cut down detectability and to improve performance.
The F-15 isn't a fair aircraft to compare it to. The US has given up on upgrading the F-15. The F-15E was more of a air-ground upgrade than air-air. The thing is...while Rafale may be better than the F-15...its nowhere near the F-22 in capability...and also its not even up to the level of the Russian counterparts...the Su-30s and Su-35s. So its a flop in my opinion...good only for export and for being a second class aircraft...
Quote:but it’s still better than any huge noisy F15, or more to the point any agile-but-massive Russian equivalent that it’s going to meet – say an Su27 or Su30
Massive or not doesn't matter...the Su-30 is still more manuvrable, has electronics as good or better than the Rafale and weapons as good or better (and a lot more of them).
Quote:With the appropriate air to air arms spec to cut down the RCS profile (good table here) , the Rafale is simply going to find them first, and fire a better missile, so it comes down to how many of them there are
Well...thats exactly the thing...it can't.
To begin with the RCS table from that website I don't agree with at all...especially as far as their figures for the F-15, F-4 and Su-27 are concerned. RCS depends on a lot of factors. First...the angle at which you are looking at the airplane...also the weapons the aircraft may be carrying on its wings. Now I REALY don't think in any direction you may be looking at an F-15 at...I don't think it has an RCS of 400m^2 in any way...lol
The website you gives says this also underneath that table:
Quote:The values listed for the B-52, B-1A, and B-1B are cited frequently in many open sources, so they are probably reliable. The RCS for the F-15, however, seems extraordinarily high and likely represents a large but very narrow peak from the head-on aspect as opposed to a more typical medianized value. Other sources suggest an RCS between 5 and 25 m2, which seems much more reasonable in comparison to similar aircraft like the F-4 and Su-27
So thats what I'v heard as well...the F-15s RCS is generally about 5m^2 from the FRONT...and so it is for the Su-27 and MiG-29 and F-16 as well...between 3 and 5 m^2.
The Rafale figure of 1m^2 is more acceptable though...that I think would be RCS of the plane from a frontal prespective.
Now you may think...if the F-15 has 5m^2 and Rafale has 1m^2...therefore the F-15 can be detected 5 times longer than the Rafale?? No...it doesn't work that way. Detection range itself depends a LOT on the wavelength of the radar, the power output of the radar and the processing capabilities of the radar.
To give you an idea...a MiG-31 radar, the Zaslon-A...according to tests the Russians made of it...could detect a bomber-sized target (25m^2) at a range of about 160km. However...it could detect a fighter-size aircraft (5m^2) at 120km. The Russians said it could detect a cruise-missile size target (0.1m^2) at 65km! The reason for this is that it had imense processing capability...so even the faintest signals could be interpreted. So even a decrease by 10 fold won't even cut detection range by half. To reduce detection range to points where it is really advantegous to you...you need to reduce your RCS by many orders of magnitude.
So an F-15 equipped with say the latest AESA radar which they have been upgraded with recently...can still detect a 1m^2 size target at well over 100km. A Rafale will detect an F-15 at roughly the same range. But of course neither can really engage each other at that range anyway...so by the time the Rafale gets within MICA range and the F-15 gets within AMRAAM range...they both know the other guy is there and both will have missiles with roughly the same range and the same performance.
So even against an F-15 the Rafale doesn't have any clear advantage in my mind.
But if you compare it to an Su-30 for example...than the Rafale is in deep trouble. The Russians have radars which are out of this world...radars which exist today which outclass even the F-22 radar. One Zhuk radar was tested on an Su-27 and according to the Russians it was able to detect another Su-27 from the side at a range of 400km!! Admitedly an Su-27 on the side is a pretty large RCS target (all the ranges I gave above are for FRONTAL RCS engagement only...looking at other angles the ranges are usually much bigger anyway...so if an F-15 is looking at a Rafale from the side for example...it will see it much longer than 100km). But the radars whciha re available for the SU-30 or other Russian planes are so sophisticated and capable...in my opinion they have no equals in the world. Russia had a breakthrough in radars in the late 80s and 1990s...it just doesn't have the money to field them. So the Su-30 will no doubt detect the Rafale before the Rafale sees it...and the thing is the Su-30 will be armed with weapons which outrange anything else in the air by far!! The Russians actually have missiles which can go to 300km away. The R-37 was test fired against a target 300km away..and scored a hit. But normally an Su-30 will be armed with R-77 missiles as well as the latest R-27 versions. An R-77 outranges both the AMRAAM and the MICA however...But the latest versions of the R-27 have ranges of 120-130km. So from purely the who sees first and who shoots first point of view..the Rafale is already in deep trouble.
An F-22 however does what no other aircarft can do...it has an RCS of 0.001m^2...which means that even the most powerful Russian airborne radar will only see it at say 20km. Thats way too late to do anything about it.
Of course...technology keeps advancing and one day there will be radars that can see even F-22 size targets at 100km away...but thats not today.
Quote:And an F18E costs about as much as the Eurofighters.
Yes...and for similar performance. So what did 30 years of development for the Eurofighter get the Europeans??? Nothing much at all...
Quote:Finally, you think it’s a bit late – in fact it’s too damn early for the French Government, who don’t actually want to replace their Mirages and Super-Etendards quite yet, which is why production is being phased in quite slowly even now the thing is ready
The French government isn't too happy because its not getting an aircraft so much better than a Mirage-200 anyway. They wanted to order 300 originally...now its down to a measly 90 in batches. They don't want it...They'r getting it for the Navy first becasue the Super Entendard is an obsolete piece of junk now (never was much of anything to begin with...the only thing it had was its Excocet missile...but then again a lot of airplanes can be made to carry the Excocet)...but for the AIr Force they are being VERY reluctant to get the plane in quantitity becasue they'r not getting much of an improvement over the Mirage-2000.
Quote:Oh, and before you get too excited about Russian tech, I’ve read that the East Germans revealed quite a lot about Russian bluesky projects
The East Germans and none of the East Europeans ever got their hands on anything really high-tech from the Russians. The Russians were very stingy...and they alwasy delivered MUCH downgraded equipment compared to their own (which is also one of the main reasosns why Russian technology hasn't done so well in wars...they'r alwasy very downgraded for export purposes). By the time East Germany united with the West...the most high tech equipment the Soviets had delivered was a handful of MiG-29s and 2-3 batteries of S-300. The S-300s were quickly removed by the Soviets before anyone got to see them. The MiG-29s though were left there. The German MiG-29 though weren't comparable to the Soviet ones. They were similar to the Iraqi and Yugoslav MiG-29...very downgraed export versions. Their radars had much less capable processors which meant they were easily jammable, nowhere near the range or anything similar to the Russian Mig-29s. But they were of course just as manuvrable and as a result could defeat the F-16s they trained against almost every time (by the time an F-16 pilot would learn how to counter MiG-29s in close combat...he would have been shot down about 27 times on average!!! But in real combat you don't get 27 chances to get a kill) They also got R-73 missiles with the German MiG-29...and yes they discovered it was a far superior weapon to anything the west had at the time. But the thing is...the R-73 has undergone many modifications and upgrades since then...and even if you have the missile to study it doesn't mean you can really do much against it anyway! The R-73 was probably the basis on which the Americans based their AIM-9X upgrade on and the Europeans too...Thast still doesn't reduce the abilities of the missile against its target. The thing is the Russians too have gotten their hands on a lot of US high tech missiles too...all the way to Phoenix missiles.
Quote:and that the SU-35 has a French made cockpit to provide the multi-function displays.
