Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps Gripens exact top speed is classified too, so M2.4~2.5 would be close.Ozzy Blizzard said:
But i make you a deal: to avoid tiresome speculations which simply can never be verified, lets stick to numbers that can be verified, either with a mathematical formula, or a link.
I will begin by providing my source, and pray you will follow suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[65] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
Yes, its probably coming towards me, at full afterburner, and 2 minutes from launch.Ozzy Blizzard said:
At this stage, you wish you had the speed of, if not superman, so at least sr 71 blackbird.
If the backfire ew suit detect you and make a U-turn, you still want to take him out so he cant make a comeback later.
At this stage, you also would really, really much like to have what it takes to nail him before he get into cover.
Best case if of course if you just happen to be at the right place, at the right time, but thats just that : the best case scenario.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Then wiki does not count. If i wanted too, i could go and edit that very page. Out here in the public domain we have to make assumptions, which will always have a degree of inaccuracy. However as long as you use reasonably logical assumptions backed up by some known facts then thats about as good as we can do out here. Your "evidence" supports what i was saying, M1.6+. Thats in excess of M1.6 and due to intake limitation it would be safe to assume M1.8 to M1.9 would be about tops. Grippen is limited by intake design aswell, thers no way in hell it could do M2.5. That is a reasonable assumption. Therefore i'm not sure the F-35 is at a kinematical disadvantage at all when compared to Gripen.
Why only two minets from launch? What platfrom are you intercepting? What is the threat missile envilope? At what range was it detected? Without knowing any of these things you cant make an assumtion like that. In Norways case you may have a NATO E-3 in support, or early warning from US OHR systems in the North Atlantic. Therefore your going to detect a Tu-22 several hundred miles (or more with OHR) out from the target or in transit. With early enough detection you can cruise out to an intercept point outside the threat missile envilope without raceing, and Norway is part of NATO and therefore utilises the US's sensor footprint.
See above your makeing a huge assumption that you can only intercept in the terminal fase.
I seriously doubt a Tu-22M's EW suite will be able to detect an AN/APG-81 in LPI search while track mode when an AN/ALR-67(V)3 Didgital RWR cant detect a less sophistocated AN/APG-79. Tu-22M's avionics suite is 1990's vintage, hardly comberable to a F/A-18F BII.
Anyway if you were in a Mach 2.9 max MiG 31 "chaseing down" a running Tu-22M would be an exercise in futility. You would have to be inside the NEZ for any missile to have any chance of a kill and that would be less than 45km for an R-77. A little extra top speed isnt going to help much in this case, simply because the backfire can sustain high speeds for longer than any fighter (bar the F-22A).
Its not a "best case scenario" if you have a large enough sensor footprint, its a realistic one. If you can see him coming far out enough then you can position yourself in the "best case" position every single time.
Last edited:
Yes, it can be 2 min, it can be 5 min, it can be 2 sec. it was an example.
Yes again, if i have an AWAC, i can detect a Tu-22 "several hundred miles", and it wouldnt be a problem if he have bombs, but unfortunately, the bugger has AS-4 'Kitchen', a maximum speed of nearly Mach 2 and a range of up to 400 km (250 miles).
Lets say my AWAC can detect the Backfire 350 mi away, and he need to close in the remaining 100 mi before launch the 250 mi Kitchen.
Tu 22M # Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,327 km/h,)
Then he is ~3.5 min from launch
The point here is that if i see him before launch, he is likely already in terminal fase. (and if he isnt, he do well to go back and make a comeback at a time and place of his choosing)
edit: i take back what i said on chasing him down! it cant be done, not even by F22.
are we going to resort to "trust me" ?
That will inevitably end up in whatever-gets-the-most-votes-is-the-truth. Not to mention total anarchy in discussion.
Come to think about it, it would also end up in me never return to this forum that i otherwise have enjoyed, save insults.
oh, well, trust me, F35 and Gripen is comparable in RCS, radar, range and payload, although classified.
