Again, why the stealth? You said it was a scam and a waste of time. You just said the Chinese plan to use the J-20 to hit tankers and AWACs. It's not a bomber. Notice your glaring contradictions. The J-20 is designed for interception, but you don't see the point. The whole point is the J-20 with it's stealth will likely spot the unstealthy AWACs first, and launch it's PL-15 missiles and kill the AWACs before the AWACs sees it. A bomber is designed to bomb targets....I don't get your point. AESA is a type of radar..... A AESA that is the same size as a non-AESA radar....the AESA will always have more range. Wrong again. How? Stealth defeats radar. A stealth fighter always has radar. Again....the F-22 has a same if not larger air-air payload than a Rafale. Even without reverting to 4th Gen..... You are not paying attention. And has stealth which you said is a complete scam/waste of time. If the stealth is a waste of time/scam, why is Europe bothering with the concept for a weapon that has air-air use? Why not use a aerodynamic version without internal bays, more shaped for dogfighting instead of one shaped like a B-2? Judging by the nEURON's shape, I doubt it will pull even 9 Gs like a fighter. Also, the F-35 can be converted to drone.
In interception and in defense, yes, I believe it is. And it's not because the Russians beleive in it that I do too. Never said it was a bomber... I said "used like a bomber", meaning in quick and silent, strike, out quick and silent, in a offensive role, in opposition to intercepting, or in a defensive, air superiority role. And when I write "bomber" I mean a bigger platform. A C-130 can be used as a bomber, it doesn't mean it is meant to be one. If dropping bombs on the ground makes a bomber out of a plane then the Raptor is a bomber. No. Passive radars have less range than active radars. I wrote why I don't think that's true, why I think it is hype. But when that same stealth fighter uses active radar, it is no longer a stealth fighter. That doesn't adress my point. which was about full loads. A big, costly and clumsy drone.
Maybe the F-35 A but not the F-35 B. BTW: You don't use anything larger than 500 lb's for a CAS mission. Before the Vietnam War it was one bomb for each hardpoint. It was either a Marine or Navy pilot who designed a bomb rack where more than one bomb could be carried on a hardpoint. If I remember correctly it was for a F-8 Crusader. Soon all aircraft were carry bomb racks holding more than one bomb. But for CAS and battlefield interdiction, stealth isn't an issue. Hang as many bombs on the hardpoints as you can. The Air Force F-111 was probably the best deep strike attack aircraft the USAF ever had and they didn't have a replacement for it and the F-15 F wasn't able to fill the void. The best U.S. Navy deep strike attack aircraft was the A-6 Intruder and when they were sent to the bone yard, it's replacement the A-12 Avenger ll was canceled by Sec.of Def. Dick Cheney, The FA-18 F Super Hornet wasn't able to fill the void, it lacked the range and payload. U.S. Navy carrier air wings are no longer capable of deep strike missions. I like the F-22 as an air superiority fighter. I have a family member who's a retired Air Force Lt. Gen. and he sold me on it. Obama really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up big time closing down the F-22 production line before Lockheed Martin was able to full fill the contract of 648 aircraft to guarantee American air superiority into the 2040's and the USAF is up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek with only 187 F-22's. That's when the military brass started calling Obama a national security risk. He fails to look beyond 2016 and what threats America will be facing ten, twenty or thirty years over the horizon. I'm on the fence when it comes to the F-35.