The SU-35 has had many cocpits The French option was only for some export versions for countries which may have wanted more western-compatible technology. But the Russians have technology of their own to make cockpits just as good as any French technology can make them...its just that some people would prefer western-compatible systems. The Russian version of the SU-35 of course would not have had French displays
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
btw: i think USA is being stupid with giving info away about its planes.. they should keep it secret like they did with the f-117
Edited by: SilentHero at: 7/31/05 3:32 pm
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3232
(7/31/05 6:24 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
Kapedani, I think you’ve misineterpreted a post by one of the numbnuts in those milforums. The only sense in which Rafale can’t supercruise is in the sense that the Typhoon and indeed the JSF can’t supercruise – in other words, in comparison to an F22, how long can supercruise be sustained for? Neither Rafale, Typhoon or F35 gobble up fuel with afterburners to fly at supersonic speed – which wouldn’t be supercruise – but they still use fuel at a higher rate than normal when doing so. We do mean the ability to fly at over Mach 1 without using afterburners by supercruise, don’t we? Rafale has quite a large internal fuel tank too for its weight, which is relevant, since I doubt that with a huge pack of stores any of these planes – except the F22 – is going to be supercruising for long. F35 is bloody heavy.
Figures publicizing the ability of an Su-27 to detect another Su-27 at huge range are a) suspect b) very probably from the side – the barn door side. If you’re going to argue that those F-15 figures are suspect (possible; I linked to the whole article so you could see even the low estimates) because they’re not from the front, and talk of radar interpretation of very weak signals, then you have to take account of a basic feature of physics – at the extremes it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish noise from signal. What I mean is that, from the front, Spectra is designed to confuse precisely such analysis, and to generate a law of diminishing returns for ever increasing processing power churning away making that noise-signal distinction.
Concerning the engagement ranges with an SU-30, here’s the Aussie guy again, who really doesn’t like the Typhoon:
Quote:Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope. The Meteor ramjet AAM is therefore vital to the Typhoon, since the AMRAAM cannot fully exploit the range advantage of the BVR weapon system.
Meteor is on the way – 2008, I think. "METEOR’s ramjet propulsion system will ensure a range in excess of 100 km and a speed of more than Mach 4. Even when launched from extreme stand-off ranges, the missile will have the energy in the end game to defeat fast,manoeuvring targets" – according to the manufacturers, admittedly, but then you too are presumably quoting manufacturers figures and sales talk, for all Russian kit. And remember – the Rafale has quite a good internal fuel capacity and it’s light(er). Spectra also has good passive detection.
It’s possible the Armee de L’Air wants an upgrade to the aircraft’s thrust (that is already underway). By 2008, it should be a terrific plane. And I agree that staying in the game technologically was an important part of the decision – remember Dassault's statement about the need for a UCAV technology demonstrator, not as a protototype UCAV but as a way of keeping abreast of airframe design for the next generation? It takes a wargamer’s ignorance of economics, not to mention politics, to suggest that it would have been better to buy US planes. The game here is not war per se, but the projection of power to secure a range of economic objectives, and one of those economic objectives is a viable aerospace industry. In some fields, the Americans with their massive military budgets, have an advantage. In others – like Airbus and Arianespace – the EU wins out. In all fields, the Russians are desperately seeking to stay afloat, despite the achievements of their scientists, since the only real spoils of victory are precisely NOT having what the Russians have - a screwed-up economy. Your suggested strategy involves winning a battle by losing the war from the onset.
Dassault will be aiming for affordable stealth, and that’s what the F35 was meant to deliver too, in a generation 4.5 sort of way. It’s all about leapfrogging. In any case, your point about surface to air – missiles AND radar – is correct. I’m out of my depth here, but it strikes me that the real race is the ECM – SAM issue, since SAM’s are not only effective, they’re not necessarily that expensive.
The truel 5th generation is not the F22 – it’s almost there but too expensive, although please don’t think I support Colonel Riccioni’s position on F15 swarms versus F22 deployment; I offered that up as an indication of Pentagon priorities and the theatre determining those priorities. The US strategists want the F22 far more than they want the F35 and if they’re forced to choose, they’ll cut the F35. What Colonel Riccioni doesn’t say (maybe that’s why he’s still a Colonel) is that Taiwan isn’t really defensible at all, but that’s not the issue: the issue is not conceding total air superiority and consequent power projection in Asia to the Chinese, enabling them to neutralize and bring pressure on Korea, Thailand, Japan, Vietnam and Indonesia. That’s why the F22 is an interceptor – deep strike aircraft, not a battlefield interdictor. Nobody is going to engage the Chinese on the ground, from the ground.
Lots of other points I’d like to purse, especialliy about SAM and radar …and about how amazing it is that all this stuff, even in the real procurement world, is based on so little data about what actually happens in a real confrontation.
Quote:It takes a wargamer’s ignorance of economics, not to mention politics, to suggest that it would have been better to buy US planes.
I take that as an insult! To begin with I'm not a wargamer...I never touch the stuff...Under normal circumstances I hate being in front of a screen for even an hour and when I do its usually talking on this forum.
Secondly...I base these exactly ont he economic, politicala dn technological realities of France and other European countries. Like it or not...up until 20 years ago most of Europe bought US anyway. France bought the F-8 for its Navy, England bougth F-4s, Germany bougth F-4s, and half of Europe bougth F-16s. So buying US isn't something thats never happened before and itsn't a bad idea. France desicded to go on its own for purely POLITICAL reasons...it didn't want to asnwer to the US. But like it or not...that has led to France being protected by inferior aircraft. Simply put...the French aviation industry isn't up to US or Russian standards in terms of technology...
I don't really agree with you that designing an indigenous fighter is an economic advantage. There are market nitches you fill...What market nitche does the Rafale fill?? Not too many..and it faces some VERY heavy competition from a lot of other designs. How much profit does indigenous fighter desigsn REALLY bring France anyway?? In the days of the Mirage III and Mirage F.1...it filled the nitch of aircraft that was better than the crap the Soviets exported...and something that countries that couldnt buy US for political reasons could by. So the Middle East and Latin America were good customers for French aircraft...and that brought profit. But today that market doesn't exist. Today...you can buy super-advanced stuff from the Russians with no problems...and the US is also willing to sell to a lot of nations. But will the Rafale be able to compete against the Eurofigther for any European contracts?? No. Will it be able to compete against the Su-30s and Su-35s for any Asian markets?? No. Will it be able to compeet against the modernized F-15s in ME markets?? No.
There isn't THAT much profitability in it...
I think Europe is in the same situation it was in the 1960s...when fighter technology overtook it...and it was forced to buy American instead of wasting money on indigenous desgigns..which wouldn't appear until 20-30 years later.
But this is what is happening too!! Turkey, Italy, England, Spain and other European countries are going to by JSF. I also suspect very strongly that these countries will also drasticly cut their Eurofigther procurements too. Most of Eastern Europe is buying Gripper or upgraded F-16s. Where does this leave Eurofighter?? Only Germany will need to buy lots of them becasue it doesn't have any other otion at the moment. England will reduce the number to really a simbolic procurement. Italy too. Spain too.
And the Rafale?? France will buy a simbolic number of them...the Navy mostly to replace the obsolete planes it uses now. Is there any real export potention for it?? A few dozen maybe to some ME countries...but thats it.
Is there any PROFIT to be made economically from an indigenously designed fighter for such countries?? Not really...those dasy are long gone in my opinion since today Russia floods the world markets with cheap and advanced planes. How many Su-30s and Su-35s sold around the world?? India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, Algeria, Brazil and the markets are still wide open.
