Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[Grand Danois]

It's not a deficiency with the current regime of AMRAAMs per se but a unfortunate gap from that the JSF detects it's target(s) and to when it can fire the missile(s) with an acceptable kill probability. The F-35 (Blitz should detect targets at long range but have to close to shorter distances before firing. It must be a priority to lessen the sensor/missile gap as much as possible. At least for a fighter that solely depends on stealth for it's success. That was my point.

The AIM-120D is an acknowledgment of this "gap". An even balanced sensor/missile combination would make for a better fighter.

This is semantics. AESA radar provide increased tracking range which current AMRAAMs can't exploit, hence the 'D' is realization of new potential, not acknowledgement of inferior range of the current crop of AMRAAMs.

Example with AIM-120B (shorter ranged than the 'C-5' which is shorter ranged than the 'C-7'):

That base is understood to have been Batajnica, home of the Yugoslav Air Force's only MiG-29 unit, the 127th Fighter Aviation Squadron 'Knights'. Col Abma said: "The four F-16AMs headed out toward the threat, working to detect the MiGs on their own radars. Subsequently, one of the MiGs was picked up by all four F-16s. When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds."

The AMRAAM, credited with a speed of over 4,000km/h,would be capable of covering a distance of more than 33km in 30 seconds. According to RNLAF personnel at Amendola, the head-on missile intercept took place 18km from the lead F-16.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990401_01_n.shtml

As you say, it's about balance.

 

[Grand Danois]

Can't, and would not, force you

I was kinda hoping someone reading it could remember the source; CRS, CBO, GAO, statements to Congress...

Saves me the fuzz of doing the search.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I agree with this.

People dont realise how fast Mach 1.5 is and how much fuel is required to sustain such a speed. Even the supercruising F-22 takes a massive hit in range when transiting at supersonic speeds compared to subsonic.

Travelling supersonic has been such rare occurances in previous wars. 3rd and 4th generation aircraft struggle to become supersonic with weapons as the range reduction is insane. It doesn't make sense. Its unrealistic to think the F-22 will be hitting high supersonic speeds in combat when previous aircraft could not even achieve low supersonic speeds on a regular basis.

The F-22 will easily outrun the enemy at only "slow" Mach 1.5. You have to remember the enemy may have fighters than can exceed Mach 2 but they take minutes to reach that speed and can only sustain it for a few seconds before running out of fuel. The F-22 advantage is it can reach high speed in seconds and sustain it for minutes. So it has a head start and can keep running for longer.

Top speed is not important, acceleration and endurance at moderate speed is what makes an aircraft fast.

And yet many people over the internet spread false rumors of how that is slow and the F-35 is slow and not a good air to air fighter when we both know that is not true. I don't know who or why but these rumors started around 5 or 6 years ago I think like they have an anti-F-35 agenda for whatever reason.

 

[Ths]

Swerve!

ad 1) I think You are perfectly on the money. It's a trick probably played once to often. The french lost the Draken contest, they lost out to F-16 - so they couldn't take the invitation to join seriously. The others were slower on the uptake.

ad 2) To maintain my reputation: The Lightning II is "Gabelschwanzteufel II".

 

[rjmaz1]

It's not a deficiency with the current regime of AMRAAMs per se but a unfortunate gap from that the JSF detects it's target(s) and to when it can fire the missile(s) with an acceptable kill probability.

Thats a short sighted view.

The F-35 when it becomes operational may be able to detect a SU-27 at twice the range of its AIM-120C7 missiles but in 20 years time when the enemy aircraft have a lower radar cross section this will no longer be the case.

In 20 years time it will be highly likely we will see enemy aircraft with radar cross sections of 0.1m2 and below. The F-22 and F-35 will be detecting these sized targets within missile range.

So a longer ranged missile is not required and is a waste of money.

The F-22 and F-35 having radar cross sections of below 0.01m2 will help ensure it gets the first look in combat for atleast the next couple decades.

And yet many people over the internet spread false rumors of how that is slow and the F-35 is slow and not a good air to air fighter when we both know that is not true. I don't know who or why but these rumors started around 5 or 6 years ago I think like they have an anti-F-35 agenda for whatever reason.

Its partly to promote the speed advantages of the F-22. If the F-35 was advertised with supercruise it would have killed the F-22 long ago. Not that it can supercruise in the same class, but it fits the definition. If you exclude the F-22 then the F-35 will be no worse when it comes to sustaining high-ish speeds in combat.

So you cant really blame the general public thinking that the F-35 is slow when the only accurate figure released is a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 with unknown throttle position. Considering that is also the cruising speed of both the F-22 and F-15 its perform may be anywhere between the two.

The general public also fail to realise that combat aircraft rarely even hit supersonic speeds let alone go near their mach 2+ speeds. They have this over-inflated impression of the operating speeds of these aircraft when they have to keep the engines at idle most of the time to get half decent ranged.

To give an further idea of just how slow 3rd and 4th gen aircraft travel. Try and find a picture showing the air speed indicator on an F-15 Eagle. The gauge is variable and speeds on the dial start bunching up really quick once the airspeed goes above only 400 knots. In fact on the dial only around 10% of entire gauge is dedicated for supersonic speed readings. The gauge only goes up to 1000knots or Mach 1.7.

 

[JohanGrön]

So a longer ranged missile is not required and is a waste of money.

U.S. Air Force thinks you are wrong :
(h)ttp://www.deagel.com/library/AIM-120D-AMRAAM-being-loaded-on-Raptors-weapon-bay_m02006120700067.aspx

(h)ttp://www.deagel.com/news/Raytheon-Awarded-Contract-for-AIM-120D-Air-Vehicles_n000001826.aspx


Surely they wouldn't waste tax payers money!


Edit: It seems to be vibrating problems with the F-22 that caused to AIM-120D to be ordered for it :

The AIM-120D is the latest development of the AMRAAM missile family designed and build by Raytheon. AIM-120D features a new navigation system and hardened design for internal weapons bay carriage. The United States Air Force (USAF) assessment of the AIM-120C variant on the F/A-22 Raptor aircraft determined that vibration levels in certain frequencies are harmful to the missile's electronics. AIM-120D AMRAAM missile variant tries to fix it. In April 2006 the USAF released that the AIM-120D was undergoing testing on the F-22 aircraft monitored by Raytheon at Edwards Air Force Base, California. AIM-120 new features encompass: an enhanced data link, improved kinematics and GPS Inertial Measurement Unit.

(h)ttp://www.deagel.com/Air-to-Air-Missiles/AIM-120D-AMRAAM_a001164006.aspx

I've heard of problems with vibrations in the F-22 before but I thought they had mended them by now. But perhaps they can't without compromising stealth. You wouldn't want to add strakes and stuff to it and the outer edge line, the waistline, config (main wings and stabilizers at the same level) gives less than optimal aerodynamical characteristics (but beneficial for VLO).

Now I'm really OT in this thread ...

Back to topic, a bit, here's a thread about AIM-120D for the F-35 :

Aim 120D on the F-35?

The F-35 can use all other versions of the Aim 120, can it also use the Aim 120D version? Or will we not know till it comes out?

(h)ttp://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7798 (or click the "right arrow" in the quote)

 

[gf0012-aust]

So a longer ranged missile is not required and is a waste of money.

?? I don't think so, that's why all the future missile solutions are long range hypersonics.

Those missile mules that are being tested are all long range (ie 4 figure range territory)

 

[Vivendi]

Wrt Russia. Russia has signed the UNCLOS and confirmed it will bide by the ruling of the UN Comittee and ultimately the arbitration in Hague.

Chances of mil conflict in the Barents or Arctic are slim to nil.

GD, that's great news!

Using the same logic on Iran, since they have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they simply will not develop the Bomb!

BTW; did the US sign the UNCLOS? Not that it matters, it always takes two to make a conflict and if all the other arctic countries signed then there will not be any conflicts, right? :devil



V

 

[Grand Danois]

GD, that's great news!

Using the same logic on Iran, since they have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they simply will not develop the Bomb!

BTW; did the US sign the UNCLOS? Not that it matters, it always takes two to make a conflict and if all the other arctic countries signed then there will not be any conflicts, right? :devil

V

Hi Vivendi,

Your logic is flawed - it's a logical fallacy - affirming the consequent. You're saying that because NPT is flawed so must UNCLOS also be flawed. In fact, it follows from your logic that every treaty or international agreement is flawed because NPT is. Your logic applies to everything and becomes meaningless because of this.

To disprove your rationale I have only to find one contradicting fact, i.e. a treaty or intl agreement that works.

Yes, signs in the stars & heavens are that the US will sign UNCLOS in order to be able to stake their claims and at that point all arctic nations will have signed.

 

[Grand Danois]

There aren't any reports that there are any vibration issues on the F-22 outside of what you'd expect when doing environmental testing on any jet missile combo.

The original source for the claim is here - note that the engineer is just describing how integration of weapons on a platform is done and there is nothing in his statements that indicate anything unusual in the integration.

Actually, missiles in internal bays only suffer from vibration from the body, and not the more violent and complex vibrations when attached to wing pylons. Further flutter is much less of an issue also.

 

[rjmaz1]

U.S. Air Force thinks you are wrong

By developing the AIM-120D it does not mean the USAF thinks they need a longer ranged missile.

Unless the AIM-120D uses some revolutionary form of propellant i cant see its having considerably more range than the AIM-120 C7 variant.

Aerodynamics are pretty much as good as its going to get and rocket effeciency doesn't have that much room left for a 50% max range improvement. After all a "50% range improvement" has been widely reported.

Unless the warhead and electronics became significantly smaller or the missile became bigger i do not see how the AIM-120D can provide a 50% range improvement.

It is however possible that the active radar on the AIM-120D has become significantly more powerful allowing for a larger no escape zone. The launch platform can stop giving course updates sooner and disengage due to the larger no escape zone. This technically makes the missile longer ranged without it actually being able to fly further.

So they aren't actually working on a longer ranged missile in the way you are thinking, but a missile that has a larger no escape zone for future stealthy targets. So the USAF does not think i am wrong.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So they aren't actually working on a longer ranged missile in the way you are thinking, but a missile that has a larger no escape zone for future stealthy targets. So the USAF does not think i am wrong.

the missile development for hypersonics has got nothing to do with LO targets and NEZ's.

the USAF obviously holds a different view

 

[Vivendi]

Hi Vivendi,

Your logic is flawed - it's a logical fallacy - affirming the consequent. You're saying that because NPT is flawed so must UNCLOS also be flawed. In fact, it follows from your logic that every treaty or international agreement is flawed because NPT is. Your logic applies to everything and becomes meaningless because of this.

To disprove your rationale I have only to find one contradicting fact, i.e. a treaty or intl agreement that works.

Hmmm.. OK, I admit I did not express myself clearly. NPT shows that at least one international treaty does not work properly. You are of course asbolutely right, from this it does not follow that all international treaties are flawed. However, since at least one treaty has been shown to be inefficient one cannot exclude the possibility that others also could become ignored, either now or in the future.

Yes, signs in the stars & heavens are that the US will sign UNCLOS in order to be able to stake their claims and at that point all arctic nations will have signed.

OK, if the US signs then that's a good sign (pun intended )


V

 

[JohanGrön]

So they aren't actually working on a longer ranged missile in the way you are thinking, but a missile that has a larger no escape zone for future stealthy targets. So the USAF does not think i am wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion but I beg to differ.

They really are pursuing longer ranging missiles in order to better match the AESA equipped VLO platforms longer detection ranges.

 

[Aussie Digger]

By developing the AIM-120D it does not mean the USAF thinks they need a longer ranged missile.

Unless the AIM-120D uses some revolutionary form of propellant i cant see its having considerably more range than the AIM-120 C7 variant.

Aerodynamics are pretty much as good as its going to get and rocket effeciency doesn't have that much room left for a 50% max range improvement. After all a "50% range improvement" has been widely reported.

Unless the warhead and electronics became significantly smaller or the missile became bigger i do not see how the AIM-120D can provide a 50% range improvement.

You've answered your own question mate. They HAVE developed an advanced new warhead that is smaller than previously used in the AMRAAM series for the D model and have simultaneously improved the rocket motor and the amount of fuel carried...

The range is described as "significantly improved", but 50%? I'm not sure of that...

 

[Grand Danois]

Hmmm.. OK, I admit I did not express myself clearly. NPT shows that at least one international treaty does not work properly. You are of course asbolutely right, from this it does not follow that all international treaties are flawed. However, since at least one treaty has been shown to be inefficient one cannot exclude the possibility that others also could become ignored, either now or in the future.

OK, if the US signs then that's a good sign (pun intended )

V

That's not to suggest teh Norwegians do not hedge their bets. They are taking it seriously. Although I think UNCLOS will be a success in the Barents/Arctic, the situation can get out of hand.

From c4isrjournal (one of my fav reads).

Norway plans surveillance system

August 01, 2008

Norway may spend more than $100 million over three years on a new electronic surveillance system to boost defenses against Russia in the High North, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Störe said.
Satellites, radar stations and open-water monitoring stations in the Barents and North seas would feed a broad intelligence-gathering network, Störe said.
Budgetary curbs may see the Foreign Ministry take over full or partial responsibility for funding the project, one Ministry of Defense (MoD) source said.

“The Foreign Ministry is eager to add civilian applications to deliver real-time situational intelligence with climate, environment and ocean shipping as the primary areas of interest. Right now it looks like the surveillance system’s data will be shared between the Foreign and the Defense ministries,” the MoD source said.

The network will feed visual intelligence and other data to Norwegian warships, surveillance and fighter aircraft, Störe said.
“This is more than a security issue in the High North. A new superior and integrated satellite surveillance system will give us an improved picture of what is happening in the Arctic and Barents sea areas, too, and this can have benefits for the environment and for shipping,” the minister said.

The state-funded SINTEF technology research organization is setting up a Barents Sea on Screen committee to oversee development and implementation.

The proposed system is the latest Norwegian response to Russia’s increased military activity, especially around pivotal naval and Air Force bases in the Kola Peninsula and Murmansk regions.

Norway and Russia are working to settle a border dispute that concerns 110,000 square miles of the Barents Sea, a region believed to be rich in oil, gas and fish stocks. Russia has denied suggestions that the disputed Barents Sea region could become an area of conflict between the two countries.
The Norwegian government is closely monitoring changes to Russia’s military strength in the Kola military region, Norwegian Defense Minister Anne-Grete Ström-Erichsen said.

“A greater part of our annual defense budget will go to ensuring that we have a visible and effective military presence in the High North,” Ström-Erichsen told the Storting, the national parliament. “Our decision to buy modern fighter aircraft was influenced by a need to increase the strength of our defenses in this important region.”

http://c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3597245

 

[Ths]

Grand Danois

Precisely my point: The Gripen, though a good plane, doesn't cut it.

Are there any airfields worth mentioning north of Bodø?

 

[Vivendi]

Precisely my point: The Gripen, though a good plane, doesn't cut it.

Are there any airfields worth mentioning north of Bodø?

How do you know that Gripen "doesn't cut it"? Do you have access to classified information regarding Gripen NG?

Note, I am not claiming that Gripen NG "cuts it".

Rather I am a saying that I simply do not know; I have neither the information nor the expertise to make any such statements. If you have both the info and the ability to analyze it, would you care to elaborate why Gripen NG does not "cut it"? Do you think that it's range is too short? Or... ?


There are several airfields north of Bodø.


V

 

[Haavarla]

Precisely my point: The Gripen, though a good plane, doesn't cut it.

Are there any airfields worth mentioning north of Bodø?

ANDØYA Airfield is quite big and is currently housing the P3c Orion's.
I think it has the second largest airstrip in lenght wise in Norway!

And can shelter up to 3-4 skvadons of figthers in solid reeinforced concreete Bunkers!

 

[energo]

ANDØYA Airfield is quite big and is currently housing the P3c Orion's.
I think it has the second largest airstrip in lenght wise in Norway!

And can shelter up to 3-4 skvadons of figthers in solid reeinforced concreete Bunkers!

In addition there is Bardufoss and Banak (far north) airbases which are forward bases for QRF units, although Bardufoss is usually not the prefered station.

Regards,
Bjørnar
Oslo