Furthermore, Gripen can sustain mach 1.5 allthough thats classified, so you wont be able to verify it, but trust me, its all true. Source ? me.
While i can accept this kind of arguments from a Defense Professional / Analyst -IF it makes sense, and IF there is no public source avaliable, it isnt going to work if all resort to that
Yes again, if i have an AWAC, i can detect a Tu-22 "several hundred miles", and it wouldnt be a problem if he have bombs, but unfortunately, the bugger has AS-4 'Kitchen', a maximum speed of nearly Mach 2 and a range of up to 400 km (250 miles).
Lets say my AWAC can detect the Backfire 350 mi away, and he need to close in the remaining 100 mi before launch the 250 mi Kitchen.
Tu 22M # Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,327 km/h,)
Then he is ~3.5 min from launch
The point here is that if i see him before launch, he is likely already in terminal fase. (and if he isnt, he do well to go back and make a comeback at a time and place of his choosing)
edit: i take back what i said on chasing him down! it cant be done, not even by F22.
Then what does count ?
are we going to resort to "trust me" ?
That will inevitably end up in whatever-gets-the-most-votes-is-the-truth. Not to mention total anarchy in discussion.
Come to think about it, it would also end up in me never return to this forum that i otherwise have enjoyed, save insults.
oh, well, trust me, F35 and Gripen is comparable in RCS, radar, range and payload, although classified.
Furthermore, Gripen can sustain mach 1.5 allthough thats classified, so you wont be able to verify it, but trust me, its all true. Source ? me.
While i can accept this kind of arguments from a Defense Professional / Analyst -IF it makes sense, and IF there is no public source avaliable, it isnt going to work if all resort to that
Last edited:
Definitely. The figures listed are the original minimum requirements, it may very well exceed them by 50%.
The high fuel fraction and internal weapons tends to suggest the F-35's range is very under rated when compared to the F-15E. The F-15E for example has 50% greater range yet has similar fuel, weight and possibly more drag. That 600+ figure may end up being 1080 miles. Its already greater than 600miles considering 600 miles is without external fuel tanks which is the original requirement.
So you definitely thought right
No april fools here.. just because wikipedia doesn't mention it doesn't mean its not true.Do you have anything at all that justify that statement ?
All sources i've read out there tells me it cant. I suspect you play april with me
I'll bet my house that the F-35 will exceed Mach 1 with dry thrust and in full combat config (internal weapons)
Again thats the minimum speed requirement and you missed the plus at the end.
Nope. you completely misunderstood what he wrote, he never suggested anything like that.Now are you saying a strategic intercontinental bomber has less range then a fighterbomber ?
It seems you are arguing with everyone here using nothing but wikipedia sources.
All the members must not know what they are talking about.. maybe you should take your own advice from another thread.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
You obviosly didnt read what i just wrote did you?
As a NATO member your sensor footprint is HUGE! You have acsess to US OHR assets, orbital based ELINT and EO assets, not to mention the black bag stuff they've got. Most likely RNAF will be notified when a strike package takes off from Murmansk which will be tracked throughout its flightpath. Therfore you can intercept the strike packages in transit before they go on their M2+ terminal sprint and well outside of the 400km ranged kitchen's launch envilope. This is achievable becasue as a NATO member you enjoy information superioirty over the Russians, and the main limitation of the platform isn't top speed, its realistic intercept radius.
Again you obviously didnt read what i said above. You seem to be arguing for argument's sake and not adressing the points people are makeing.
Its not a question of "trust me", like i stated above in clear plain english, one can make some assumptions as long as their reasoning is logical and based on established facts. Fact: wikipedia is hardly gospel because anyone can edit it. Fact: without a variable geometry intake an F-35 or JAS-39 is not going to be a true Mach 2+ fighter. Fact: F-35 will have a 40,000lb+ engine and actually operate in a clean config. Fact: JAS-39 will not operate in a clean config, ever. There are several assumptions we can make from these facts, like the F-35's top speed. Considering it operates in a low drag clean configeration, and has the most powerfull engine ever put into a fighter it would not be such a unreasonable assumption that the limiting factor in the F-35's top speed is its intake design, which would point to M.1.8~1.9. This is not in conflict with realeased speed figures which are M1.6+.