What are you even talking about. The PAK FA is used just like an F-22. It is used for intercepting.....like a MiG-31 interceptor for example, is used to use high speed and throw it's long range R-37 missiles to kill off bombers, AWACs, tankers at long range. F-22, PAK FA, and J-20 all can fill this role as well, since it doesn't carry external loads, plus the added dogfighting ability. J-20 is not a bomber. It's a fighter jet. It turns, accelerates and cruises just like a Raptor. If it was only to be used like a MiG-31 to kill off long range strategic targets it wouldn't even bother with the agility and acceleration design. (And MiG-31 is not bomber sized, and uses radars to detect targets just like any normal fighter) Again, if bomber sized BVR air-air platforms are so effective....why is no nation using such designs? All of them can accelerate and turn. J-20 right here. AESA is not a passive radar..... Again, fighter jets don't have low frequency radars for detection. The type used to spot F-117. Since low frequency need large T/R modules in order to spot targets, they usually can't be fitted to fighter aircraft unless they are purely used for communication purposes. Again you are not paying attention. -Active radar=/=enemy will spot it. -Even if the enemy spots it, you can simply have one group of fighters turn on the radar, and others to be guided quietly and do the fighting. No. Why use full loads when your stealth load is already the same as a 4th Gen's full load? Which can guide smaller drones. Again you haven't answered my question.....why does the nEuron bother with the stealth scam? When it can use a more aerodynamic platform
Yeah - that was my point. I don't believe in it. The ones to whom I recognize more focus are the Chinese. A job 4th gen fighters can do just as well. I'll reverse the question and ask: If BVR combat is such a safe bet, then why designers are splitting their arses and budgets fourways to make them small, nimble and manoeuvrable? I wasn't specific about AESA; Active sensors are more performing than passive ones, in both range and spectrum. But if active sensors are on (with or without passive ones), that is, if you emit, you are no longer stealthy (if you ever were). Mobile detection units can have, and they can call in any 4th gen interceptor to do the job. -4th gen fighter=/=enemy will spot it, neither. That's all nice but it's an all other, unrelated domain, that of tactics. The intercepting ennemy could have cover, too. The qualities of planes matter for little here. Because as the F-22 and F-35 air time being so precious, one would want to make the most of them. This especially for allies who would buy F-35 but will lack the luscious ressources the US have. I still see significance in stealth, in an deep offensive role, if it wasn't clear. But when applied to drones, I must admit that stealth may have a future in interception and air superiority. In any case, the nEUROn doesn't look trimmed like a fighter to me.
Why don't the Chinese just use a big fast interceptor like the MiG-31 then? Or an aerodynamic stealth bomber like the PAK-DA? Instead waste money on a stealth nimble fighter? So....why PAK FA and J-20? Here are the reasons 1) Speed. In BVR combat, the faster your plane is, the greater kinematic advantage your missile has. You put a B-52 armed with air-air missiles vs a F-16 armed with air-air missiles, the F-16 will shoot first and win. 2) Acceleration. Some interceptors like the MiG-31 have great speed, but poor T/W because they are so heavy meaning poor acceleration. With good acceleration you can throw your missiles, change speed to dodge, and quickly reach max speed again for another BVR shot. 3) Manuerablity. If your enemy fires it's missile in BVR, you can evade better. 4) Mutli-role capablilities. Suppression of enemy air defenses are usually done by nimble strike fighters which can attack in swarms. Bomber sized targets are meant to really hit strategic targets. Also, bomber sized targets use active radars....just like fighters. I don't know why you even brought the radar thing up. Bombers and Fighter both use radars. Again, a VHF radar are for early warning purposes, they can't lock on targets at BVR. They are also quite big and easy to spot. A SEAD aircraft can easily shoot a PGM at it and destroy it. Also mobile detection units....you can't really move them faster than a fighter. They are for defensive purposes. Put a 4th Gen and 5th Gen, the 5th Gen will always get first look. VLO target vs non VLO target using similar radars.....the VLO one will spot the non VLO one first. What part of this don't you get? How? If you rely on RWR to detect enemy emissions, you won't detect those who have radars turned off. If you use radar....you will detect the enemy whether they have radars turned on or not. Depends. If the 4th Gens get shot down before money runs out, The numerical advantage is gone. Nothing more costly than a fighter get shot down than using gas and maintenece. Again...you said stealth is a scam that can be easily spotted..... And I don't see how making it a drone makes it magically more stealthier.
