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

[Surfinbird]

DO you really think that PAC-3 Patriot and SM-2/ESSM would NOT have a field day, with 72x Flankers lined up in an extended line across the sky?

Dude, PAC-3 is not an anti-aircraft asset it’s for intercepting ballistic missiles at short range. But you’re on the money as the RoC has a huge fleet of Sky Bow Patriot copies and anti-aircraft Patriots. They have 30 or so batteries of high altitude GBAD (Hawk, Patriot, Sky Bow). That this BLAND (Dr Strangelove) report portrays the PLAAF operating like this shows they aren’t paying any attention to or have no access to real world intelligence of their tactics.

As others have stated the report is crap. Stillion is just pushing his old HAS wheel barrow and he’s sided with some fellow travellers obsessed with F-22 delta V as the future of air warfare. The RCS analysis of the F-35 is pretty funny. To align with their delta V obsession JSFPO aren’t allowed to build any RAM into the fighter.

Their calculation of pK for AMRAAM is crazy. 13 AMRAAMs shot at 10 aircraft. All ten aircraft are shot down. On two occasions during Allied Force more than one missile is fired at the target. But I don’t know whether this was the pilot squeezing of a couple of extras or reengagement after first missile failed to kill the target? Either way this is a pK of 1.0 or 0.76. That four of these targets may have been WVR does not mean the BVR pK is reduced! They saying the BVR pK is 0.46 because they are claiming the WVR kills are misses? Even if the multishot kills were reengagements that’s still six WVR kills for nine missiles fired, or pK 0.66.

Presenting that nonsense in a .ppt is asking for your audience standing up telling you in unprintable language that you’re full of it and storming out.

 

[stigmata]

I share the briefings view that measures and countermeasures is an on-going battle, we have yet to see the end of the road. Perhaps we never will.

ICBM was long regarded as the ultimate weapon for which there was no defence.
-Until Reagan declared he had decided to fork up the money to build a defence against 'em

 

[cobzz]

Dude, PAC-3 is not an anti-aircraft asset it’s for intercepting ballistic missiles at short range. But you’re on the money as the RoC has a huge fleet of Sky Bow Patriot copies and anti-aircraft Patriots. They have 30 or so batteries of high altitude GBAD (Hawk, Patriot, Sky Bow). That this BLAND (Dr Strangelove) report portrays the PLAAF operating like this shows they aren’t paying any attention to or have no access to real world intelligence of their tactics.

As others have stated the report is crap. Stillion is just pushing his old HAS wheel barrow and he’s sided with some fellow travellers obsessed with F-22 delta V as the future of air warfare. The RCS analysis of the F-35 is pretty funny. To align with their delta V obsession JSFPO aren’t allowed to build any RAM into the fighter.

Their calculation of pK for AMRAAM is crazy. 13 AMRAAMs shot at 10 aircraft. All ten aircraft are shot down. On two occasions during Allied Force more than one missile is fired at the target. But I don’t know whether this was the pilot squeezing of a couple of extras or reengagement after first missile failed to kill the target? Either way this is a pK of 1.0 or 0.76. That four of these targets may have been WVR does not mean the BVR pK is reduced! They saying the BVR pK is 0.46 because they are claiming the WVR kills are misses? Even if the multishot kills were reengagements that’s still six WVR kills for nine missiles fired, or pK 0.66.

Presenting that nonsense in a .ppt is asking for your audience standing up telling you in unprintable language that you’re full of it and storming out.

The PAC-3 still uses an explosive warhead, would it really be that useless against aircraft? I thought it was just inferior to the PAC-2 at it that's all. What about THAAD?

 

[Grand Danois]

I share the briefings view that measures and countermeasures is an on-going battle, we have yet to see the end of the road. Perhaps we never will.

ICBM was long regarded as the ultimate weapon for which there was no defence.
-Until Reagan declared he had decided to fork up the money to build a defence against 'em

Traditional "4th gens" will be in trouble long before the F-35, so if the F-35 loses out, then it means the "4th gens" lost out a long time ago...

 

[stigmata]

Traditional "4th gens" will be in trouble long before the F-35, so if the F-35 loses out, then it means the "4th gens" lost out a long time ago...

Yep, LO and other goodies such as DAS is yet another step in this ongoing ccccccccm.
I'm intersted in MALD, Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, as concept.
The objective is to produce a < $30,000 flyaway price, so lets say 60.000 when all is done.
I dont know what an AMRAAM cost, (hope someone can tell), but MALD should be several times cheaper then AMRAAM(ski).

Would you dare not to shoot it down before visual confirmation? it may just aswell be a plane or cruise missile.

Also, will it have inbuilt IFF so you dont start wasting your own AAM's at them ?
I would'nt be surprised if you'll soon see a MALD in place of an AMRAAM as a standard armament.
Its not only the important job of getting hostile SAM to light up without risk, but the idea of depleting enemy AAM loadout before you enter is incredibly tempting.
I anticipate very large number of decoys very soon

 

[Grand Danois]

One of many answers:

http://www.ottawa.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/html/rast_309_nctr_e.html

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The slower aircraft don't have the option to disengage.