Yes and no, I do read what you are saying, and i am surprised, if not upset, that an anarchist can mess up a library, which internet truly is. (i'm definitely not hinting you are one).
Yes, i do partly argue for arguments sake, i enjoy it, and i could happily take any side. May theue who are without guilt throw the first stone.:rel
the other part is that it is a learning process.
No, I adress the points people are making with 1) math, or 2) links
ps, i felt compelled to edit that post, the "trust me" was just an example and was not the main message i wanted to post. In hind sight, it was an unnecessary example.
ps again, i hope u arent offended when i want a reference for any number you are claiming, if so, we should not discuss or remark anything.
Actually, if it is this forums policy to do away with references for any claim, then i'm at the wrong place.
This is because: there is one truth, and infinite bs, ->so there is infinite bs -1 probability of fact here without verifiable reference.
(infinite=endless) Another way to put it is 99.999999∞ % chance of bs without reference.
And as much as i like arguing, questioning, my learning process does not come 2nd.
Last edited:
So: orbital based ELINT and EO assets, not to mention the black bag stuff they've got, cant track anything.Ozzy Blizzard said:
This leaves us with "US OHR assets" : i made a search on that and found some religious stuff , some bosnia stuff, some environmental stuff, and last, but not least, some educational stuff.
Do you have anything at all to verify that these stuffs can track a strike package throughout its flightpath from Murmansk?
Or should we all just take your word for it ?
I for one seriously have to question this. In fact my internal BS-o-meter is singing like a plucked seagull.
For one thing: why would any country waste money on AWACs if the holy-grail-OHR-asset can be built to track incoming packages all the way from the other side of the world ?
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
And since at least 1989 when advanced DSPs began to be launched, they have also watched for the afterburner plumes of hostile aircraft, possibly headed to attack U.S. aircraft carriers. So the spacecraft provide a degree of limited aircraft attack warning in certain theaters. If, for example, Iranian jet fighters were to take off on afterburner to begin high-speed attacks toward U.S. or British ships in the Persian Gulf, DSPs monitoring that area have the capability to observe and immediately report this from their positions 22,300 mi. in space.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070408-china-missiles.htm
There are a number of highly capable EW facilities in Norway. HAVE STARE could be used as well, one would think.
Defence of Norway against bombers is a NATO affair anyway, so those assets would count regardless of choice of fighter.
Considering the variables that goes into a bomber intercept, a slightly higher sprint of the intercepting fighter may not be of the highest priority.
I have no doubt at least one individual near the airfield with a mobile phone would see or at least hear a strike package take off and make a call.
Like the french-traitor-myth.
Sensitive space-based IR/other sensors is also not difficult to accept.
What i question is the ability to track a package throughout its flightpath, when these are radar silent.
Btw i do regard cat herders as reliable as Defense Professional / Analyst's. So i'm always happy to read your informative posts, even on the odd chance there is no reference.
Like the french-traitor-myth.
Sensitive space-based IR/other sensors is also not difficult to accept.
What i question is the ability to track a package throughout its flightpath, when these are radar silent.
Btw i do regard cat herders as reliable as Defense Professional / Analyst's. So i'm always happy to read your informative posts, even on the odd chance there is no reference.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Its an amalgimation of various intel sources. You get a launch conformation from an EO based asset over murmansk, you get an ELINT hit over the barrents sea when the backfire meets its tanker (in which case they HAVE to talk to one annother) which gives you a direction that aproximates a track. Thats just from current "known" orbital capability. The next generation IR based US balistic missile warning satelite constilation is set to be implemented next decade IIRC (?), I cant remember the name of the program. It will provide the yanks with global, high resloution IR cover. Allthough designed to detect balistic missile launches the system will provide the US and therefore NATO with all sorts of other intel. That system will be able to track a strike package by itself, anywere on the globe. Annother member did a good post on it a while back (and yes his name is in blue if thats sooo important to you believing anythng someone says), i'll try to dig it up but i'm short on time. AGRA was the poster IIRC, search his posts if you want the name of the system.