Politically...yes...thats the real reason these planes were kept going...
But from a purely technological point of view they aren't anything special...and even the European market is saturated by US aircraft.
Quote:Neither Rafale, Typhoon or F35 gobble up fuel with afterburners to fly at supersonic speed – which wouldn’t be supercruise – but they still use fuel at a higher rate than normal when doing so.
Thats supercruise...the ability to fly over Mach 1 without using afterburners.
But Rafale's engines can't do that. In fact the Rafale's engines are pretty underpowered by any standarts. They produce 50kN of thrust dry and 75kN of thrust in afterburner...while the Su-30s engines produce 83.4kN of thrust just dry...and over 147kN in afterbruner each.
Quote:Rafale has quite a large internal fuel tank too for its weight, which is relevant, since I doubt that with a huge pack of stores any of these planes – except the F22 – is going to be supercruising for long. F35 is bloody heavy.
The Rafale can't supercruise...period. And it doesn't really matter how much it weights or what its internal fuel is. I don't think in combat its going to matter too much to me that my plane weights twice as yours but still can defeat yours
An Su-30 weights a lot more...but also has twice the range...carries the same ammount of weapons...has the same or better capabilities...and costs HALF as much. So what do I care that your plane is ligther?? Is it cheaper?? No...
Quote:F35 is bloody heavy.
F-35 actually has a higher maximum take off weight than the Rafale...becasue its engine is imensly powerful. The F-35 weigths about 10 ton empty (about as much as an empty rafale), carries about 7 tons of internal fuel, carries about 6 tons of weapons. Thats not bad at all...
Quote:Figures publicizing the ability of an Su-27 to detect another Su-27 at huge range are a) suspect b) very probably from the side – the barn door side.
You didn't read what I wrote correctly. Its not stadard Su-27 radar doing this...as I said this was a test of a new radar...that radar specifically being the N-011M. And yes as I said it was from the side...that is still more than very impressive. More on the N-011M later.
Quote:then you have to take account of a basic feature of physics – at the extremes it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish noise from signal. What I mean is that, from the front, Spectra is designed to confuse precisely such analysis, and to generate a law of diminishing returns for ever increasing processing power churning away making that noise-signal distinction.
As all radars that have good look-down shoot-down capabilities can...
Quote:Concerning the engagement ranges with an SU-30, here’s the Aussie guy again, who really doesn’t like the Typhoon:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope. The Meteor ramjet AAM is therefore vital to the Typhoon, since the AMRAAM cannot fully exploit the range advantage of the BVR weapon system.
Its not very clear what he's saying here. He says an aircarft with N-011M and R-77 can engage a Eurofighter at 65nm. 65nm is a range of 120km. That doesn't make much sense though at all.
All the while we'v been talking about radar ranges and such...we have to make a distinction between the DETECTION range of a radar, and the TRACKING range of the radar. Also radars have many different modes of operatons, some of which allow them to elongate their maximum detection ranges by a lot by narrowing the field they look at (for example, 100km at 120deg...and 130 at 45deg).
Now...an N-011M will detect a Eurofigther size target at 120km...very likely. That doesn't mean it will engage it as soon as it sees it. The radar still needs to TRACK the target...and usually that is done at considerably shorter ranges. The same will be true for the Eurofigther's radar. It probably will be able to detect an aircraft carrying the N-011M earlier than it will be detected...but it still will need to get a lot closer to lock on to the target. For example if the N-011M will detect at 120km..it will lock on to track at 90km.
Secondly...there's a big difference between the R-77 and the R-77M. The R-77 has a range of some 70km...the R-77M has a range of 150km.
But also don't assume the N-011M is the best the Russians have. Quite from it...its what they put on some Su-30s. If you want better...they have plenty of better systems...they just havn't put those on any Su-30s exported yet.
Quote:Meteor is on the way – 2008, I think. "METEOR’s ramjet propulsion system will ensure a range in excess of 100 km and a speed of more than Mach 4. Even when launched from extreme stand-off ranges, the missile will have the energy in the end game to defeat fast,manoeuvring targets" – according to the manufacturers, admittedly, but then you too are presumably quoting manufacturers figures and sales talk, for all Russian kit.
I believe what it says about the Meteor...But there are a lot of other systems that already outmatch it and the weapons its potential export adversaries will carry will also outmatch it. The US upgraded AIM-120 which is also to be equipped with ramjets should have a range of 150km. The R-77M which also is a ramjet powered weapon also has 150km range. And already the latest versions fo the R-27s have ranges of 120-130km. A typical Chinese or Indian Su-30 will be armed not just with R-77s...but also long-range R-27s and in the future R-77Ms. They outrange the Meteor. Of course...as I said above...a 150km range missile won't do you much good if you can't see or track the target at 150km. These figures...you have to keep in mind...are for VERY LARGE targets...A bomber for example you will be able to engage at 150km with an R-77M...the N-011M will detect the bomber at 300+km...lock on to it at 200km...and fire at it at 150km. But for a fighter...150km is far too long...and even 100km for the Meteor and the Eurofighter is also far too long. The radar can't lock on to a smaller figther at the same ranges as a bigger target. But also the increased ranges mean a faster missile at "shorter" (70-80km) ranges and a missile with a lot more energy left at ranges for manuvrability. So the AIM-120 and R-77M upgrades will be better in all these respects to the Meteor.
And the Russians...besides active radar homing for their missiles...also use some other nasty tricks. For example the R-27's latest models are a 120km ranged IR guided missile...flies under mid-course updates and datalink till its near the target...just as an active radar missile. But instead of turning on the radar at that point...it homes in on IR. So you have to worry not only against a radar guided missiles at such ranges but also against an IR missile. And another version exists...a ARM version...one that homes in on the radar emissions of the enemy aircraft...completely silently and the enemy will have no idea a missile is approaching. Three different guidance methods to make life three times harder for the enemy.
Quote:And remember – the Rafale has quite a good internal fuel capacity and it’s light(er). Spectra also has good passive detection.
It doesn't matter if its lighter...as I said And I don;t doubt the Rafale's radar is also good at being passive...but then again so are all of today's modern radars...and it depend on what kind of RWRs the enmy aircraft has. The Russians have some nasty sysems when it comes to RWRs. For example...the ONLY aircraft in Iraqi inventory that wasn't a much downgraded piece of crap was their MiG-25s. For this reason...their MiG-25s proved to be the biggest fear to Iranian aircraft (MiG-25s were recorded often to fire their R-40 missiles against F-4s at ranges of up to 90km away...and score kills at such ranges) But also they had very good RWRs...which was the reason why it was nearly impossible for US aircraft to shoot down any MiG-25s (only 2 were shot down in 1991...when they got into close combat with F-15s). But whenever F-15s and F-14s were at longer ranges from any angle...they just couldn't shoot down MiG-25s...becasue the MiG-25s RWR allowed them to see the enemy wherever he was just based on their emissions and take approporate measures. In one instance in 1991 two MiG-25s took off near Baghdad. 11 F-15s chased them firing countles AIM-7 missiles...with no effect. Later on in the late 90s over the no-fly zones...Iraqi MiG-25s used to tease F-15s and F-14s by flying near them...the US planes would fire countless AIM-120s and AIM-54s to no effect becasue the MiG knew what was going on due to its RWR and took approproate actions...either manuvering to avoid the missiles or getting out of their range.
