Grand Danois
Entertainer
Didn't say it was downgraded - said it had sophisticated ground attack capabilities.
Saudi Arabia F-15SA Deal Details Released
- Thread starter SpudmanWP
- Start date
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
It was in reference to earlier analyst reports suggesting the F-15SA would not challenge Israel's qualitative edge.
Besides the 4.2 to 1 odds. There is little in Israel's A2A arsenal that has an edge over the F-15SA (at least until the 20x F-35I arrive). The F-15I, being an earlier variant, does not have the AESA nor some of the improved features of current F-15 variants eg simultaneous multiple target ground attack capability.
Whilst the F-22 might conceivably manage a 4-1 odds ratio vis a vis the F-15, I'm not so sure about the F-35 which doesn't come with engine nozzle IR suppressants. With Sniper/Tiger Eyes providing an IRST detection at longer ranges. The growing quantitative gap might not be overwhelmed by the qualitative edge the F-35 brings to air combat.
The comment was not made in reference to anyone's post.
It was in reference to earlier analyst reports suggesting the F-15SA would not challenge Israel's qualitative edge.
Besides the 4.2 to 1 odds. There is little in Israel's A2A arsenal that has an edge over the F-15SA (at least until the 20x F-35I arrive). The F-15I, being an earlier variant, does not have the AESA nor some of the improved features of current F-15 variants eg simultaneous multiple target ground attack capability.
Whilst the F-22 might conceivably manage a 4-1 odds ratio vis a vis the F-15, I'm not so sure about the F-35 which doesn't come with engine nozzle IR suppressants. With Sniper/Tiger Eyes providing an IRST detection at longer ranges. The growing quantitative gap might not be overwhelmed by the qualitative edge the F-35 brings to air combat.
Depends on how many aircraft they want able to carry Storm Shadow (been seen under the wings of upgraded Saudi Tornadoes during flight tests in England) after the Tornadoes retire, & not subject to US restrictions.
The USA is currently not willing to sell the Saudis any Storm Shadow equivalent.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Er, yes it does... Don't know where you heard that, but it is wrong. F135 and F136 both use a common low observable exhaust nozzle, which incorporates both RCS reduction features AND IR supression features. It does it through shaping, materials and an advanced cooling system. There is reams of data around about it.
Here is a summation, I found after a brief search...
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Yup, I read that and also many of the counter-posts talking about that.
The responses included that it may already equip most of the later fighter engines. There's no qualitative edge and no one claims the F-15 or F-16 is IR-stealthy. Unless there's a radical redesign to something like that of the F-22, I still have my doubts.
There are some design features regarding placement of the engines but the so called IR signature reduction features doesn't reduce it as much as the F-22 engine design does.
Yup, I read that and also many of the counter-posts talking about that.
The responses included that it may already equip most of the later fighter engines. There's no qualitative edge and no one claims the F-15 or F-16 is IR-stealthy. Unless there's a radical redesign to something like that of the F-22, I still have my doubts.
There are some design features regarding placement of the engines but the so called IR signature reduction features doesn't reduce it as much as the F-22 engine design does.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There is no 'later' fighter engine in the West than the F135/F136 engines for the F-35. I am aware of F414, EJ200 and M88 upgrades, but these are upgrades. Not new, first of type engines.
So you are honestly arguing that apart from the obvious RCS reduction features of this engine nozzle, there are NO efforts to reduce the IR signature of this engine beyond what already exists in Western fighters, DESPITE both P&W and GE claiming otherwise?
You believe that they've gone and designed the two most powerful and hottest running fighter engines ever built, but haven't bothered to look at reducing the IR signature, despite the fact that they've been put into a low observable aircraft?
Okay sure, whatever man...
The F-22A is obviously the pinnacle of modern technology. There is no WAY that the 15 years or so of research and development since the F-22A's design was locked in, could have resulted in any LO improvements...
It does fly in the face of common sense to suggest the importance IR management will be somehow missed or ignored by the thousands of engineers and defence personnel involved in the development of ANY modern low-observable aircraft.