OHR stands for Over the Horizon radar, there are several nations with working systems including Australia, Russia and the US. It works by refracting HF radio waves off the ionosphere to achieve ranges far beyond normal radar limitations. To the best of my knowlage their arrays are all pointed towards the north atlantic.
Thast because your internal "bullshit-o-meter" is tuned to anything you cant read in a two minet wikipedia search.
Here you go, have a look at the Australian example, you should find it acceptable, its from wiki after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_over-the-horizon_radar
Dont give me aFor one thing: why would any country waste money on AWACs if the holy-grail-OHR-asset can be built to track incoming packages all the way from the other side of the world ?
just because you dont understand the systems in question. OHR and AEW&C/AWACS are two very different systems designed for two different rolls with two sets of strengths and limitations. OHR has extreem range but it lacks targeting quality resoloution. Its plenty capable as an early warning assset, allowing you to put say an F-35 in a intercept position but not acurate enough to put a backfire in a AIM-120's engagement basket. Pluss its a fixed asset, i.e. it cant be moved. AWACS are much more accurate; usually operating in the L band they have the ability to pin point small fast targets and distribute missile quality track data to individual platforms. Pluss AEW&C's are much more flexible and mobile. They also have a very large radar footprint, but the radar itself is more akin to an oversized fighter radar and is very different to OHR HF systems. Again i'll use an Australian example to answer your question. JORN is arguably the most capable OHR system in the world, and even after all of the money that has been spent and is being spent on the system, the MoD still spent billions on the most advanced AEW&C system in the world, E-737 Wedgetail. That pretty clearly illustrates that the two systems are complementry rather than exclusive.Here, its Wiki again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgetail
By the way why are you so combative with everyone? It turns an enjoyable discussion into an frustrateing argument.
Jezza
Member
So how does the wedgetail compare to the other awacs systems.????
General alert:
This post needs to start improving in quality to stay alive much longer.
Arguing for arguments sake just because its novel and invites responses is not going to wash in here.
Start debating against credible science and source content rather than Wiki sources or it will get locked.
There is a world of credible material that is unclass but still far more useful than some of the material used to defend some of the arguments in here. (basic research into IRST, OTHR systems etc... would improve the content dramatically)
The quality of the thread is degrading - and that won't be tolerated much longer.
This post needs to start improving in quality to stay alive much longer.
Arguing for arguments sake just because its novel and invites responses is not going to wash in here.
Start debating against credible science and source content rather than Wiki sources or it will get locked.
There is a world of credible material that is unclass but still far more useful than some of the material used to defend some of the arguments in here. (basic research into IRST, OTHR systems etc... would improve the content dramatically)
The quality of the thread is degrading - and that won't be tolerated much longer.
Space-Based Infrared System (Sbirs) spacecraft...The DSP system, however, will remain the primary warning constellation till 2012-13 when Sbirs becomes operational, says USAF Lt. Col. Todd Walkowicz, deputy commander of the Sbirs Space Group at SMC.Ozzy Blizzard said:
when they are on A/B, and military- maybe.
I didnt see anyone using the system exept Oz.
Lockheed Martin and Tenix are involved tho. All modules are distributed around Australia and its territories.
Its stated range is ~3000 - 4000 km, 4000 would reach north korea.
This is a good point, likely the first thing to be targeted with cruise missiles.
Actually i have started to doubt the reliability of wiki, because of your earlier post actually, -so i dont always automatically dismiss something without source, but i much prefer to get a source for a claim.
I lost my patience when i got insulted, and to add insult to insult, in combination with "take my word for it" arguments.
I need to elaborate the need for a source for a controversial claim:
I cant check it, evaluate it, when i get a "take my word for it" source.
A link, or a mathematical formula, no matter how poor:-can be evaluated.
But then again it can be proven to be a faulty logic. - And perhaps this is the true reason individuals go to great length to avoid providing it.
I enjoy the discussion when i get the reason for a conclusion, so i can make up my own conclusion, it may well be (and has often been) the conclusion the author came to, but i rarely post anything then, it would become a "yeah man i agree" post.
I dont enjoy the discussion when i get a conclusion, but not the reasons for it. In fact, it IS no discussion when you get a "here's the facts, period!"
Last edited:
Logic would know not to compare an apple to an orange. Mathematical formula can work when comparing an apple to an apple but its much more difficult when comparing an apple to an orange.
When the JSF program began a list of requirements were created for each service. Now these requirements are not what the aircraft will reach but are infact MINIMUM requirements. The F-35 performance specifications listed on wikipedia are the minimum requirements of the JSF program. So if a combat radius of 600 miles on internal fuel is required, then the absolute minimum that can be accepted is 600 miles. There is no maximum radius yet. The F-35 could have a combat radius of 700, 800 or 900 miles or as low as 601 miles on internal fuel. With external tanks it will be higher again as 75% extra fuel can be carried under the wings, yes thats 75% extra!!! Lets assume that due to teh drag that 75% turns out to be a 50% increase in radius. Thats now gone from 600miles to 900miles, very impressive indeed.
If the radius on internal fuel ends up being 700miles then with the same 50% increase the radius with external fuel may be 1050miles. Thats now equal to the F-15E and that is still being rather conservative, it may go even further.
With the F-22 the original ATF requirement was for a top speed of Mach 1.8+ That was the speed listed on wikipedia for near 10 years as that was the minimum requirement of the ATF program. No one back then was ignorant enough to say the F-22's top speed was only mach 1.8 as we knew that it was only the minimum requirement. After the aircraft became operational we found out that it nearly reached the ATF minimum speed requirement with dry thrust only. Quite an acheivement. The maximum speed has gone up but remains with a + as it apparently has speed limits in place due to the heat produced.
This is where your logic fails completely, you seem to think these minimum limits are the maximums limits of the aircraft. The range of the F-15E for example is known and we know its maximum range. By comparing these numbers you have to realise that you are comparing a maximum number to a minimum number. Of course the maximum will be greater and that is why people aren't agreeing with what you say. It is wrong, and now that you relise your are not comparing the maximum ranges you will understand.
As the maximum range of the F-35 has not been made public you have no facts to produce a fair apple to apple comparison. You can however estimate the range by using weight, drag and fuel fraction. A mathematical formula can be created and then used on known maximums ranges of other aircrafts and how much fuel they have. You'll see that no matter how you change the formula the F-35's combat radius of 600 miles will end up being much shorter than what a simple calculation will suggest.
You are just as guilty.
: You copy and paste a range of the orange (F-35) and an apple (F15E) then try to compare them and pass it as a fact. You leave out where the numbers came from or what each aircraft is doing/carrying to travel that distance.
I could post up the ferry range of a hawk trainer and the range of a Super Hornet with maximum weapons load and then say "heres the facts, the hawk has longer range, period!"
But i wouldn't do that as it is an incorrect, exagerated comparison.
Be open minded that the F-35 is 99% likely to exceed its minimum performance requirements. Which means hitting mach 1 at dry thrust which isn't a big deal as most aircraft can do this clean. And expect radius to be over 600 miles and up to 1000miles with external fuel.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Since F-35A is 50 mn usd fly-away, this would make the Gripen a 25 mn usd ufc jet?
Do you genuinely think this is the cost of a Gripen?
Btw, "Klassekampen," the name of the newspaper, translate to "The Class Struggle." Lots of botched up calculations. 70-140 bn nkr for 30-50 F-35?
Currently conversion rate 5 nkr to 1 usd (note the rates are not representative at the mo)... 140 bn nkr = 28 bn usd or in the case of a purchase of 50 jets, 560 mn usd a jet, in what I take to be cost of ownership !!!
LOL!
Clueless.
Last edited:
- Status