Quote:Dassault will be aiming for affordable stealth, and that’s what the F35 was meant to deliver too, in a generation 4.5 sort of way
But its not "stealth"...its reduces observability. That just doesn't cut it in today's world. Stealth measn cutting your detection range by 90%...cutting it by 10-20% isn't stealth and isn't going to save you much.
Quote:I’m out of my depth here, but it strikes me that the real race is the ECM – SAM issue, since SAM’s are not only effective, they’re not necessarily that expensive.
Absolutely...thats probably the MAIN reasosn why F-22 and F-35 are so much better...since they are so stealthy they can fly higher where the radar-guided SAMs can't see them...but also where the IR SAM's can't reach them. Rafale and Eurofigther can't do any of these things...they'll be detected by ground radars very very far from their targets.
Quote:The truel 5th generation is not the F22 – it’s almost there but too expensive
You don't need nearly as many of them...and for a country like the US...it CAN'T afford NOT TO.
Quote:The US strategists want the F22 far more than they want the F35 and if they’re forced to choose, they’ll cut the F35.
They can't do that...they don't have luxary of not taking in large numbers of F-35s...otherwise that leaves the Navy and Marines with aircraft which will not be survivable 10 years from now...and will leave the AF with only 300+ good aircraft. F-16s won't be worth too much to a nation like the US 10 years from now. Replacement is absolutely needed...
Quote:Lots of other points I’d like to purse, especialliy about SAM and radar …and about how amazing it is that all this stuff, even in the real procurement world, is based on so little data about what actually happens in a real confrontation.
What usually happens in a real confrontation...is pretty different from what happens in these theories...engagements are almost never one on one going towards each other. Pilots and the general strategy is what really matters...and whats on the ground matters a lot too. Thats what allowed the Vietnamese with much inferior aircraft and a tiny number compared to the US to achieve amazing results. If you imagine they acheived an almost 1-1 kill ratio with an AF which never had more than 100 aircraft in use at anyone time against an AF which had 2,000 aircraft operational on theater at anyone time....its pretty amazing. But that also explains why the Iraqis couldn't do the same in 1991...
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3235
(8/1/05 8:28 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
I wouldn't dream of accusing you of being a wargamer - sorry if you thought otherwise. it's just a way of describing the military forum burblers. I assume you are concerned with economic objectives rather than airplane statistics and appreciate that even countries like India, Brazil and China are trying to develop autonomous industries. I wouldn't call this purely political - Eurofighter Typhoon certainly wasn't purely political. Britain is quite happy to be a poodle these days, it seems.
Supercruise: They produce 50kN of thrust dry and 75kN of thrust in afterburner...
Yes that’s right – although there’s a version that develops 90kN with afterburners and (so the burblers say) 60 kN dry.
It’s very difficult to find anything about supercruise that isn’t from all the dreadful forums populated by schoolkids. Can you point to any authoritative article (a reputable magazine or defence assessment paper, not some silly forum) that validates your strange claim that Rafale can’t supercruise?
Snecma, the manufacturers of the Rafale’s engines, say a prototype Rafale achieved supercruise on its very first tryout – ages ago. And it’s still presenting the engine as supercruise-capable even on the heavier naval version of Rafale. See here.
Quote:Particularités :... Capacité de Supercroisière sans p.c. (that means no post-combustion)
But when you get down to it, supercruise is relevantly about the ability to carry a given weight a given distance at a given speed with a given amount of fuel. I'm not saying that a Rafale working as a bomb-truck with full tanks and a load of smart-bombs can supercruise, and as I said, even an F35 doesnt have truly sustainable supercruise on the way out. The main benefits of supercruise are in any case sortie rate and logistics - getting the planes from Base A to base B, or getting back quickly.
Apart from the engine manufacturer’s page, the best I can offer is Wikipedia, which at least gets wide scrutiny:
Quote:The Typhoon, the Rafale and, even more so, the F-22, have a considerable performance advantage over the other craft in the list in that they have the ability to travel at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, an ability known as supercruise. As afterburners use a huge amount of fuel, most fighters can use them for only a few minutes. Therefore, an aircraft with supercruise should theoretically have a huge advantage in pursuing or evading a non supercruise-capable plane. Supercruise will also allow these planes to spend more time in combat, particularly at longer ranges, rather than in transit.
What can you offer – with what credibility ?
The Rafale is omni-role, it’s not just an interceptor. That’s what I meant by saying that it’s designed for France’s operational needs, and I’m curious as to how those operational needs are defined. In terms of sales, the market will only really pick up in 2008 I think. The Mirage 2000-5 is still selling. Part of its appeal is that the upgrade benefited from new tech worked out in developing the Rafale.
However, the fact that Rafale just beat the Typhoon and the Sukoi in the first serious assessment in which all three planes were contenders, in Singapore, is informative. Now let’s see if it can clinch the deal, we should know in September. Then there’s the question of who Singapore intends to fight. The Malays, of course, but who else; and why didn’t the very thorough Singapore assessors choose the Su-30’s they were offered, if they’re as good as you claim?
What do the Malays have? ‘Islamic’ Su-30’s as this article in Aviation International amusingly reveals. It also shows that your idea that Russian avionics are on a par with French ones is debatable to say the least. Russia’s days of not offering really good stuff in export models are long over, it needs the money badly, and anyway, as I said earlier, it’s the export models that are the issue anyway in assessing French ‘defence’ needs.
Singapore needs a true multirole craft, that can really wap a numerically superior Malay army if the Malay’s go mad and try to invade (no love lost there, despite – or perhaps because of - the fact that so much business in Malaysia is actually run by Chinese rather than Malays).
It seems that Typhoon is mainly an interceptor, and I am not happy at the implication that the RAF sees its main future role as helping the Americans achieve air-superiority. Also I’m puzzled – if that’s the goal and since the UK is part of the JSF research programme, why not just wait for it?
Isn’t there a possibility that the kind of stealth in the JSF (not the impossibly costly F22) is proving very difficult to achieve economically, necessitating working tolerances of less than 50 microns to avoid constant airframe cracks? That’s what the Financial Times said anyway a few days ago (mostly subscription only, unfortunately), with the added implication that it would be extremely difficult to ‘de-tune’ the plane for export as the US wishes to do to preserve secrecy. Furthermore, if the US does not release full technical details, the US is then proposing to sell contributors to the JSF programme a plane that the contributors can’t support and maintain during its 30 year lifespan. What is this, is the US going to send FedeX round on some ‘collect and return’ warranty scheme?
And then there’s Spectra’s active cancellation, which seems to be quite a good way of dealing with detection. Mica mid-course guidance seems a pretty interesting feature too as a way of extending seeker range.
As for the inferiority of the European aerospace industry Arianespace still has the lion’s share of the lucrative and important satellite GTO launch market. Also please check out the hilarious pair of links here. Not bad for medium-size countries that don’t drive themselves into ruinous debt with the size of their military budget. Dassault had 15% of the world market for years. It’ll be very interesting to see how it pans out in the future. Edited by: BibleRiot at: 8/1/05 9:06 pm
FINK: When you're talking about politics, what do you and [your father] talk about? George W. Bush: Pussy. -- Interview with David Fink of the Hartford Courant at the 1988 Republican National Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, Aug. 14, 1988
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3236
(8/1/05 10:33 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
Well, I'm learning stuff, so I'm happy, Anittas. Defence procurement tells you an awful lot about a country's vision of the future.
Nice link, by the way.
Edited by: BibleRiot at: 8/1/05 10:35 pm
Senior Moderator
Posts: 5123
(8/1/05 10:44 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
What link?