Once again, if writing it here and there isn't clear enough: I may believe in stealth bombers/strikers, or whatever you'll call this deep and silent penetration stuff. The "may" is due to advances in detection technologies. However, I am still puzzled in its utility in defense/interception/air superiority, because the mandatory use of active sensors in this role, but also because of many other, more minor reasons. For unmanned drones, things change: There's no longer a pilot in the thing, so fatigue is out of the equation. If they are able to do prolonged flight without refueling (the refueling plane itself isn't "stealthy") and/or if the number of hours they can be in the air is adequate, one could suppose they could be deployed in enough numbers to produce a passive, defensive network with an AWACS-like controller in its center, something that manned aircrafts can't emulate without great difficulties (for the reasons I just mentioned, and others). The fact/illusion that Russians, Americans, Chineses - or even the French seems to disagree with me on some or all points does not alter my opinion as of yet. A B-2 would make a better comparison platform than a feckin' B-52. Seriously. True enough. A fighter/bomber which is deep in hostile airspace can stay silent until it is within its target's range. In a more defensive role, the reverse applies: active sensors should be turned on. Ergo, I would favor an AWACS-like early warning system along with 4th gen fighters, also with their active sensors on, just to make sure the damn bogey's located and dealt with. No stealth at all - It would be a hindrance here. The tech is there. There was no need to develop this particular branch of detection as of recently, but as "stealth" planes are, like Justin Beiber, becoming the rage, then they'll get up to the task, fast. Maybe they'll even be mounted on satellites. If the "stealth" one uses active sensors, he isn't stealthy. If it uses passive sensors, chances are it won't detect the enemy without being itself detected, if the enemy's passive sensors are more or less on par ("Stealth" is still visible to IRST, among other types of detection). But let's say the "stealth" fighter does have the initiative, for discussion's sake: If that initiating strike doesn't bear fruit - and there's a good amount of possibility that it won't, depending on the tech level of the adversary - then it's most likely dogfighting time. Yes, and that's why I say that 4th gen fighters suffice to do a better job - not by the way of enhanced performance, but by the way of a better operational ratio. Now that's too easy an assumption...
What does this even mean? I don't even think you understand the concept of air warfare. Whether you are in enemy territory, contested territory or defensive territory? A stealth bomber and a stealth fighter are both designed to do offense. If you want to gain air superiority you have to attack in enemy territory either way. That is the whole point of Air Superiority. Western Europe in WWII for example, or the Gulf War A interceptor is more designed for speed(a fighter can serve as an interceptor) and they are mainly for defensive purposes such as shooting down bombers, AWACs, and tankers or ambushing other fighters. A stealth bomber, or any type of bomber is used only for offensive purposes(ie interdiction) unless the enemy is in your territory or in contested territory which can serve for CAS. A bomber is equipped with active sensors A stealth bomber is equipped with active sensors A fighter is equipped active sensors A steath fighter is equipped active sensors A interceptor is equipped with active sensors A stealth interceptor is equipped with active sensors Whether they use them or not all depends on the mission and their choosing. A unmanned plane doesn't make a fighter more stealthier, they still use stealth technology.... When planes refuel they usually do it one at a time, so they defend each other AWACs isn't a passive. Yeah....your the expert. Again....why isn't anyone placing air-air missiles on big bombers? . The stealth force would obliterate you. The AWACs is the largest target, has an active sensors, and is the most unstealthy, and the most unagile. It would be spotted first and shot at by a long range BVR missile with no chance to dodge it. That is why the Chinese like the J-20. It will spot the AWACs first before it is spotted, then shoot it's PL-15 missile and kill the big AWACs. After the AWACs is gone, the fighters are on their own. Which will get ripped apart by the 5th Gens. That is why the US is into the LRS-B with ISR capability. It serves as a stealth AWACs as well meaning it isn't as big to get detected. And what happens when the opponent use these magical anti-stealth sattelites? The unstealthy target will be spotted even farther away. How? 1) Depends how good your LPI and the enemy RWR 2) If a couple fighters turn on their radars, how about the ones with their radars turned off? They are still stealthy and can fight using datalinks of the emitting fighters. Again, as I explain active sensors do not mean unstealthy. Which the one with the initative has the advantage. Think about it. If your too busy trying to fend off a iniating strike, you won't have time to get ready for another enemy attack. How? -If a stealth fighter turns on his radar...him getting detected is a big maybe. Him getting shot down is even harder because RWR and IRST can't really range opponents to guide missiles without triangulation from multiple fighters, plus passive guidance is prone to all sorts of countermeasures and decoys. -If a normal fighter turns on his radar...him getting detected is a must because the enemy radar spots him either way. Almost all BVR missiles(AMRAAM, Meteor, R-77, PL-15) use radar guidance backed by terminal active radar homing.