Please tell me when was the last time a SU-27 with 6-8 missiles and full on fuel ever gone past Mach 1.5 in combat?nfloorl:

 

[Feanor]

If they're only fighting over the strait they don't need full fuel load. And given how fast they will be shot down I doubt they will need more then 4 missiles

 

[energo]

Please tell me when was the last time a SU-27 with 6-8 missiles and full on fuel ever gone past Mach 1.5 in combat?nfloorl:

Or even combat training - with no missiles?

Regards,
B.Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Surfinbird]

The PAC-3 still uses an explosive warhead, would it really be that useless against aircraft? I thought it was just inferior to the PAC-2 at it that's all. What about THAAD?

THAAD has no explosive warhead because it has a lot more KE, the MIM-104F has a 165 lb lethality enhancer. But neither has a prox fuse and they are designed to hit high speed diving ballistic targets so might not be that good against a high G fighter manoeuvre. At least the MIM-104C/D/E (PAC-2/GEM) has a prox fuse and the legacy anti-air TVM mode and despite its smaller number of bigger fragments would still be nasty against a fighter (not as good as MIM-104A or the MIM-104B ASOJ). Plus MIM-104F only has a slant range of 15km which is all you need for BMD but surface launcher AMRAAM territory for GBAD.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Dude, PAC-3 is not an anti-aircraft asset it’s for intercepting ballistic missiles at short range.

The ‘hit-to-kill’ PAC-3 Missile is the world’s most advanced, capable and powerful terminal air defense missile. It defeats the entire threat: tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) carrying weapons of mass destruction, cruise missiles and aircraft. The PAC-3 Missile is a quantum leap ahead of any other air defense missile when it comes to the ability to protect the warfighter in their defining moments.

Courtesy of:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/PAC-3/index.html

 

[Surfinbird]

PAC-3 is not a missile, despite that being what everyone calls it. The PAC-3 upgrade also includes a huge improvement to the Patriot ECS radar. This improves target discrimination which is also great for anti-aircraft as well as BMD. So PAC-3 rocks over earlier Patriot batteries. But a PAC-3 battery will not replace all the earlier missiles with the MIM-104F, just those missiles dedicated to BMD (MIM-104C/D/E). In order to make it competitive as an anti-aircraft missile they’ve increased the size as the MSE:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/PAC3MissileSegmentEnhancement/index.html

This is a bigger version of the MIM-104F.

There is plenty bullshit in that Lockheed promo. For example you can only load eight MIM-104Fs on a M901 TEL because it can’t handle the weight of more. Sure you can fit 16 but you would need a strengthened TEL, wider axels and a bigger tractor.

But still if you want to use MIM-104F for anti-air you are going to lose a lot of altitude and a lot of range coverage.

 

[Grand Danois]

Taiwan also got PAC-2 and 18 active batteries of I-Hawk (PIP III?). I-Hawk may be considered a classic, but 18 batteries is quite a few to deal with. And then there are the indigineous missiles...

 

[gf0012-aust]

PAC-3 is not a missile, despite that being what everyone calls it.

Actually it is. A USAF TAC Planner compatriot of mine factors it into his air defence as well as theatre BMD scenarios for real time conflict. He is a warplanner and was one of the critical planners in GW1 and GW2

You need to start paying attention to people who actually do this for a living and not for a hobby.

 

[Surfinbird]

Actually it is. A USAF TAC Planner compatriot of mine factors it into his air defence as well as theatre BMD scenarios for real time conflict. He is a warplanner and was one of the critical planners in GW1 and GW2.

Like I said, everyone calls the missile the PAC-3, but PAC-3 is more than just the new missile.

The PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) growth program is being implemented through a series of three stand-alone fielding configurations. Configurations 1 and 2 have been fielded. Each configuration consists of a grouping of materiel-change packages and a software upgrade called a post-deployment build, which includes a collection of software product upgrades. These improvements contribute to Joint Vision 2010, and relying on information superiority and technological innovation, will specifically: (1) be active measures to achieve precision engagement; (2) permit PAC-3 to fully support the lower-tier theater air and missile defense mission; and (3) contribute to dominant maneuver by our forces and full-dimensional protection for both forces and facilities.

Configuration 1 consists of: (1) an expanded weapons control computer; (2) optical disk drives; (3) an embedded data recorder; and (4) implementing software. These upgrades provide four times greater computer throughput and a more efficient data recording and retrieval capability. Configuration 1 also includes the hardware associated with Radar Enhancement-Phase II, which incorporates a dedicated pulse-Doppler processor.

Configuration 2 includes the Communication Enhancements Phase I, which is a materiel-change package that provides improved external communications (to the PATRIOT battalion), and includes linkage into the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) architecture. Configuration 2 software improvements include: (1) a counter anti-radiation missile capability to minimize vulnerability to those missiles; (2) Classification, Discrimination and Identification-Phase I to improve the Tactical Information Broadcast System interface; and (3) a software implementation of Radar Enhancement Phase II.

Configuration 3 consists of: (1) three materiel change packages; (2) the PAC-3 missile; and (3) three software improvements. The three materiel-change packages are: (1) Radar Enhancements-Phase III, which provides significant improvements in system performance; (2) Classification, Discrimination and Identification-Phase III, which provides a high-range resolution radar capability; and (3) a Remote Launch/Communication Enhancement Upgrade to provide the capability to deploy missiles launchers at remote launcher farms, and improve intra-battalion voice and data communications.

The PAC-3 is designed to provide hit-to-kill lethality against high-speed tactical ballistic missiles; maneuvering tactical missiles; low-radar cross-section, long-range targets in operational environments; cruise missiles; and other air-breathing aircraft. The three software improvements are: (1) PATRIOT and THAAD interoperability, which optimize the warfighting capability of PATRIOT and THAAD; (2) Joint TMD interoperability, which provide the capability to receive and transmit tactical ballistic missile-related data in a joint-Services environment; and (3) Launch Point Determination to calculate tactical ballistic missile launch points.

The bolded areas are elements of PAC-3 that are not the MIM-104F missile. PAC-3 changes Patriot's AAW capability but to get excited about the MIM-104F (PAC-3) missile in fighting a package of medium to high altitude aircraft is not a good idea.

You need to start paying attention to people who actually do this for a living and not for a hobby.

Where have I paid attention to any of the hobby people?

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's on the news here, Israel have moved to reconcider theire deal on the JSF due to the high costs per aircraft!
It could mean less aircraft or other aircraft for the Israeli.
Counting now Italy, UK and Israel...
Who's next?:unknown

They reconsidered it so much that they are also buying it for their ORBAT.

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Israel Buys F-35A/B Lightning II JSF

Posted by David Eshel at 10/21/2008 11:03 AM CDT


The US Government is offering Israel 25 F-35As and an option for 50 F-35A or B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capable of deploying to unprepared airfields, relieving Israel's Air Force dependency on main operating bases, vulnerable to enemy missile attacks.

[FONT=times new roman,times]

[/FONT]
The unprecedented $15.2 billion aircraft sale package will extend deliveries of aircraft over a period of about 15 years. The entire sale will be financed through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

Israel's ambitions, to integrate indigenous weaponry like the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile, the Spice family of precision-guided weapons, or installing Israeli sensors, like the IAI/Elta AESA advanced radar warning and active jamming system, could pose serious problems, as F-35 has a highly integrated sensor suite, which is very hard to replace.

As of now, the Israeli version of the F-35 will be configured with the standard JSF systems, but could perhaps be enhanced in the future with indigenous capabilities. The aircraft will be delivered with a standard suite of Electronic Warfare (EW) Systems including unique infrared flares; Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence/ Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI). To ensure its operational independence, Israel will receive unique systems complying with sovereign requirements, software reprogramming center and Hardware/Software In-the-Loop Laboratory to simulate how indigenous developments are integrated into the system.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Like I said, everyone calls the missile the PAC-3, but PAC-3 is more than just the new missile.

Refer to your series of responses from AD on including mine. YOu yourself refer to it as a Missile, and then refute it in simple terms. Clarity and context is king. Use both

Where have I paid attention to any of the hobby people?

You are starting to irritate some of the senior posters and professionals due to your style of engagement. Your posting behaviour sometimes is that of the hobbyist - and in some cases has been regarded as trolling. You're not the only one in here btw who is casting that impression, but your frequency of responses and style of response makes it all the more visible

If its not, then you need to review your posting style to remove that impression.

This does not require public comment. If you have a problem then PM a MOD about it

 

[Totoro]

What prevents the JSF from disengaging after firing their BVR missiles?

Perhaps its mission requirements may prevent it? It's not very likely the mission will simply be "kill as many opponents as you can and don't get killed yourself". More often it will be something like: fight through to the target or defend an asset, etc, etc.

If an attacker has to retreat and abort a mission because proceeding would be too costly, that's some kind of gain for the defender. If the interceptor disengages so it saves its skin but by that act endangers the base/radar/airfield/ship/bridge/harbor/supply depot etc etc the attacker may've gotten into a situation where he fulfilled his goal, even if he doesn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

 

[Surfinbird]

Refer to your series of responses from AD on including mine. YOu yourself refer to it as a Missile, and then refute it in simple terms. Clarity and context is king. Use both

And the context is fighting a high altitude formation of PLAAF Su-27s. In which case the PAC-3 missile is not a player. But the PAC-3 ECS upgrade is. Which is the point I was making all along. As to my referring to it as a missile again that's in context to the common language useage. Sometimes complexity needs a few extra sentences to explain what's going on.


Admin deleted text. Learn some manners. First warning

I'm sure you would agree in different circumstances.

 

[stigmata]

The US Government is offering Israel 25 F-35As and an option for 50 F-35A or B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capable of deploying to unprepared airfields, relieving Israel's Air Force dependency on main operating bases, vulnerable to enemy missile attacks.

What countries is currently using the doctrine of roads as dispersed airfields ?

With the advent of stealthy long range cruise missiles, the main challenge appear to be to prevent your airforce from being destroyed on the ground.

Or, as an attacker, launch massive missile strikes at enemy airfields immedietly.