But if we have to discuss everyone's favourite flying drama llama let's do it in the F-35 thread gents, because this debate is getting way off-topic.
But if we have to discuss everyone's favourite flying drama llama let's do it in the F-35 thread gents, because this debate is getting way off-topic.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
However, things like thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-22 wasn't retrofitted to the F-15 series. Nor do I recall reading that the F-35 will have thrust vectoring. Isn't the TVC nozzles on the F-22 supposed to be the primary feature reduces the heat signature of the F-22? That's what I understood.
As an example, wasn't the initial testing of the LOAN nozzle for the JSF engine in 1997 performed on a F-110-GE-100 that equipped the F-16? Didn't GE also apply that to the F110-GE-129, a not altogether unfamiliar engine?
I think where people fail to understand is that engine LO tech advances since the F-22 are not solely restricted to the F-35. The assumption that the F-15SA will still use 1970s engines or 1970s IR sensors is a fallacy. But if people choose to assume that... whatever.
As stated, I do not disagree that there are IR design efforts. However, I don't think anyone has stated that the IR reduction is to bring a far hotter engine to existing standards or surpass it (though logically one would try to surpass it but then again it goes to the argument whether the tech is then transferred to other engines).
Ultimately, I'll readily admit I'm not sure how significant is the IR advantage (both in terms of signature and sensor) of the F-35I over the F-15SA. Just highlighting my uneducated doubts. But honestly none of the posts thus far clarifies the issue.
It is a fact that low observable technologies have been incorporated into engines such as the F-404. The F-35 is supposed to be an amalgamation of existing technologies.
However, things like thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-22 wasn't retrofitted to the F-15 series. Nor do I recall reading that the F-35 will have thrust vectoring. Isn't the TVC nozzles on the F-22 supposed to be the primary feature reduces the heat signature of the F-22? That's what I understood.
As an example, wasn't the initial testing of the LOAN nozzle for the JSF engine in 1997 performed on a F-110-GE-100 that equipped the F-16? Didn't GE also apply that to the F110-GE-129, a not altogether unfamiliar engine?
I think where people fail to understand is that engine LO tech advances since the F-22 are not solely restricted to the F-35. The assumption that the F-15SA will still use 1970s engines or 1970s IR sensors is a fallacy. But if people choose to assume that... whatever.
As stated, I do not disagree that there are IR design efforts. However, I don't think anyone has stated that the IR reduction is to bring a far hotter engine to existing standards or surpass it (though logically one would try to surpass it but then again it goes to the argument whether the tech is then transferred to other engines).
Ultimately, I'll readily admit I'm not sure how significant is the IR advantage (both in terms of signature and sensor) of the F-35I over the F-15SA. Just highlighting my uneducated doubts. But honestly none of the posts thus far clarifies the issue.
so can i just clarify the role of the f15 in the saudi air force...presumably its predominantly a tactical strike aircraft rather than a dedicated air superiority type,which i believe is the role to be undertaken by the new typhoons they are also purchasing?
or.......do the saudi typhoons also have a secondary strike role within the force?
and does this purchase of extra f15's negate the further planned purchase of typhoons or is it supplemental to them?
either way,the new saudi total purchases will ultimately lead to a airforce that surely has more capability than the majority of non super power countries such as the u.k,japan germany etc?
or.......do the saudi typhoons also have a secondary strike role within the force?
and does this purchase of extra f15's negate the further planned purchase of typhoons or is it supplemental to them?
either way,the new saudi total purchases will ultimately lead to a airforce that surely has more capability than the majority of non super power countries such as the u.k,japan germany etc?
The question is, what would Israel's response to this be ? How can they "counter" this force build-up, if any hostilities occour in future. What strategy/tactics and hardware etc. might be used in this scenario...
Please note that I do NOT intend to turn this into a political discussion
these new saudi forces arent there to deal with israel...its iran thats the problem they are worried about....i dont see any prospect of a conflict with israel.The question is, what would Israel's response to this be ? How can they "counter" this force build-up, if any hostilities occour in future. What strategy/tactics and hardware etc. might be used in this scenario...