I use simple, basic terms as the various planes' pretended role is quite messy: Case in point, the F-22, a supposed air superiority fighter, was used as a ground-attack bomber in Syria. What, is it now a multirole fighter? In any case it somehow validates my point about stealth being of more use to strikes than interceptions. Here I meant a deep, offensive mission at more or less long range, in hostile airspace with little to no cover versus patrol/intercept/interdiction or whatever you fancy. The earlier requires stealth. The second requires, to the contrary, powerful detection capacities. Sounds quite simple to me. What was the argument about, before these rethorics, anyway? The removal of the pilot and the life support systems and restriction will likely make that it will require less weight, less power, ergo a lower IR signature, among other things, such as a diminished visual signature and all that jazz that, even if not technically more advanced stealth-wise, will certainly have an effect on its actual signature. ??? I never suggested they were. I am not alone in questionning the supposed advantage and/or utility of supposed "5th gen" fighters. France development of nEUROn can simply be as a mean to experiment new types of detection tech, for all I know. Why big bombers? Medium-sized, or even carrier-able bombers will do: It's "bomber" only in the sense that it is payload and range-oriented rather than dogfight-oriented. Such a bird can be as small as a F-15. Exactly (except for the auto-kills). That, I can understand. It can also be done to a stealth fighter's AWACS, too. In your scenario, you use the stealth fighters as I would (as "bombers") - in deep offensive mode. In the defensive role I wrote this exemple for (if you remember), stealth fighters, in stealth mode, would be much less effective than proven 4th gens in active detection mode, even versus other 5th gen attackers. Big deal. Active sensors radiates. Modern sensors can spot these emissions and triangulate where their source is. Even if only one out of five stealth fighters turns them on, it will be shot like the AWACS in our exemple above. Back to case 0 minus one. In fact, even being a 4th gen fighter does not mean unstealthy. There stealth qualities other than a fancy skin. That's in the best of situations. In reality, if both opposing types of planes, stealthy or not, are running on passive sensors, throw a coin. How are 4th gen fighter makes for better air superiority/interceptor planes? Because in that role, they do the job as effectively as any 5th gen one, at a fraction of the cost and with much more hours in the air.