I haven't read one-tenth of what you guys wrote here, but one of the most modern fighter planes is the Swedish JAS Gripen. It's manufactured by Saab and British Aerospace.
Europe is not serious about its defence anyhow, so big deal. This is more about economy than anything else.
FINK: When you're talking about politics, what do you and [your father] talk about? George W. Bush: Pussy. -- Interview with David Fink of the Hartford Courant at the 1988 Republican National Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, Aug. 14, 1988
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3239
(8/1/05 11:20 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
I meant your Iasi link. Are you from near there is it just a Moldavian thing?
Gripen has been discussed. Says an awful lot about Sweden that plane. And about Latin America.
France and Britain are very serious about defence, if you mean getting your retaliation in first. But you’re right, power-projection is about protecting economic interests.
Defense procurement is one of the keys to understanding foreign policy. The fact that the Americans have just sold a lot of F-16’s to Pakistan , angering India, tells you something about their priorities, for instance, and I don’t just mean making money from the sale. And the fact that Malysia has bought Russian planes, with the Israeli parts taken out is both revealing and funny. I’ve been to Malaysia – they’ve gone Islam crazy over there, and the local Chinese really don’t like it.
The most interesting debate concerns the priorities of the Australian airforce.
All the time, you’re asking – why THIS plane, what do they think they need it for? What does it tell you about their diplomatic relations, their willingness to be dependent on the US, their degree of aggressivity, and the threats they perceive. I’ve always been vaguely aware of it, noting this sale or that, but when you get closer, there’s even more instructive detail.
BTW - have you seen Google Earth? If you have broadband, it's a must.
Edited by: BibleRiot at: 8/1/05 11:22 pm
Re: New aircraft roles
lol Bibleriot i posted that in Turkey forum
yes selling arms to country has something to do with foreign policy...
but however as u know JSF will replace f16 so USA is trying to get rid of them and money to be made...
the thing that i dont understand is Israel is doing major business with Russia and China... USA doesnt like it... but still every year Israel get major funding from USA...
Senior Moderator
Posts: 5128
(8/1/05 11:41 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
I'm from the county that borders Iasi to the north. Wallachians don't like it much. It's too clean for them.
I've not been to Malasya, but I know they're nuts. If they find you smuggling pot, they give you a life sentence in jail. It's disgusting. The worst of all is that they're rich. And the West made them rich. That's right. The West will rather enrich those Islamists rather than Eastern Europe or South America.
Silenthero posted about Google Earth. I found my place in Malmö, but Romania is not covered well. Bucharest is a bunch of dark spots, which I suppose is quite accurate.
USA selling airplanes to Pakistan is of no surprise to me. Bush needs to award his ally. But he also said that the boycott on India should be ended. This is all just a lame game. Countries buy these airplanes for the image; not for necessity.
Spyplanes might be the ones that could actually do them some service. American spyplanes are all around China.
FINK: When you're talking about politics, what do you and [your father] talk about? George W. Bush: Pussy. -- Interview with David Fink of the Hartford Courant at the 1988 Republican National Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, Aug. 14, 1988
Quote:I assume you are concerned with economic objectives rather than airplane statistics and appreciate that even countries like India, Brazil and China are trying to develop autonomous industries.
India, Brazil and China already have indigenous indistries and have had them for many years...However they almost exclusivly produce Soviet aircraft under license for their own needs. India has produced an indigenous light-weight fighter...which is equipped alomst entirely with Russian avionics and weapons...but the biggest thing Indian aerospace will make will be licensed-produced Su-30s...300 of them. China will also license produce Su-27 sand 30s...alongside its new figther the J-10 (which is also made a good figther only due to its Russian engines, avionics and weapons). Brazil is to license produce the Su-35 (or so there has been talk).
Quote:Yes that’s right – although there’s a version that develops 90kN with afterburners and (so the burblers say) 60 kN dry.
Right. The thing abot supercruise is...under what configuration can it supercruise...and for how long. A LOT of aircraft can excede Mach 1 without using their afterburners...even a MiG-19 can do it in a shallow dive. The MiG-25 could fly at speeds of over Mach 1.7 for hours at a time without afterburners...becasue when that plane turned on afterburners it could go up to Mach 3....so can the MiG-31. So a lot of airplanes can do it. The thing abou these new planes with this new buzzword "supercruise" is that the fuel consumption is reduced and the engines are made more efficient to allow the plane to maintian such performance even while manuvering or for long periods of time.
Rafale may well be able to do this...under some configuration...but still the engines seem a bit underpowered...and overall its performance with or without supercruise sustainable isn't better than whats already out there.
Quote:The Rafale is omni-role, it’s not just an interceptor. That’s what I meant by saying that it’s designed for France’s operational needs, and I’m curious as to how those operational needs are defined.
Multi-role...te be carried on carriers as well as to replace the Jaguars and such.
Quote:In terms of sales, the market will only really pick up in 2008 I think. The Mirage 2000-5 is still selling. Part of its appeal is that the upgrade benefited from new tech worked out in developing the Rafale.
Right...the Mirage-2000 upgrades can already do pretty much anything the Rafale can do. This is why the French AF is in trouble...why get a new type of aircraft when you already have an aircraft which is almost as good as that??
Thats why France went from 300 aircraft to now just a bit over 100. Thats not a very impressive production run.
Why will the market pick up by 2008? The market will be saturated by then. These past few years have been the years when a lot of these newly rich countries were on a buying spree for new planes. Most of them though...were taken by the Russians...and the rest by US upgrades of their F-16s and F-15s. By 2008 the JSF may be more available to export customers that want something better...
Quote:However, the fact that Rafale just beat the Typhoon and the Sukoi in the first serious assessment in which all three planes were contenders, in Singapore, is informative. Now let’s see if it can clinch the deal, we should know in September.
There are a LOT of things to consider when you buy a fighter...not just whether it is technically better than the other guy. The Eurofighter for example was rejcted simply because it won't be available to them by 2008 when they want it...not becasue it was inferior to the Rafale in any way. It was a timetable issue. The Su-30 lost out because of unreliability of the Russian supliers and weapons and systems incompatibility with the systems the Singaporeans use. Furthermore...the Singaporeans want a maritime fighter...The Rafale is a maritime fighter while the Eurofighter and Su-30 certainly aren't (I'm talking about things like materials used to provent corroding from the sea and other such things). So there are a LOT of things to take into account. And these planes nevera ctually flew off aaginst each other anyway...Su-30 dropped out a long time ago.
Quote:It also shows that your idea that Russian avionics are on a par with French ones is debatable to say the least.
How??
Quote:and anyway, as I said earlier, it’s the export models that are the issue anyway in assessing French ‘defence’ needs.
Yes...but how much money do you really think Dassault is going to make from 100 Rafales to France, and 25 to Singapore?? Thats about all the export potentioal so far. The rest of the market is dominated by American and Russian.
Quote:Singapore needs a true multirole craft, that can really wap a numerically superior Malay army if the Malay’s go mad and try to inva
F-15T, Eurofighter and Su-30 are all true multi-role aircraft as well. It just depends on what these guys are willing to sell to Singapore and how willing they are to compromise. America for example probably wil not be willing to sell Singapore its latest air-ground weaponry...while the French will.
Quote:It seems that Typhoon is mainly an interceptor, and I am not happy at the implication that the RAF sees its main future role as helping the Americans achieve air-superiority. Also I’m puzzled – if that’s the goal and since the UK is part of the JSF research programme, why not just wait for it?
I don't the Eurofigther is mainly an interceptor...it is more than capable of carrying out ground attack or maritime strikes. It is true multi-role. The reason why the Eurofigther is around...as I said...is political. The plane has been in development sine the early 1980s...when JSF wasn't even an idea. After billions spend on the program...its too late to pull out now becasue the aircraft just isn't want was expected in the 1980s.
Quote:Isn’t there a possibility that the kind of stealth in the JSF (not the impossibly costly F22) is proving very difficult to achieve economically, necessitating working tolerances of less than 50 microns to avoid constant airframe cracks? That’s what the Financial Times said anyway a few days ago (mostly subscription only, unfortunately), with the added implication that it would be extremely difficult to ‘de-tune’ the plane for export as the US wishes to do to preserve secrecy. Furthermore, if the US does not release full technical details, the US is then proposing to sell contributors to the JSF programme a plane that the contributors can’t support and maintain during its 30 year lifespan. What is this, is the US going to send FedeX round on some ‘collect and return’ warranty scheme?
You never know...by the time this plane is ready for production most of it would have been cleared for export to other countries. The US has not had much problems in the past with giving its most trusted allies weapons which were in fact better than what they themselves even had (Israel, the Iranians in the 70s and so forth)
Quote:And then there’s Spectra’s active cancellation, which seems to be quite a good way of dealing with detection
I don't really know how effective it will be though...or how hard it may be to counter it. Little is known about this syetm to really say whether it is workable or not. For example...can it do this for several different radar types located at different places operationg in different modes...at the same time?? When going against a SAM site for example...you'r not dealing with one radar...you'r probably dealing with at least 3 different types of radars and all sorts of passive systems.
Sounds like a fancy way of saying noise jamming to me...
Quote:Mica mid-course guidance seems a pretty interesting feature too as a way of extending seeker range
All modern long-range missiles use mid-course updates for guidance.
Quote:As for the inferiority of the European aerospace industry Arianespace still has the lion’s share of the lucrative and important satellite GTO launch market. Also please check out the hilarious pair of links here. Not bad for medium-size countries that don’t drive themselves into ruinous debt with the size of their military budget.
I didn't say European aerospace in general wasn't up to it...I just said these two projects aren't up to it. Rafale at maximum will sell 150 aircraft to France and for export. Thats nothing...considering Sukhoi will seel 300 Su-30s just to India...
Quote:Dassault had 15% of the world market for years. It’ll be very interesting to see how it pans out in the future.
The years when your choices were either buy a cheap downgraded MiG-21 or MiG-23 from USSR...or a super-expensive F-4 from the US...or the option of buying a moderatly priced and moderatly capable Mirage F-1...are long over. Now money can buy whatever you want without much political implications. I don't think Dassault will ever approach those figures again. Eurofigther will most likely have ZERO export orders outside of the countries that developed it. Rafale will have 1 or 2 for small batches of planes. Everyone else will go US or Russia.
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3241
(8/2/05 3:09 am) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
The maintenance / upgrade costs of an aircraft over its lifetime are ... what, 3-3.5 times the buying price? If the only company that can do this on US sourced planes is Lockheed, charging a premium and all, and making the customer entirely dependent on US goodwill, the US downgraded product is not going to be appealing at all. JSF is a very high-maintenance aircraft to begin with, because of its geometry and the need to keep every screw in place real tight. There was that story about an early B2 that radar-bloomed in the rain. If you’re paying for stealth, you don’t want a pot-plant.
We'll see about Eurofighter. I think you're wrong, it's primarily an interceptor, and the idea was that JSF would be the bomb-truck / interdictor. That's why there wasn't a model for Singapore yet, it's debatable if the sales pitch wasn't vapourware, hoping to clinch an order before incurring speculative costs on a version that may never exist. I may be completely wrong here, of course. Could be just the usual SNAFU.
India, Brazil and China already have indigenous industries and have had them for many years
Indeed; as I mentioned earlier Dassault owns 20% of the biggest Brazilian player – and I also mentioned the possibility of a Sukhoi licence. But that’s very risky for Brazil, politically.
By omni-role I meant strike, intercept, interdict, naval air, anti-ship. It isn’t outstanding at any one thing – and the range is short, which is why they’ve made a range of tanks for it, from conformal to gross, but it’s god, it does have special features and the reputation of Dassault for upgrades behind it.
By 2008 there will be developments that distinguish Rafale far more from M2000-5. That’s when the A de L’Air will buy more, as will others. The Russian companies (and they are companies now, not the substitutes for a sense of national pride that they once were) will really have to make profits to keep up.
In Singapore, Eurofighter was rejected because it’s proving more difficult/expensive to adapt than anybody expected. Sukhoi didn’t drop out – it was rejected. But I’d appreciate more details on ‘unreliability of the Russian supliers and weapons and systems incompatibility’ What are these systems the Singaporeans use? Sukhoi have had quite an easy run for a while because there hasn’t been much demonstrable competition till now except the old Mirage, but I agree it’s a tighter market.
BTW I thought the SU30 MK was convertible to naval use – it’s just that the Indians don’t yet have a carrier. But Sukhoi will sell 300 planes to India? Can you quote me a source, please. So far the whole deal has been a fiasco, with the Indians fouling up the western avionics deal they wanted to integrate.
Mid-flight missile correction has been around for a while, yes, but not the proposed Mica system, which is part of the stealth system we were talking about.
Quote:Under F3, Rafale is expected to exploit a unique feature of MICA IR — its combination of an imaging IR seeker with mid-course guidance, using inertial navigation coupled with a datalink — to hit targets beyond either visual or seeker range without any radar emissions. Aviation Now
And the RISC chips used by Thales are fast. I guess they know how many radars they have to deal with on a SAM site. Thales are doing some work for Sukhoi too – along with that avionics company you seem so sure the Russians don’t need.
Can you tell me off the cuff - are national budgets for naval or land equipment anything like as high as those for aircraft? A carrier costs a fortune of course, so perhaps it's a variegated picture according to requirements. Just occurred to me; are aircraft the best procurement clue to what a country's up to ?
Quote:The maintenance / upgrade costs of an aircraft over its lifetime are ... what, 3-3.5 times the buying price? If the only company that can do this on US sourced planes is Lockheed, charging a premium and all, and making the customer entirely dependent on US goodwill, the US downgraded product is not going to be appealing at all. JSF is a very high-maintenance aircraft to begin with, because of its geometry and the need to keep every screw in place real tight. There was that story about an early B2 that radar-bloomed in the rain. If you’re paying for stealth, you don’t want a pot-plant.
Generally when you buy an aircraft you buy a whole package...the costs for weapons, equipment, maintanance and spares all included in the price-tag. When JSF are sold...so will be the facilities and equipemnt and spare parts to maintain them. JSF isn't an exclusivly US design or production...it will be like the F-16...bits of it build all around (Turkey being one of the main producers if I'm not mistaken). So this will all be taken into account...don't worry...
Quote:We'll see about Eurofighter. I think you're wrong, it's primarily an interceptor, and the idea was that JSF would be the bomb-truck / interdictor. That's why there wasn't a model for Singapore yet, it's debatable if the sales pitch wasn't vapourware, hoping to clinch an order before incurring speculative costs on a version that may never exist. I may be completely wrong here, of course. Could be just the usual SNAFU.
The thing is...the Singaporean requirement was for an aircraft to replace their A-4s...which are ground-attack aircraft. So the competition for about 25 aircraft was actually for an intrediction aircraft...so all the aircarft that participated in it were all very much so multi-role aircraft. The JSF had no chance not becasue it couldn't compete in air-air or was inferior to anyone...just that its not available now and won't be for many more years. The same for the Eurofigther...it lost out not becasue it was inferior...but becasue the version offered to Singapore wouldn't be available by 2008. Timeframe problems...
Quote:By omni-role I meant strike, intercept, interdict, naval air, anti-ship. It isn’t outstanding at any one thing – and the range is short, which is why they’ve made a range of tanks for it, from conformal to gross, but it’s god, it does have special features and the reputation of Dassault for upgrades behind it.
The Eurofigther can do all these roles as well... The Eurofigther's radar has several ground attack modes and maritime modes, it can be armed with ARM missiles, GBU-24 LGBs, Brimestone anti-tank missiles, anti-ship missiles, Strom Shadow stand-off land attack missile or the Taurus stand-off missile. Its multi-role...no doubt about it
And Su-30 certainly is multi role as well...with too many ground attack and anti-ship missiles to name...
Quote:By 2008 there will be developments that distinguish Rafale far more from M2000-5. That’s when the A de L’Air will buy more, as will others
Nop...the French AF orders include the new 2008 model...its still only about 120 purchased by France in total to be introduced until 2011. Thats still a pretty tiny order...
Quote:In Singapore, Eurofighter was rejected because it’s proving more difficult/expensive to adapt than anybody expected.
It was dropped becasue the Phase 2 upgrade of the Eurofighter...which was the one beign offered..wouldn't be available until 2008. Too late for Singapore.
Quote:Sukhoi didn’t drop out – it was rejected. But I’d appreciate more details on ‘unreliability of the Russian supliers and weapons and systems incompatibility’ What are these systems the Singaporeans use? Sukhoi have had quite an easy run for a while because there hasn’t been much demonstrable competition till now except the old Mirage, but I agree it’s a tighter market.
Well yes it was rejected...the Russians weren't trying very hard with Singapore...maybe Malaysian orders changed their minds. Whoeevr buys Russian has to take into consideration they'r going to have a tough time with the Russians...they want money so they make parts procurement and supplies a lot harder...pay up front before getting anything. And the Singaporeans wanted to integrate western weapons they already have on inventory with the aircraft...the Russians wouldn't do that.
Quote:BTW I thought the SU30 MK was convertible to naval use – it’s just that the Indians don’t yet have a carrier.
The Su-30MK2 is a navalised version...but as far as I know that was the one bougth by China but has no thrust vectoring or canards...it is a straight copy of Russia's own Su-30M...only with Russian avionics. The Russians didn't offer this version to anyone other than the Chinese. The Russian and CHinese requirement wasn't for a very mutli-role aircraft with great manuvrability...they wanted a more specialized aircraft which cames out to be pretty different from the Su-30MKI. This isn't something Singapore was looking for.
And the Indians aren't palnning on putting an SU-30 on their carriers. Navalised doesn't mean carrier borne. Navalised just means it is specialised to operate over the sea. To operate from carriers has an entirely different set of requirements. The SU-30 has no carrier-borne version...thast the Su-33 whcih is a version of the Su-27 and that hasn't been offered fro export to anyone. The Indians will buy MiG-29Ks for their aircraft carriers.
Quote:But Sukhoi will sell 300 planes to India? Can you quote me a source, please.
Sorry...200 actually. The Russians have delivered 50 already and HAL will license-produce another 150. The first Indian-made Su-30MKIs have already been produced.
Quote:So far the whole deal has been a fiasco, with the Indians fouling up the western avionics deal they wanted to integrate.
Fiasco?? Not at all. The MKI has been a great success. The only thing the Indians changed to the Russian avionics was to intrgrate Indian made processors into the radar and an Indian-developed RWR. Also the deal is for continued modernization and uprade for the aircraft. The Russians have already made a lot of modifications and advances to the N-011M radar...for example the latest versions available and which will be sold to Inida has the Chelnok travelling wave tube boasting an average power of 5 to 7 kW...as compared to 2kW for the current design. This increases range head-on against a figther size target (3-5m^2) to 250-330kms. I don't think 200 aircraft pruchased is a fiasco at all...
Quote:Mid-flight missile correction has been around for a while, yes, but not the proposed Mica system, which is part of the stealth system we were talking about.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under F3, Rafale is expected to exploit a unique feature of MICA IR — its combination of an imaging IR seeker with mid-course guidance, using inertial navigation coupled with a datalink — to hit targets beyond either visual or seeker range without any radar emissions. Aviation Now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I was talking about with the R-27 models. This isn't something new or that others don't have. The latest R-27 version...as I said...has a model which uses IR guidance and flies about 130km to target on mid-course updates and then turns on its IR seeker...
Now this isn't done "without radar emissions"...thats false. The mid-course datalink allows the radar not to change into a mode which will alert the enemy aircraft that a missile is being guided towards it. The enemy RWR may still be aware the radar has locked on to him...but its not telling him the radar is guiding anything...this until the missile itself goes active about 20-15km from tagret. Instead of oging radar active...the IR guided missiles will go on IR and still provide no warning.
The Mica has a version with IR guidance and one with acitve radar guidance. This is the SAME approach the Russians have had with their R-27s since the early 80s...except that for the Russians now only the latesr versions (well later as in versions from 1993) which have 120-130km ranges have mid-course datalink ability. The R-77M with 150km range will also have active radar and IR guidance options.
The other guidance option that only Russian missiles have..is an ARM version...one which homes in on the emissions of an enemy radar itself. This version was totally unknown in the west until actually a couple of years ago...when it was revealed the Russins had had an R-27 version with this capability in production since the late 80s. That would have been a nasty surprise if there ever was a war.
Quote:And the RISC chips used by Thales are fast
Off the shelf processor chips are available from a lot of countries which are very capable for these sort of things. One of the reasons the Russian avionics have advanced in leaps and bounds in the past 20 years...is becasue they decided to just buy ready-made processors. For example, the AIM-120 uses a specially developed processor from Motorola that took years to develop but which in the end offered a 15km range for its on-board radar and a technology that was already overtaken by civilian systems. The Russians instead for their R-77 went ahead and just bought some read-made off the shelf processors from TI and this gave their radar a 25km range. That saved them millions of dollars in developing costs and years of struggle.
Quote:Thales are doing some work for Sukhoi too – along with that avionics company you seem so sure the Russians don’t need
No not really. The Russians bought a processor from Thales to use in their Ts 501F system in 1997...becasue in 1997 there was no Russian equivalent to it. Of course they realised this was bad business since Thales was a direct competitor...so since then they use either Russian-made processors or processors that the customer may ask for...like for example the Indians decided to put one of their own designs in. Other things Thales offers for Sukhoi aircraft are PURELY on a customer requirement. One thing you have to do when exporting such things is that you have to make them compatible with a range of equipment which may even be produced directly by your competition...depends on what the customer wants.
Why did the Rafale lose out to the F-15K in Korea?? Becasue the Koreans wanted to make the Rafale compatible with the US weaponry they already had. The US refused to allow their weapons on a Rafale...so the Rafale lost. hats what I'm talking about...making it compatible with systems that may be even from your competitor.
Quote:Can you tell me off the cuff - are national budgets for naval or land equipment anything like as high as those for aircraft?
I would think naval equipment costs a HELL of a lot more...and land forces buy in much larger volumes so that makes them more expensive too. Usually Army eats up more than anything else...simply becasue it has a lot more personel to deal with that need to be fed and housed and thousands of tanks and vehicles which even though are cheaper than planes are a lot more in numbers. I don't really know though...just my opinion.
Quote:Just occurred to me; are aircraft the best procurement clue to what a country's up to ?
Maybe...depends on the country I think. For China for example it would be more in the Navy...if the Chinese start making lots of new ships and lots of new landing ships (as they are doing now )...than that may be a hint they'r getting ready to do something about Taiwan
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3246
(8/2/05 1:56 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
Daily Telegraph 19/06/2005
The US threat to British sovereignty
The UK is threatening to pull out of the $200bn Joint Strike Fighter programme if the US continues to refuse to share technology. Sylvia Pfeifer reports
Geena Davis, Hilary Duff and other stars joined business leaders last Sunday at the Ford Theater in Washington for the annual Salute to the Troops Gala. Among the guests was Dick Olver, the chairman of BAE Systems, Britain's largest defence contractor - who was there to schmooze unglam-orous White House officials about progress on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme.
Britain wants key software codes to upgrade the JSF independently of the US
The JSF is being built by a consortium of nine partner nations led by the US, whose lead contractor is Lockheed Martin. At an estimated cost of $200bn (£110bn), it will probably become the largest project in military history.
But as the programme starts to move from development into production, there is growing tension between America and its most important partner, the UK. At issue is the Pentagon's apparent reluctance to share sensitive defence technology with Britain.
In particular, what the British Government wants is access to the software codes that would allow it to maintain and upgrade the aircraft without having to depend on US manufacturers. Some exec-u-tives believe that if a compromise is not found, Britain may decide to pull out, dealing a body blow to the programme.
This was the message being delivered in the past few days by BAE's chief executive, Mike Turner, while at the Paris airshow. "Technology transfer is a very, very big issue," Turner says. "Without it, there will be a real problem on this programme and others."
Sales of the aircraft are expec-ted to generate between $200bn and $400bn, but service and support are estimated to bring in four times that sum over the plane's life.
In the US, the JSF will become the primary fighter for the navy, the air force and the marines, replacing several existing types of aircraft, from Harrier jump jets to F-16 fighters.
In Britain, the JSF will be the only fighter on the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers, replacing the Harriers. Britain has ordered up to 150 planes and so far has invested $2bn in research and development for the programme - making it the sole "level one" partner and giving it a direct influence on the design of the aircraft.
But the UK is still concerned about getting access to much of the sophisticated technology.
"Although you may be a partner, you could end up as a 'metal bashing' partner if you do not have proper access to the high-value electronics and computing parts of the aircraft," says Gareth Evans of AT Kearney, the consultancy.
According to Turner, there are wider ramifications. Technology transfer is vital if Britain wants to maintain a strong defence industrial base, he argues.
"For every $1 that you spend at the beginning buying a system, you spend $4 through its life [main-taining and upgrading the aircraft]. The last thing you want to do is expose yourself to having to buy expensive support from America throughout the life. And you lose sovereignty.
"So it's not only wealth creation that you give up in your own country, but you lose sovereignty," Turner says.
The technology access secured by the UK so far has only come about after relentless negotiations. An original bilateral agreement has been amended 10 times to grant Britain rights to technologies it needed during the developmental stages.
The JSF is unlikely to enter service in Britain until at least 2011, but with the aircraft now starting to move into production, time is beginning to run out. A new international partnership agreement covering the production and maintenance phases is due next year and negotiations formally began last month.
According to American executives, it is only at this stage that discussions on technology transfer can begin. "There is nothing precluding BAE from doing sensitive [work] but they haven't bought the airplane yet. The partners would like to have the guarantees on access to technology today, but the US doesn't do that," says Tom Burbage, the general manager of the JSF programme at Lockheed -Martin.
Talks leading up to the agreement are also likely to include a decision on where to establish a second "final assembly and checkout" line for the JSF. The main line will be at Lockheed's headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. Britain, Italy and Turkey are all pushing for the second line.
And what will happen if Britain does not secure the technology it wants? According to BAE's Turner, the UK Government could pull out.
He says: "If the Government does not get the technology it is expecting so that it can support the aircraft through its life. . . then I would not be surprised if the UK pulled out. The US should not expect the UK to be there under any circumstances."
Re: New aircraft roles
As I said...the decisions seem mostly POLITICAL to me. England has bought US aircraft in the past...and so have many others. In many cases the US will not share such information with anyone who buys the plane.
The British government made the mistake of going for the US Marines version of the plane. It did not have a specific requirement of its own. This means...it will buy a plane ready-made for the Marines requirement...full of US avionics. If the Brits had made a requirement of their own...they may have had Locheed Martin integrate British avionics into the plane and saved everyone a lot of trouble...becasue I think it should have been pretty expected that the US would NOT shrae senstivie materials about its radar systems or EW systems or other avionics which are highly sensitive.
This is what you get when you buy from someone else...but the UK shoudl know that becasue for deaces it bought US aircraft like the F-4.
Look at what the Americans did for example when they bought the Harrier from the British. They didn't just go and buy a read-made British Navy version...no...they had their own requirements and got a plane tailor made for the US Marines with US avionics...so the US doesn't have to ask England for permission for anything.
Brits didn't do that...which I think was the most basic requirement when getting a plane of this sort. India did the same with the Su-30...thats why they got the Su-30MKI...I standing for Indian.
The US is behaving like the Russians did in the days of the USSR...they didn't share sensitive info with their customers...which left the planes higly unservicable and at the mercy of the Soviet technocal help...which the Soviets often chose not to give.
But that should have been expected when you ask the US to give to you its most high-tech equipment. It doesn't come freely.
The Brits now are talking about losing "sovreignity". Well...thats what you get when you buy foreign everytime. So these complaints seem to me to be mostly political in nature.
In the end I think a compromise will be reached...becasue England itslef has invested billions in the project..and becasue England ABSOLUTELY needs the JSF to replace the Harriers which are just about good for the junkyard now. If England doesn't get the JSF...than it will have NO alternative but tp keep flying Harriers indefenatly...and I wouldn't want to be a British pilot flying a 40 year old Harrier in 2020 into combat.
If England doesn't get the JSF...than it will have no Naval aviation to speak of. Its carriers are tailored for VTOL aircraft...and the only VTOL aircraft in the world today...are the Harrier...and the JSF ...England doesn't have the money to start now a new design project for a new VTOL aircraft...that alone will take another 20 years.
Or maybe england can by the Russian Yak-141 ...not going to happen of course but thats the point. Without a VTOL aircraft...England's carriers are useless metal which will be scrapped otherwise. The Harrier is not an aircraft that can stand up to any sort of serious air opponent or any sort of serious ground defenses...so it needs to be replaced very quicly.
England has no choice...even though politically it is not a good deal fro them.
In the end I have no doubt the US will open a second assembly line elsehwere...probably in Turkey...like they have a second F-16 assembly line there now (you'r wrong Silent Hero...Turkey assembles F-16s as the second place where such planes are assembled (though not anymore since F-16 production is over))...and allow its main allies access to SOME sensitive equipment...while they themselves may chose to repalce some fo the US equipment with something of their own chosing.
But no one should have expected that the US would share such sensitive information with everyone. Turkey and Italy will probably even get downgraded aircraft.
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
And I wouldn't want to be in a Harrier in 2020 taking on 2020 AD...
To begin with I'm not a wargamer...I never touch the stuff...Under normal circumstances I hate being in front of a screen for even an hour and when I do its usually talking on this forum. 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies