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

[stigmata]

Hmm, can a Bofors 57mm Mk3 reliably take out incoming RPG's and 100 mm shell ?

 

[swerve]

Hmm, can a Bofors 57mm Mk3 reliably take out incoming RPG's and 100 mm shell ?

Of course not. But it doesn't need to take out incoming RPGs, since it has a much greater range & can destroy the boat with the RPGs on before it gets within range, & with the sensors, fire control system & stabilised mount of a modern warship, it can almost certainly outshoot with ease any 100mm tank gun or 122mm howitzer crudely mounted on a freighter.

 

[Dalregementet]

That's too bad, they would've been a good fit on the Visbys. Don't underestimate the Bofors 57mm Mk3 - it's a very capable gun against the same kind of threats the Umkhonto deals with.

True. But in order to handle "swarms" of incoming missiles from all angles, we need anti air missiles. Of course Visby will be fitted with such but due to hardware budget restraints that has been postponed. Luckily, it´s not difficult to do and you can do it on short notice.

 

[Dalregementet]

For the task of intercepting russian bombers, you need only two things: high speed and long range, i think the gripen NG is better at that task.

If norwegians intend to join on a bombing campaign in middle east, F-35 would be the platform of choise, particulary in the opening hours.

Gripen may still be a better bombtruck once the door is kicked in tho, due to lower operational cost, higher sortie rate, and less maintenance demanding.

It may also have one other ace: it was built from the outset to operate from improvised airfields, (roads), so it could possibly be stationed on a forward base in a place like Afganistan.

Spoke to a friend of mine at Saab today. He was quite pleased with the "grass root" support Saab gets in Norway and he was equally pleased with the arrogance LM was showing the norwegians

 

[gf0012-aust]

Spoke to a friend of mine at Saab today. He was quite pleased with the "grass root" support Saab gets in Norway and he was equally pleased with the arrogance LM was showing the norwegians

Interesting, because thats not the attitude of the Norwegians in their JSF Team.

Having dealt with SAAB a few times in the last 15 years they always are keen to overpromote themselves (just like Lockmart)

 

[Dalregementet]

Oh, I forgot... The F35 needs a quite long distance for take off and landing - most air fields in the northern part of Norway can´t handle that right now.

 

[Dalregementet]

Interesting, because thats not the attitude of the Norwegians in their JSF Team.

Having dealt with SAAB a few times in the last 15 years they always are keen to overpromote themselves (just like Lockmart)

Might be true... but LM has only promoted cooperation with only a few large norwegian companies, Kongsberg for example. Others, mid or small seize has been rejected in the "american way".

 

[gf0012-aust]

For the task of intercepting russian bombers, you need only two things: high speed and long range, i think the gripen NG is better at that task.

No, you need a platform that can under delivery duress (autonomous conditions) can close the gap as close as possible without detection - and then get weapons on target at the remaining delivery delta.

High speed in actual fact (esp without sig management) is going to alert every asset on that corridor.

Long range is not necessarily the province of the platform - it's actually a combination of platform and weapons system. Add in local sig management, AWACs and any other sympathetic supportive sensors and you immediately lift the success rate.

Stating that high speed and long range are the answers is a 1980's air combat attitude. Thats been dead as a complex concept since early 2000.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Might be true... but LM has only promoted cooperation with only a few large norwegian companies, Kongsberg for example. Others, mid or small seize has been rejected in the "american way".

No they haven't. They haven't been able to convince not only the americans, but the other supporting suppliers that they can deliver as required and needed.

BTW, every other country has had similar situations where local vendors have complained at lockout - having also seen the quality of some submissions I can understand the americans if thats why they made a decision. (in fact, even quietly, the local Govts also think that some of their own suppliers submissions are more closely related to an expectation that they should automatically get native work rather than on the quality, relevance and credibility of the offer)

We've had the same attitude with smaller suppliers in australia. In fact one of the most embarassing meetings I've ever been to was a JSF briefing for local suppliers and manufacturers who seemed to think that they were entitled to work. Unfort their offers were rubbish. I've no doubt that the Canadians, Norwegians, Turks etc have had the same probs.

In fact I know they have.

 

[stigmata]

No, you need a platform that can under delivery duress (autonomous conditions) can close the gap as close as possible without detection - and then get weapons on target at the remaining delivery delta.

The way i see it, you need a platform that can intercept before the bomber launches its missiles.
Or, as will typically be the case, hurry up with the intercept to escort the bomber away.

High speed in actual fact (esp without sig management) is going to alert every asset on that corridor.

High speed actually decreases the reaction time, a bomber deep in hostile territory typically don't enjoy AWAC support. There is a site somewhere where they talk about speed and LO working in tandem to minimize reaction time, but as is painfully usual these days, i can't find it when i need it! so take this as my personal view

Long range is not necessarily the province of the platform - it's actually a combination of platform and weapons system. Add in local sig management, AWACs and any other sympathetic supportive sensors and you immediately lift the success rate.

Long range and high speed is necessary to chase down a bomber. I add in AWAC's in the mix whenever they are avaliable to lift the success rate.

Stating that high speed and long range are the answers is a 1980's air combat attitude. Thats been dead as a complex concept since early 2000.

I consider DarthAmerica right on spot on this particular issue

The Foxhounds(or Foxbat) speed is a huge advantage in certain circumstances. But the Foxhound and Foxbat are much more specialized aircraft with an emphasis on long range interception of bombers and recon. In those roles they are terribly deadly/effective.

My conclusion does not come from any doctrine or ideology, it comes from tens of thousends of simulations, so i think we will continue to disagree on this issue. You will certainly be able to convince someone else tho, just wanted to tell you so you don't get frustrated you can't convince me.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The way i see it, you need a platform that can intercept before the bomber launches its missiles.
Or, as will typically be the case, hurry up with the intercept to escort the bomber away.

That would be why the development is towards multistage hypersonic missiles - because any unescorted asset is as risk - that by the way is in all the sig management briefings we get - and when you look at whats coming for 2014 - kiss those bombers good bye. We plan for the future - not for today. thats how you lose wars.

High speed actually decreases the reaction time, a bomber deep in hostile territory typically don't enjoy AWAC support.

No it doesn't. current detection technologies mean that large high speed inbound no LO/VLO will stand out like a nudist in a nunnery.

Long range and high speed is necessary to chase down a bomber. I add in AWAC's in the mix whenever they are avaliable to lift the success rate.

again, the current tech plan for 2014 (and its well on the way) doesn't require high speed long range launchers

I consider DarthAmerica right on spot on this particular issue

It's relative to context - in context he's right. The current evolving tech footprint means that if I was a modern western force I'd be happy if you were presenting your opfor like that. It makes it easier - not harder.

My conclusion does not come from any doctrine, it comes from tens of thousends of simulations, so i think we will continue to disagree on this issue. You will certainly be able to convince someone else tho, just wanted to tell you so you don't get frustrated you can't convince me.

My conclusions come from actually being involved with the technologies - not from playing games. - Likewise, I don't need to convince you as I already know what is on a number of airforce planning horizons (including the access given to the norwegians but not given to the swedes - different partner levels mean different offers across the whole delivery matrix)

I'm happy for the swedes to be in love with Gripen. Their requirements and relationships however are not a universal fit.

 

[stigmata]

That would be why the development is towards multistage hypersonic missiles - because any unescorted asset is as risk - that by the way is in all the sig management briefings we get - and when you look at whats coming for 2014 - kiss those bombers good bye.

This one got me interested, do you have any link about those missiles ?
But isnt it going to be bombers that launch those missiles ? -from a safe distance

 

[gf0012-aust]

This one got me interested, do you have any link about those missiles ?
But isnt it going to be bombers that launch those missiles ? -from a safe distance

Nope. But, there are 3 different allied countries currently working in australia out at our missile ranges working on tech solutions to adapt our hypersonic technology to their missile systems.

the missile delivery platforms start at the size of an F15.

2 stage hypersonics is a completely different energy mix, it will actually mean a change in doctrine across various vectors.

The battlespace is not just the delta between the fighter and the bomber.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh, I forgot... The F35 needs a quite long distance for take off and landing - most air fields in the northern part of Norway can´t handle that right now.

It needs a longer runway than the F-16's Norway currently operates, does it?

I think you should read the reports of the F-35's flight testing to date. The non weight optimised AA-1, within 5000lbs of internal stores in the "standard combat configuration" is on dry thrust, pulling away from "clean" (ie: no stores) F-16's.

F-16's are having to use their afterburners to keep up. I can see no real reason why the F-35 will be using a longer runway than current generation F-16 aircraft, unless enormous external loadout's are being lifted...

 

[stigmata]

@gf. When you say hypersonic: do you mean speed like kitchen/kingfish/sunburn/yakhont/etc (i refer to that as supersonic) or are you talking about Mach 6+ ?

@AD I think Norway is using F-16 a/b, they should require less then later F-16's

 

[stigmata]

By a complete stroke of luck, i for once found a text i have referred to!
Interview with F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

Supercruise is vital to the entire concept of a stealthy fighter. Stealth alone does not make you 'invisible' , only very small. Speed confounds the enemy's problem by reducing the time allowed to detect, lock on, launch and have the missile or gun rounds reach your aircraft. Taken to its extreme, a fighter that could travel at the speed of light could probably survive on its speed alone. By the time you saw your speed-of-light fighter, it would be long gone. The F-22 has yet to conquer warp speeds but the high sustained supercruise speeds are a distinct advantage in evading the enemies weapons.

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

 

[Surfinbird]

By a complete stroke of luck, i for once found a text i have referred to!
Interview with F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

Dude, he's talking up his bird and out his Admin. text deleted. Debate without heat and modify the language accordingly. It's inapprop. This could have been discussed on the fact that it was quoted and misrepresented out of context and battlespace comprehension. There is no need to resort to this kind of language

The F-22 will burn a whole tank of gas in 20 minutes at supercruise (M 1.5). So I guess it can take off, climb to altitude and then be a stealthy 'viable' platform for only 20 minutes and then land straight away, according to that knuckle head!

 

[gf0012-aust]

By a complete stroke of luck, i for once found a text i have referred to!
Interview with F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz


http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

For goodness sake. this is getting tiresome.

If you are going to quote citations then you need to refer them under context.

Thats the whole reason why the APA sponsored article thrown to a tame RAND staffer and then mischievously represented as an official RAND response is rubbish.

It assumes that systems and warfighting occurs in a temporal flux. US references typically refer to enemies that don't have the same battlespace capability as the US - it has to be taken in context.

The only nations that have regional battlespace degrees of capability in an analagous situation outside the US are the UK, France and Israel.

Of course speed for the F-22 is an advantage if its dealing with an atypical contemp threat - but in a sig managed environment, platform speed will kill because it turns the platform into a sig visible beacon which localised defence systems will see and track.

Why do you think we went through a stage of subsonic sea level platform delivery? - it was to get around the same problem - and it hasn't gone
away.

Context has to have relevance.

Throwing quotes out ad nauseum without articulating context is a desperate way to defend a technical position. Invariably its wrong.

Ignore the fan club analysis and look at it properly

 

[gf0012-aust]

The F-22 will burn a whole tank of gas in 20 minutes at supercruise (M 1.5). So I guess it can take off, climb to altitude and then be a stealthy 'viable' platform for only 20 minutes and then land straight away, according to that knuckle head!

Re-read the quote. It wasn't literal. The problem with it is that it's been quoted as evidence of fact when it assumes that the reader is smart enough to understand context.

 

[gf0012-aust]

@gf. When you say hypersonic: do you mean speed like kitchen/kingfish/sunburn/yakhont/etc (i refer to that as supersonic) or are you talking about Mach 6+ ?

Kingfish/kitchen/sunburn/yakhont/brahmos are supersonic - they're not hypersonic.

The successful australian tests have been at Mach 8+ - thats hypersonic.