Because you are using weird terms such as "striker" and "Bomber" for BVR fighters. No, deep in enemy territory or close to friendly territory both need stealth and sensors. -If in enemy territory you don't want the enemy to see(need stealth) -If in enemy territory you want to see the enemy(need powerful sensors) -If in friendly territory you want to ambush the enemy(need stealth) -If in friendly territory you want to see the enemy(need powerful sensors) A F-22 moving into an airspace of enemy airspace guarded by S-300s needes the sensors to ID the enemy but also evade the enemy. A J-20 trying to hunt down American AWACs in Chinese territory needs the powerful sensors to spot them, but also the stealth to prevent being spotted and the AWACs running away/calling for backup. Being unmanned doesn't reduce the IR signature much. IR stealth depends on things like the aircraft's exhaust and tempereture. Shaving off a few inches isn't going to change much. A nEuron frontally wingspan is not much bigger than a Rafale. Also since it is less aerodynamic more air heating due to friction. You are ignoring the radar stealth question. Then why are the major powers buying it? If there really is a severe flaw why are America's opponents looking to make their own instead of simply upgrading their sensors. It's not a bomber....a bomber is designed to hit ground targets. An F-22 is the size of an F-15. The F-15 is designed to dogfight. No. You can use stealth for interception for both offensive and defensive. If US operates over Chinese airspace for example, the J-20 can pop up and shoot down an AWACs. That is the whole point of J-20. But the J-20 is not limited to taking out big targets. It can fight other fighters whether BVR or close range. The J-20 can also be used for offense as well. Striking deep in Japanese airspace attempting to sweep American aircraft out of the sky before striking airbases themselves. It makes not much of a difference for offense vs defense. Stealth helps both equally. Sensors help both equally. If a AWACs has a hard time spotting a J-20, the fighters facing it with their smaller radars would have an similar problem. No. There is something code coded waveform, frequency hopping, and high gain. Depends on how good the enemy RWR. Again as I said. Also if the beam is too narrow(ie high gain, you can't triangulate it and find range and velocity. ie. you cannot fire a missile without missing the target. A RWR can never be as versatile as a radar. No. Fighters can manuver and run. So the effective shooting range for a missile against a fighter is much shorter than against AWACs target. A radar can have a detection range against enemy fighters over hundreds of kilometers, while usually effective missile range is under 100 km. If a emitting fighter stays out of the range, he can be used to guide non emitting fighters to close effective missile range(No escape Zone), without those nonemitting fighters turning on their radars. No they cannot. A stealthy plane will always have the surprise advantage. Read the I wrote scenario: I described to you already- -How to defeat IRST -How to defeat emissions getting detected
For the very same reason some nations like Canada considered to buy the F-35 and for a while totally ignored the Rafales and Gripens: Because of your military industrial complex' lobbying and the diplomatical influence/threat of the US and/or simple dick-measuring. Furthermore, neither Russia or China recognize the need to change most of their air fleets with "5th gens", keeping these for special tasks, more defined for the Chinese. For their part, France, the UK and Germany, in spite of the possibility they have to develop "5th gens", seems to prefer their 4th and 4.5gen birds. You know what? My mind's still firm but my arm begins to ache - I think I will rest my case, if it doesn't offend you. At this point it is clear neither of us will budge anymore, and most arguments we will have will be circle repeats of already worn out statements under different forms. Thanks for the great discussion.
China's Chengdu Corporation is State owned. There is American style Military Industrial Complex in China. Their goals are not profits. If America is threat, they will look the best solutions. Sometimes this solution is good, sometimes it is bad due to the lack competition/creativity. Why have American weapon technology always been more efficient than Soviet ones? You can call out the wasteful spending of American Military Industrial Complex, but the efficiency of their products is always something to think about. Russia and China is not replacing 4th Gens because they behind the United States. When the F-15 was introduced in the 1970s, we were using 3rd Generation Fighters still for quite some more decades. The J-20 is a better fighter than J-11. In every role. If they purely use it for interception without a need for stealth and agility to fight other fighters, they would simply use the MiG-31. There is no mission, a J-10, J-11, J-17 can trump the J-20 and J-31. What about the other European nations buying the F-35? Both the Super Hornet and Typhoon lost the Danish Fighter competitions. They were proven inferior in the contest. UK is also buying the F-35.(by 2030, the number of F-35s will outnumber the Typhoon).
Why 10 on 10? A fair fight is something like 10 on 30 if we are taking costs into consideration... And I guess that should be 3 on 25 if we talk about combat readiness %... Another question. Do you have any idea at what distance AIM-120D can lock on to Eurofighter with its own radar head?
I stopped bothering to read or respond to MV ages ago. He simply ignored anything posted that he did not agree with, then spat out a bunch of nonsense that makes no sense when looked at from a tactical or technical aspect. I only read what he says now when somebody quotes him. And something that I noticed he said actually left me scratching my head. "Carier-able bombers", I mean, really? I wonder if he even knows that the last time any world Navy has had to a "Carrier Bomber" is probably the venerable F-14. Essentially a navalized FB-111, the last generation of upgrades modified the aging fighter into a configuration known as the "Bombcat". But they were first and foremost fighters, simply taking on another role in order to extend their lifespan. Oh, and the only country in the world that has any still in service does not have any carriers. The US retired the last of their F-14s a decade ago, and less then 2 years afterwards were completely destroyed (including replacement parts on hand). "Carrier Based Bombers" is a long obsolete term, largely dissapearing during WWII. In fact, the last actual "bomber" ever used by any Navy was probably the US A-5 Vigilante. It was designed as a penetration nuclear bomber in the mid-1950's, and was the last true bomber operated by the Navy. However, in the early 1960's when the Navy decided that Ballistic Submarines would be their primary delivery platform they largely lost that mission. By the time the US really got involved in Vietnam, the A-5 was gone, and the Navy was using a recon variant, the RA-5. No bombs, few weapons, they were designated to perform before and after recon on bombing targets. But as even more capable aircraft became available the RA-5 itself was phased out, ending service in 1978. And that was the last "Carrier-able bomber". Retired just a few years short of 40 years ago. Then people wonder why I do not pay attention to what some in here say.
Sorry, but I strongly dissagree with you there. China is one of the largest arms exporting nation in the world. In fact, if somebody wants a fairly modern fighter or tank and does not agree with the politics and policies of the US, China is the nation of choice. Iran, Iraq, and nations all over the globe tend to turn to China before the US or Russia for their arms. And profit is very much on their minds. Case in point, in the last 20 years they have exported more tanks then they have accepted into their own service. Just look at the MBT-2000. Designed to be the new "Tank of the future" at the turn of the millenium, China was frequently pronouncing that this was the best tank ever designed and built. And they have been built, over 500 sold to Pakistan, and a few hundred others sold to nations like Morocco and Sri Lanka. But do not look to China to be fielding this tank (even though at it's launch they claimed it was going to be fielded in large numbers). The PLA only owns 3 of them that it operates at a training center, and is not buying any more. Mostly known for it's export small arms and missiles, only recently has China been trying to break into the International market of large equipment like tanks, aircraft and ships. But they have been making some smart alliances, and using the R&D from other nations to improve their own designs (which ironically they are not really using for domestic purposes). But yes, their goals are profits. If I have to guess, I would say they have largely ignored actually fielding new equipment for the last 2 decades because they are trying to directly leapfrog several generations of land, air and sea equipment. They build limited numbers as internal test beds, or for export before moving on to a new design. It certainly explains their almost constant prototype cycle they have been in since the early 1990's, but there are still other issues at play. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-defence-exports-idUSKCN0VU11Q China is now behind only the US and Russia, and ahead of France and Germany (5 years prior, China was ranked #5). But a multi-billion dollar International industry (most estimate that China's annual arms sales are in the US$3-7 billion per year range) is surely being done for a profit. This is no longer the Cold War, and China is not just giving them away like they and the Soviets did when they were assisting "fellow travelers" in the advancement of International Socialism.
The F-22 cost around 150 million if in full production, the Typhoon cost 90-130 million depending on the model. Readiness rate depends on the military. The F-22 can have a 10.5 hours to maintain per flight hour one year, and some years it is as high as 30. Cost per flight hour according to sources can be anywhere from 19k per hour, to 42k per hour, to 68k per hour depending on mission, readiness and time.(these numbers are poorly measured since there is no universal measurement), Typhoon numbers are harder to find since nobody cares as much for UK Miltiary to end up in press. The AIM-120D has an max effective range around 200 km, however if the enemy fighter manuvers, throws chaff, jams, the number is much shorter. When the F-22 and Typhoon fought, the minimum engagement distance for the Raptor was 32 km. The radar seeker usually locks on very close around 10-20 km. Before that it is usually guided by the shooter's own radar or other sensors via datalink.
I do not understand your calculations GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590593.pdf 67bil / 188 aircrafts = 356kk per F22 (not 150kk) Third modernization costs have doubled from 5 bil to 12bil How did you manage to come with 150kk per F22? Theoretically, if US would acquire a complete set, back in last century, even in this case 150kk is doubtful even for a very optimistic advertising leaflet And if you are selling to lets say Saudi Arabia the cost will double taking in account ground stuff, training, margins, associated gifts e.t.c. Same for Eurofighter though, for India the offer was 140kk Euro per unit. (if I am not mistaken), this means that F22 for India should be around 500kk or so (this is a very wild guess ) Yep. Found same figures, but it was stated that AIM-120 will lock onto 3squeare meters reflecting surface from 15km. Seems ridiculous a bit. Anyway, if you want to fire and forget from 100km, this means that Eurofighter will have to have Jammers ON all of the time, and thats suicidal behavior. They will not. Otherwise F22 will have to have his radar ON, to track target to correct AIM-120 flightpath, effectively losing stealth. This means that Eurofighers will launch at F22 from long range, F22 will shut down Radar and evade, and the AIM-120 long shot missiles will lose targets for both sides. No one is going down but F22 have lost element of surprise and are rapidly loosing stealth advantage as Eurofighters are closing to the point where stealth will matter not.
All these numbers variations are fine, but in the end, it amounts to this: A F-22 or a F-35 means a lot less planes in the air rather than in the hangar. This may no count as much for a nation with such lavish ressources as the USA... But in making the OP, I was rather thinking of smaller allied militaries, such as Canada. Given Canada's position and ressources, I think Rafales or even Gripens would be a lot better. As long as we don't plan deep aerial strikes into Russian territory, we should do better with 4th gens and invest the saved money into better detection systems. This article about Canada's upcoming F-18 replacement sums it up rather nicely.
Yep - something like the A-5, but more akin to a F-117 (wich is the kind of "bomber" I was refering to), except in a carrier-able form. I don't see what's so outworldly about it. The reason their development was stunted was because multi-role fighters looked like the natural choice for carrier-based strikes, being more able to defend themselves etc. But that was before the advent of "5th gens", which IMO re-validates the concept, as stealth could be a substitute for defense. I don't care if you're ignoring me because I corrected you in the BB thread. This response (to an interesting post, BTW) can still be read and adressed by other, apparently less arrogant posters.
The Israeli flavor of the F-35 is scheduled to roll out here in mid-June now, the F-35i. It will be interesting to see their test results in a year or so under their theater's conditions. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/ It will probably be around Christmas before the first one reaches Israel, though.
He is talking about unit costs, not program costs. 188 aircraft is the total number because that was the number bought. The reason why it's such a big number is because most were cancelled so everything from research and development divided by the total number bought we get these big numbers. Many of the technology instead, went into the F-35. But yes, unit per unit, the F-22 itself cost around 150 million according to US Senate. http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf You do not loose your stealth with radar turned on. Jammers turned on is rather unstealthy, because you are trying to go all frequencies to blunt the enemy frequency agile radars. Most radars are frequency agile plus have coded unpredictable waveforms and very hard to track down let alone fire upon. To fire upon a target with just judging by radar energy, you need to use triangulation techniques, which is impossible if your enemy has a very narrow AESA beam(like the one on the F-22)
. And I am talking about the unit cost, not what you say in senate . The burden placed on national economy. How much you pay for one apple on your table. The discussion was about acquiring a superiority fighter. Naturally you can sell it to Israel for 10.00 USD. But someone in senate might know about return on investments. If you are selling to India, they will surely do In a word, it is too expensive for its abilities! Correct, but not what I am talking about. Triangulation is needed if you what to have distance to the target. Direction on F22 radar you will have the moment she locks on you, and in favorable conditions the moment F22 starts searching for you. All the rest is chess play. And you should note that F22 do not know where the enemy is, they do not know of enemy existence till F22 turn the radars ON. In the given example (10 on 10), F22 receives Eurofighter coordinates as a gift of heaven. Otherwise if the radars are ON, the Eurofighter know they are searched for (or observed) and are already diving to hamper enemy radar vision.
Your numbers do not represent the burden on a national economy. It is just total spending divided by aircraft bought. If more Raptors were bought the numbers will decrease due to averaging. No. Turing on radar does not mean you get detcted. That stuff is classified. It will all depend how good the F-22 radar to evade RWR is and the Typhoon's RWR's in catching advanced radar. Although a radar usually always sees first due to gain advantage.(a radar is a narrow thin beam, while RWR must spread out all frequencies at all directions with less powerful receivers/antennas. A dedicated EW aircraft like a Growler or EC-130 would be very effective at detecting signals with their large antennas. It depends on: -The bandwidth of the radar, and RWR bandwidth -The area the RWR cover and how much power it can generate to match gain of enemy radar -The radar cross section of the target(RWR or radar will detect first) -The enemy frequency hopping capabilities, coded waveforms, and can RWR match it. If it doesn't, it often just gets pulses, that are similar to noise and ignored. If it really did happen,and the Typhoon could detect them, most F-22 will simply turn off their radars, and have only a few F-22's turn on their radars and track them at great distances(outside missile range), and use the still stealthy Raptors to fight(using datalinks to communicate eachother, pinpoint enemy coordinates). As shown in the scenario, he described, some Raptors had radars and and others off. The still stealthy Raptors could still fight without their radars by simply using tracking information from their buddies.
Well, yes and no. But it is true, that the stealth characteristics remain even when transmitting RF energy, you simply go off of emitted energy instead of reflected energy. Emitted RF is not as much of a system aiming issue as a detection of presence issue. Nobody really uses any kind of weapon system that can home in on emitted RF energy (with the exception of HARM), but it can be used to sortie intercept fighters through either triangulation or vectoring along a recipricol heading. And this kind of technology is nothing new, it dates back to before WWII. RADAR supplanted it prior to stealth, but it is starting to make a comeback in use against aircraft (in the past decades it was more a tool of locating ground and sea targets than for air targets). Jammers are horribly noisy, and it is akin to painting a giant spotlight onto the target. But in practice it is more like a 50 million candlepower series of spotlights, with the intent of confusing the seeker head with to much data (akin to the Dazzle paint on ships in WWII). This is what is done in "Wild Weasel" attacks. Basically you use a couple of aircraft at the outer edge of the RADAR search area blasting all kinds of RF interference, while 1 or 2 aircraft that are emitting nothing penetrate and take out the RADAR. And it is also a "one trick pony", in that jamming is only good against RADAR seekers, not IR or visual search. But "waveforms" are not difficult to track down, they travel in a straight line after all. Detect any kind of wave and you can track it to it's source. And you do not need triangulation to fire on an RF signature (what you call "RADAR energy"), you just need a seeker designed to follow it to it's source. This is exactly what HARM missiles do, although they were designed for use against ground targets like SAM sites, not air targets like aircraft. And for those who do not know what Dazzle paint, it was used by the Allies in WWI and WWII. Since all submarine weapons at the time depended on knowing precise speed, distance and heading of ships and was computed manually for launching torpedoes, preventing the enemy from being able to figure out any of the 3 factos was critical. So a paint scheme was devised that made it almost impossible to know exactly what direction the ship was heading, and sometimes even what size and class of ship it was. And it was highly effective. That is an older WWI pattern, but by the end of WWII it had gotten so good that a sub skipper might even think the ship was going the opposite direction, or that a destroyer was actually a cruiser.
Anti-radiation missiles are usually very effective against radar energy sources for ground targets. Usually against fighter targets you need triangulation also known as TDOA because RWR need to measure range and velocity to calculate where the fighter is going to move. That is why no air-air missile uses anti-radiation missiles, except Soviet R-27, which I believe most Russians just use active radar R-77s.