Please note that I do NOT intend to turn this into a political discussion
They don’t have to do anything. If the Saudis try and use their F-15S and so on against Israel the USA just pulls the plug. With the latest kit this is far more immediate and terminal than a cut off of contractor and spare parts support. It’s quite literally a button pressed by someone in USCYBERCOM and none of their computers will work. You can’t fly an F-15 without a flight computer. I very much doubt the Saudis have the indigenous software tamper capability to disarm these Trojan horses in the face of all the American anti-tamper code built into these systems.
Further the Cold War is over. Any coordinated effort by the Arab states to invade Israel a la ’48, ’67 and ’73 would result in American direct action.
Apart from all that the IDF was able to take on and defeat the Arab forces when outnumbered and out equipped before. Their tactical training and operational art still remains far superior to that of the military forces of Assadi Arabia (aka Syria), Mubaraki Arabia (aka Egypt) and Saudi Arabia.
whilst i would agree with the other arab states,the saudi's are western trained by british and american forces to the same standard as them....and dont forget the saudis always hedge their bets with equipment which is why they also bought tornados with storm shadow etc and typhoons with the latest kit....
it doesnt matter tho,no conflict with s.a is ever going to happen....its the iranians we have to watch
The Saudi forces are not trained to the same level as NATO standard forces. They are trained to the same individual standard – though this is far less consistent and has suffered periodically – but not the same collective standard. Collective training is the tactical and operational ability of individual weapon systems and soldiers to work together. Also the autocratic nature of the Saudi regime stiffies responsibility, motivation and initiative. These three elements being some of the most important contributions to combat effectiveness. So while the Saudi forces are very good by developing world standards they are not en par.
Don’t mistake Saudi defence purchases for some kind of dependence exposure minimisation strategy. The USA is and will always be one of the threea shields of the Family Saud. They buy UK and French gear because this is where the big kick back money is. Upwards of 1/3 and ½ of overall value. This is how many of the Princes make serious money. They used to be able to get away with this with American suppliers until the USG cracked down and now all acquisitions have to be via the FMS system which has no space for kick backs.
Don’t mistake Saudi defence purchases for some kind of dependence exposure minimisation strategy. The USA is and will always be one of the threea shields of the Family Saud. They buy UK and French gear because this is where the big kick back money is. Upwards of 1/3 and ½ of overall value. This is how many of the Princes make serious money. They used to be able to get away with this with American suppliers until the USG cracked down and now all acquisitions have to be via the FMS system which has no space for kick backs.
Ah, thanks alot for the info there. I had absolutely no idea that any nation, even one as powerful and technologically advanced as the USA could have the ability to just "shut down" the aircrafts of another country thousands of miles away, even though they manufactured the aircrafts for SA.
One does expect the nation buying the arms to have, or at least try to develop a complete understanding and CONTROL of the hardware that they're purchasing from another nation. Or at least include conditions for complete control in the negotiations....
thats a very accusatory statement...are you saying that the british and french actively bribe foriegn govts?....and you are also stating then that the u.s dont use the same tactics together with other forms of pressure to achieve the same results......
the fact is,the u.s was mightily pissed off that the saudis didnt buy more f15's in the first place and when the uk supplied typhoons it kick started them into action.....
anyway...is anyone in a position to answer my original query?....im not really interested in getting into a u.s v uk argument on defence supply morality for the sake of it.
Last edited:
Take a look at this link.
Blair hit by Saudi 'bribery' threat - Times Online
The investigation was called off.
Saudis Take Delivery of First Typhoons - Defense News
So yes BAE was bribing the Saudi's and they were fined by both the UK and the US for it.
FRONTLINE/WORLD: The Business of Bribes: BAE Will Pay $450 Million to Settle Long-Running Bribery Case | PBS
There is certainly lots of reasonable bribery going on with arms sales to the Saudis but the big fish is kick backs which aren’t really bribes because its there money to begin with. What the Sauds do when they negotiate a commercial contract is ensure that they are paying a lot more than the value of the goods and services supplied. The company that receives the payment then sends most of the excess payment back to the Saudi Prince(s) involved in organising the supply. This way significant funds from the Saudi government treasury ends up in the private hands of the Princes. It’s a great business to be involved in because the company doing the supplying gets a lot of extra profit and so to the middle men that put the deal together. This is how the Thatcher family made its multi millions.
The USG got wise to it and other more direct bribery scandals years ago so only lets certain financial practise suspect countries do business via FMS. Which is a program where the USG will supply weapons and defence services to a friendly country at cost through their own Department of Defense acquisition programs. It’s a good way to de risk acquisition and it also makes it impossible for direct graft to be incorporated into the project. The only thing the buying country has to organise is payments into the US bank and delivery from the US to where they want it.
This is all very well known and documented.
The USG got wise to it and other more direct bribery scandals years ago so only lets certain financial practise suspect countries do business via FMS. Which is a program where the USG will supply weapons and defence services to a friendly country at cost through their own Department of Defense acquisition programs. It’s a good way to de risk acquisition and it also makes it impossible for direct graft to be incorporated into the project. The only thing the buying country has to organise is payments into the US bank and delivery from the US to where they want it.
This is all very well known and documented.
The recent cases aren't bribery in the classic sense, but Saudi princes (& in this case, very senior ones, from the innermost circle of power) using foreign purchases to divert money from their own budgets. It's Saudi money, transferred by people who are authorised, under Saudi law, to do so, but who are diverting it to uses they don't want to appear in their departmental accounts.
The famous BAe 'bribes' which the Saudi ambassador to the USA was involved in were Saudi money controlled by the ambassador. He's now head of the Saudi national security council, so it hasn't hurt him with his uncle the king, or his father, who is crown prince, deputy prime minister & minister of defence. That money was never paid to BAe as part of a contract, it was sent through BAe accounts from one Saudi account to another. It's very hard to characterise that as a bribe, however dirty it is.
You see the level this goes on at? We're not talking about bribing officials. The people at the very top of the Saudi government want to be able to shuffle around money, & use foreign firms to do so.
Much of the older stuff was corrupt in the classic sense, but indirect. The fine BAe paid, for example, wasn't for directly paying bribes, but making payments to intermediaries knowing there was a high probability of them being passed on to officials. That was the usual way.
State buyers insisted on doing business through their local agent, who charged very high fees. These fees were paid by the vendor, but added on to the contract price. After deducting a share (set by the buyer), the agent passed on most of his fee to the senior officials involved in the purchase.
The vendor (in theory) had clean hands, officially, knowing nothing of where the money went after they paid it, but in practice, everyone knew. Some very big names were involved as agents in this sort of stuff, owners of major London department stores, sponsors of buildings at Washington DC universities, etc.
Very well said.
This latest deal with the U.S. and the previous Typhoon deal will give the RSAF an impressive and capable order of battle, 2nd only to Israel in the region. I'm surprised however that Saudi has enough air crew to man these new fighters. Upon approval of the deal, the Pentagon would have released its customary statements along the lines of ''will improve compatibility with U.S. forces'' , ''will contribute to regional stability'', etc. Though no doubt the latest Saudi arms deal will benefit the US companies and Saudis involved, the questions to be asked is whether it will lead to any changes in the overall security situation in the Middle East and will it improve the RSAF's operational capabilities. With or without it's high tech military gear, Saudi, like the other Gulf states, will still rely on the U.S. for it's national security and the Saudi armed forces will continue to rely on foreign contractors to keep its gear operational.
As for whether these new arms will pose any threat to Israel, the question should not arise at all as the deal would have been blocked in U.S. Congress had there been any concern that they would pose a threat to Israel. As far as I know, neither Israel or it's supporters officially protested against the deal as they did when the E3 Sentry sale to Saudi was approved years ago. No Arab state, despite the deadlock in the Israel Palestine peace talks and other unresolved issues, have any intention of engaging Israel, their main agenda remains regime survival and mantaining the status quo.
Last edited: