Yimby, The Maginot Line was a purely defensive weapon. Very few weapons are purely defensive and those that are provide very little deterrence.

We just through w the Obama expirement. His lead from behind, genuflecting manner just emboldened bad actors such as Putin, NK and Iran.

Planeflyer wrote:

Yimby, The Maginot Line was a purely defensive weapon. Very few weapons are purely defensive and those that are provide very little deterrence.

We just through w the Obama expirement. His lead from behind, genuflecting manner just emboldened bad actors such as Putin, NK and Iran.

The maginot line also was stationary and could easily be circumvented. Additionally, Putin may be striving for power and Kim is simply crazy, but no ruler today has intentions to actually declare total war and conquer the world. The cost would be too great, regardless of having F35 or whatnot. The (medium term) future of warfare is through insurgents on one side and peace-keeping/nation-building on the other, neither of which demands the latest stealth fighter.

Mxaxai, how is keeping 4 th gen fighters strictly over your own territory any less predictable than the Maginot line?

Oh and just because the recent conflicts are insurgent nature future conflicts will be as well?

Pish, You can do better than that!

Service Life is a point of any 4th gen. Any 4th delivered after 2025 will be last of the line examples and will be facing spare support and up-grade problems once they reach 20 years age, as the majority of the fleets will be looking at replacements.

Planeflyer wrote:

Mxaxai, how is keeping 4 th gen fighters strictly over your own territory any less predictable than the Maginot line?!

open your old Geometrie book and check out the difference between a Line and and an area. You may find your answer there.

In case you are not, the "own" territory is where the other one needs to attack, i.e. they have to go there or call it quits and go home. The Maginot line could pretty much be ignored without ill effects on the campaign.

best regards
Thomas

YIMBY wrote:

You claimed "never" and a good counterexample is sufficient to refute the claim.

No, if you actually verify what I said look at post #183, I said “never a great idea”. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, it means it is a stupid decision to get into that scenario. Fighter pilots don’t want to die and they want to be shot down even less.

YIMBY wrote:

Note that speed is also important if you want to escape a bunch of missiles launched to you, though you might not supercruise but have all afterburners on.\

Aspect and flowing cold plays a more important factor in the kinematics of intercepts than speed, especially when in most cases BVR A2A missiles coast to their targets after their motor burn has ended.

YIMBY wrote:

I have also forgotten that there are Dutch, Italian and British F22 pilots.

There are British and Australian F-22 pilots, I’m not aware of any Dutch or Italian.

YIMBY wrote:

P.S. The link given above by Ozair claims that Su-35 has very advanced self-protection so a single F-35 may have to shoot all its internal and external missiles to kill a Su-35. Hence a fleet of Su-35 would win an equally expensive fleet of F-35 as it outnumbers by a factor of at least 2. I cannot verify this claim, as there has been no true test ever, and the result depends on over whose territory the battle takes place. Note also that the "obsolete" European (west or east) fighters can carry much more advanced A2A missiles so they can shoot down an F-35 before it is close enough to launch its own missiles.

That is such a load of bunk it is hardly worth replying to. There is little comparison between the SU-35 and the F-35. The F-35 will dominate the battlespace where the SU-35 resides, from the mere fact it can engage the SU-35 at the time and place of its choosing and there is little the SU-35 could do to prevent it.
To validate my claim, have a read of the following https://www.aerosociety.com/news/does-the-f-35-really-suck-in-air-combat/#sthash.LFir6BjG.dpuf which conducted a simulated intercept of the two respective aircraft. While the simulation is just that, a simulation, it used some reasonably accurate data points to represent the engagement.

YIMBY wrote:

The east-west border in Europe is far beyond that and it is a no go zone even for F22 (unless someone has forgotten to do something or you have infiltrated agents that can sabotage the systems).

This again is simply not true. The F-22 was designed to operate over that territory and the F-35 takes that even further. There are not enough radars on either side to prevent the incursion of stealth aircraft. The stealth capabilities of the F-22/F-35 aircraft allow then to operate with significantly reduced detection ranges against even low frequency band EW radars.

mxaxai wrote:

The (medium term) future of warfare is through insurgents on one side and peace-keeping/nation-building on the other, neither of which demands the latest stealth fighter.

I disagree. I think we are heading back to state on state conflict in the next 15-25 years.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

The east-west border in Europe is far beyond that and it is a no go zone even for F22 (unless someone has forgotten to do something or you have infiltrated agents that can sabotage the systems).

This again is simply not true. The F-22 was designed to operate over that territory and the F-35 takes that even further. There are not enough radars on either side to prevent the incursion of stealth aircraft. The stealth capabilities of the F-22/F-35 aircraft allow then to operate with significantly reduced detection ranges against even low frequency band EW radars.

Which country has neglected its air surveillance?

How are you going to penetrate Russia avoiding all detection? Flying very high? Or very low? Going around Siberia or directly from Frankfurt to Moscow?
All planes in a dense formation or sparse?

Ozair wrote:

[Fighter pilots don’t want to die and they want to be shot down even less.

If your only goal is to survive, you fill your tanks full and head to the opposite direction as far as you can and then apply asylum in a neutral country.

In a true war you have to be prepared to die and kill for your fatherland. The more prepared you are the more your enemy is scared.
The offender rarely accepts that large a death rate than the defender.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Note that speed is also important if you want to escape a bunch of missiles launched to you, though you might not supercruise but have all afterburners on.

Aspect and flowing cold plays a more important factor in the kinematics of intercepts than speed, especially when in most cases BVR A2A missiles coast to their targets after their motor burn has ended.

The safest way to avoid a missile is just to fly out of its range. Missiles may be quite often launched at the edge of their range. Of course other scenarios do exist.

YIMBY wrote:

Which country has neglected its air surveillance?

How are you going to penetrate Russia avoiding all detection? Flying very high? Or very low? Going around Siberia or directly from Frankfurt to Moscow?
All planes in a dense formation or sparse?

When you reduce the detection range of the aircraft against the respective radars then the airspace that radar can actually detect the stealth aircraft is reduced.

An example graphic of how a stealth airframe can weave their way through reduced detection radars,

Consider then that the F-22/35 has a reduced detection range against low frequency band radars, in some cases 50-70% less than comparable 4th gen airframes, evidence for such can be found here http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf which I have posted numerous times previously.

That reduced detection range translates to much less detectable regions of coverage. So the question then becomes, how many countries have sufficient radar coverage to account for that reduced detection range?

Still it does not matter that much for the glorious 60-80 frames Germany wants. those will not change the global balance of power, whatever type they choose.

seahawk wrote:

Still it does not matter that much for the glorious 60-80 frames Germany wants. those will not change the global balance of power, whatever type they choose.

No they won't and given German reluctance to use military power it will likely make no difference. I'd still favour additional Eurofighters for Germany though if only for cost reasons and perhaps a single fighter type would allow them to achieve greater serviceability.

Most service members I heard prefer a 2 type fleet, as it allows for 2 different generations in the fleet and also is useful if one type is facing technical problems and a grounding.

And F-35 will be no problem when it comes to maintenance with the large fleets growing all over Europe, many parts will be probably cheaper due to the large global fleet.

Thomas, modern electronics and long range weapons have eliminated much of the security that area and distance once provided.

Nukes are the best example of this.

But what about Cyber?

Cyber can turn space, distance, population density advtages into weapons to be exploited.

I fully appreciate the reasons and extent to which status quo, predictability and defense only are all valued in Europe but creating an innovation free ( artificial) bubble only gives bad actors, bad ideas.

Ozair wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

The (medium term) future of warfare is through insurgents on one side and peace-keeping/nation-building on the other, neither of which demands the latest stealth fighter.

I disagree. I think we are heading back to state on state conflict in the next 15-25 years.

And who do you expect to attack Germany in a state on state non-nuclear, conventional attack or threat? Let's even include the entire NATO. There is not a single country except perhaps for current NATO members who could pose a credible threat.

That aside, Germany does not need a replacement for the Tornado tomorrow. Their service life is limited, sure, but they have at least another decade in them. Plenty of time to look at the options, discuss the development of a new program and perhaps even order interim F-35. Its high production rate means that Germany could get their hands on some quickly when needed.

Knowing politics though, once an "interim" solution is in service it will remain "interim" for its entire design life span. This is the main reason why I have issues with interim procurements.

mxaxai wrote:

And who do you expect to attack Germany in a state on state non-nuclear, conventional attack or threat? Let's even include the entire NATO. There is not a single country except perhaps for current NATO members who could pose a credible threat.

I didn't say Germany nor NATO in fact, just that I expect state on state conflict to return. How or if NATO or Germany are potentially drawn into that in the future is anyone's guess.

mxaxai wrote:

That aside, Germany does not need a replacement for the Tornado tomorrow. Their service life is limited, sure, but they have at least another decade in them. Plenty of time to look at the options, discuss the development of a new program and perhaps even order interim F-35. Its high production rate means that Germany could get their hands on some quickly when needed.

The sustainment costs of the Tornado will only increase and Germany has shown with the Eurofighter that it is reluctant to fund to the level required to maintain what could be considered sufficient capability. With the UK, shortly Italy and then the Saudi's likely to retire their Tornado fleets in the next 5 years the Tornado will become increasingly hard to maintain and maintain viable, and survivable, in conflict.

mxaxai wrote:

Knowing politics though, once an "interim" solution is in service it will remain "interim" for its entire design life span. This is the main reason why I have issues with interim procurements.

Australia has a hard plan for the replacement of their interim SH capability but I agree Germany, if they acquired F-35 as an interim, may very well be keen to keep them once inducted given the jet will be in use and supported for so many years to come.

mxaxai wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Yimby, The Maginot Line was a purely defensive weapon.

The maginot line also was stationary and could easily be circumvented.

I like to add something here:
Just proven wrong ( WWI ) military doctrine did not know about circumvention. It was not deemed possible.

Different thinking by some other bright guys created Blitzkrieg.
it leveraged higher mobility ( new ) and a different kind of commanding ( semi existant )

Every WW1 combatant had well developed cavalry regiments for what you refer to has circumvention. The problem was that the cavalry could not overrun the flank before being wiped out by machine guns.

Horses are to machine guns the way 4 th gen AC are to modern integrated air defense systems.

Planeflyer wrote:

Every WW1 combatant had well developed cavalry regiments for what you refer to has circumvention. The problem was that the cavalry could not overrun the flank before being wiped out by machine guns.

Horses are to machine guns the way 4 th gen AC are to modern integrated air defense systems.

Point in case: The only military to field significant numbers of 5th gen AC are the USAF. Neither Russia nor China have a significant fleet or even entered serial production. All western countries own modern air defense systems, though.

Considering the money Russia and China are investing into 5 th gen Ac I don't understand your point.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Which country has neglected its air surveillance?

How are you going to penetrate Russia avoiding all detection? Flying very high? Or very low? Going around Siberia or directly from Frankfurt to Moscow?
All planes in a dense formation or sparse?

When you reduce the detection range of the aircraft against the respective radars then the airspace that radar can actually detect the stealth aircraft is reduced.

An example graphic of how a stealth airframe can weave their way through reduced detection radars,

Consider then that the F-22/35 has a reduced detection range against low frequency band radars, in some cases 50-70% less than comparable 4th gen airframes, evidence for such can be found here http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf which I have posted numerous times previously.

That reduced detection range translates to much less detectable regions of coverage. So the question then becomes, how many countries have sufficient radar coverage to account for that reduced detection range?

A modern French air surveillance radar with a nominal range of 480 km has a list price of about 20 million EUR. The final cost depends on quantity and quality. With one billion euros Germany can acquire 100 radars that would give 100 % coverage of German airspace assuming that the detection range of F-35 is reduced to 10 % of the nominal range of the radar, which some may consider pessimistic although it is consistent with your reference suggesting 36 nm detection range for a stealth aircraft in a typical radars.

Given that there are other methods to detect fighters, like infrared or even visual, that you can increase the detectability of F-35 using multistatic radars and multiple bands - its stealth capacities depend drastically on the frequency - and that low-flying aircraft are easily located by their noise, almost any developed country can afford a surveillance system that no stealth fighter can pass undetected. Australia might be, however, one of the countries that does not have it.

YIMBY wrote:

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Which country has neglected its air surveillance?

How are you going to penetrate Russia avoiding all detection? Flying very high? Or very low? Going around Siberia or directly from Frankfurt to Moscow?
All planes in a dense formation or sparse?

When you reduce the detection range of the aircraft against the respective radars then the airspace that radar can actually detect the stealth aircraft is reduced.

An example graphic of how a stealth airframe can weave their way through reduced detection radars,

Consider then that the F-22/35 has a reduced detection range against low frequency band radars, in some cases 50-70% less than comparable 4th gen airframes, evidence for such can be found here http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf which I have posted numerous times previously.

That reduced detection range translates to much less detectable regions of coverage. So the question then becomes, how many countries have sufficient radar coverage to account for that reduced detection range?

A modern French air surveillance radar with a nominal range of 480 km has a list price of about 20 million EUR. The final cost depends on quantity and quality. With one billion euros Germany can acquire 100 radars that would give 100 % coverage of German airspace assuming that the detection range of F-35 is reduced to 10 % of the nominal range of the radar, which some may consider pessimistic although it is consistent with your reference suggesting 36 nm detection range for a stealth aircraft in a typical radars.

Given that there are other methods to detect fighters, like infrared or even visual, that you can increase the detectability of F-35 using multistatic radars and multiple bands - its stealth capacities depend drastically on the frequency - and that low-flying aircraft are easily located by their noise, almost any developed country can afford a surveillance system that no stealth fighter can pass undetected. Australia might be, however, one of the countries that does not have it.

You are forgetting that static air defences are often the first targets in a war, along with command and control systems. Witness what happened Iraq War I, and how quickly the US military dismantled one of the the most extensive air defence grids in the region within Day 1 of the war.

There's no way that war planners would be trying to sneak stealth fighters deep into enemy airspace within the first hour; they will be using them to start blowing large holes in the air defence grid by taking radars and the command and control systems offline (permanently I might add) until the air defence grid is heavily degraded, and then they will start attacking deep into enemy air space.

Planeflyer wrote:

Every WW1 combatant had well developed cavalry regiments for what you refer to has circumvention. The problem was that the cavalry could not overrun the flank before being wiped out by machine guns.

cavalry was dead after WWI.
What was needed was to to have infantry and gunnery deployable at speeds of modern transport.
compare to Gustav Adolf mounting guns on carriages that allowed progress at cavalry speeds.

ThePointblank wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

A modern French air surveillance radar with a nominal range of 480 km has a list price of about 20 million EUR. The final cost depends on quantity and quality. With one billion euros Germany can acquire 100 radars that would give 100 % coverage of German airspace assuming that the detection range of F-35 is reduced to 10 % of the nominal range of the radar, which some may consider pessimistic although it is consistent with your reference suggesting 36 nm detection range for a stealth aircraft in a typical radars.

Given that there are other methods to detect fighters, like infrared or even visual, that you can increase the detectability of F-35 using multistatic radars and multiple bands - its stealth capacities depend drastically on the frequency - and that low-flying aircraft are easily located by their noise, almost any developed country can afford a surveillance system that no stealth fighter can pass undetected. Australia might be, however, one of the countries that does not have it.

You are forgetting that static air defences are often the first targets in a war, along with command and control systems. Witness what happened Iraq War I, and how quickly the US military dismantled one of the the most extensive air defence grids in the region within Day 1 of the war.

There's no way that war planners would be trying to sneak stealth fighters deep into enemy airspace within the first hour; they will be using them to start blowing large holes in the air defence grid by taking radars and the command and control systems offline (permanently I might add) until the air defence grid is heavily degraded, and then they will start attacking deep into enemy air space.

What is static air defence? Who's got it?

A country that is capable to destroy all the radar and non-radar surveillance network in day 1 is capable to destroy all strategic targets like airports and command centres as well. Then it does not matter how many F-22's you have lying in your hangars. I do not think that that is the war we are talking about here.

In a symmetric war the defendant has options to prevent the total destruction and is also able to cause havoc to the opponent so that they have no near infrastructure to operate whatever super duper weaponry. Tomahawks are not invisible and indestructible. If you attack your enemy's radar stations with your F-35 you certainly expose yourself to very dynamic air defence.

Iraq War I ? 1991? 1998? Saddamic Iraq is by no means comparable to a modern European country.

Cavalry was anything but dead after WW1. What do you think the panzer Corp was?

But that’s not what you originally asserted. You said flanking operations were not considered when in fact, since the Greeks flanking movements were well understood.

What was not understood, well enough was just how vulnerable the cavalry was to machine guns.

Today, you apparently don’t understand just how vulnerable to integrated air defenses are 4 th gen ac are.

YIMBY wrote:

A modern French air surveillance radar with a nominal range of 480 km has a list price of about 20 million EUR. The final cost depends on quantity and quality. With one billion euros Germany can acquire 100 radars that would give 100 % coverage of German airspace assuming that the detection range of F-35 is reduced to 10 % of the nominal range of the radar, which some may consider pessimistic although it is consistent with your reference suggesting 36 nm detection range for a stealth aircraft in a typical radars.

Well instead of looking at a French EW radar we can look at what Germany possesses today, the RRS-117 which is a slightly modified version of the AN/FPS-117 found here, http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/02.surv/karte007.en.html
It is an L band system (or D if you prefer NATO) and so we would expect it to operate in a similar manner to the S-743D listed in the source documentation I quoted. Hence the radar detection range against a VLO target like the F-35 is likely to be better, around 50-70% reduction, compared to the 90% reduction you are using.

Germany currently has eight of these systems. If we consider that a system will have an area search radius reduced to 30% of the original value, so 460km reduced to 138km that provides an area of approx. 60000 square kms of coverage. Therefore six radars would then prospectively cover the land mass of Germany (ideal scenario that does not appreciate all the blind spots, minor gaps and assumes perfect coverage and is before we consider the altitude issues with radar horizon so greater coverage is almost certainly required).

That covers just German land mass, the greater issue becomes covering the borders to outer territory which can be argued is as important for an EW radar. The land border of Germany is 3621 kms, so if we assess that a single radar has a diameter of 276km then 2/3rds of that value is 184 which would provide some coverage at the angles. Hence we need an additional 19 radars to cover that territory.
So the end result is not 100 radars but perhaps 30 to provide sufficient coverage of Germany and its borders.

YIMBY wrote:

Given that there are other methods to detect fighters, like infrared or even visual, that you can increase the detectability of F-35 using multistatic radars and multiple bands - its stealth capacities depend drastically on the frequency - and that low-flying aircraft are easily located by their noise, almost any developed country can afford a surveillance system that no stealth fighter can pass undetected. Australia might be, however, one of the countries that does not have it.

Well I think we can straight away discount visual and infra-red as detection measures and probably add sound to that as well. Infra-red is reasonably short range and fails when there is cloud. A decent stealth application also covers IR frequencies as well as radar and we know this was an design consideration for all US stealth aircraft. Sound is simply not accurate enough to cue anything and visual is defeated by weather and darkness.

The source journal article I provided indicated some of the issues with multi-static radar making it a difficult and reasonably expensive endeavour, with no nation currently fielding an operational implementation. Ultimately though, almost all EW radars are reasonably easy to find and therefore destroy and cannot be used to target weapons against an aircraft as the radar rez cells are simply too large and the scanning rates too slow (creating a large uncertainty box). Additionally a stealth fighter jet would still employ jamming where necessary (and is typically more effective because of the low power required to impact the target system) and that on ingress/egress to/from a target you don’t need to wipe out an entire network, just the key C2 nodes and sensors necessary to establish temporary air superiority.

Something to add for those pinning their hopes on a future European fighter jet. It seems the two big industry options are already starting the political lobbying to win the project and I fail to see how this will be sorted out in a manner than won’t again result in sour grapes on both sides.

Airbus, whose mostly Germany-based defence arm makes up about a quarter of its sales, laid claim to the leading role in an op-ed article published on Friday.
“On the assumption that the necessary political will is in place, Airbus is offering to drive cooperation with its European partners and to shape this aspect of our common European future,” Dirk Hoke, chief executive of Airbus Defence & Space, wrote in Germany-based defence newsletter Griephan Briefe.
He described his company as “the lead...for a project of this nature.”
Dassault has itself offered to be the “architect” of the Franco-German project and Chief Executive Eric Trappier told Reuters recently that it would be the natural leader due to its experience in building an all-French fighter plane.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-germany-defence/airbus-dassault-vie-for-leadership-of-franco-german-fighter-idUKKBN1D31TD

The final and obvious issue being how funding will actually occur.

But at least for now, such considerations are likely to take a backseat to how the project will be funded amid tight defence budgets, an industry source said.

Ozair wrote:

Sound is simply not accurate enough to cue anything and visual is defeated by weather and darkness.

Sound is certainly accurate enough, more accurate than a long distance radar. Its problem is the delay due to sound velocity, but scanning radars also have their delay.

Ozair wrote:

almost all EW radars are reasonably easy to find and therefore destroy

If all your surveillance (and communication) is destroyed, it does not matter whether you try to defend yourself with F-22 or Fokker triplane. They are equally useless without information where to go. The airborne radars of modern fighters are just not enough for the surveillance of all your airspace.

If you have destroyed the surveillance network of your adversary, you can attack equally well with a B-52 than B-2.

YIMBY wrote:

Sound is certainly accurate enough, more accurate than a long distance radar. Its problem is the delay due to sound velocity, but scanning radars also have their delay.

And you can prove that claim how? Are you aware of a sound sensor that is able to identify within approx the radar rez cell of a long distance radar, for your sake we can use the RRP-117, which probably has a rez cell about a few ks wide, at 200km range?

The delay from sound travelling at 300 ms compared to the speed of light is a bit different... What happens if the target aircraft is flying faster than the speed of sound?

YIMBY wrote:

If all your surveillance (and communication) is destroyed, it does not matter whether you try to defend yourself with F-22 or Fokker triplane. They are equally useless without information where to go. The airborne radars of modern fighters are just not enough for the surveillance of all your airspace.

If you have destroyed the surveillance network of your adversary, you can attack equally well with a B-52 than B-2.

Yimby, the point of stealth is to defeat the kill chain, F2T2EA (Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess). Instead of having to enact countermeasures at the Target or Engage stages stealth attempts to defeat the kill chain at the Find and Fix. As such, instead of expending many weapons and time destroying a C2 network stealth aircraft allow penetration and engagement of potentially higher priority targets. The same principal applies A2A, defect the enemy by avoiding being seen and thereby allowing the stealth platform to chose the time and place of the engagement.

YIMBY wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

A modern French air surveillance radar with a nominal range of 480 km has a list price of about 20 million EUR. The final cost depends on quantity and quality. With one billion euros Germany can acquire 100 radars that would give 100 % coverage of German airspace assuming that the detection range of F-35 is reduced to 10 % of the nominal range of the radar, which some may consider pessimistic although it is consistent with your reference suggesting 36 nm detection range for a stealth aircraft in a typical radars.

Given that there are other methods to detect fighters, like infrared or even visual, that you can increase the detectability of F-35 using multistatic radars and multiple bands - its stealth capacities depend drastically on the frequency - and that low-flying aircraft are easily located by their noise, almost any developed country can afford a surveillance system that no stealth fighter can pass undetected. Australia might be, however, one of the countries that does not have it.

You are forgetting that static air defences are often the first targets in a war, along with command and control systems. Witness what happened Iraq War I, and how quickly the US military dismantled one of the the most extensive air defence grids in the region within Day 1 of the war.

There's no way that war planners would be trying to sneak stealth fighters deep into enemy airspace within the first hour; they will be using them to start blowing large holes in the air defence grid by taking radars and the command and control systems offline (permanently I might add) until the air defence grid is heavily degraded, and then they will start attacking deep into enemy air space.

What is static air defence? Who's got it?

A country that is capable to destroy all the radar and non-radar surveillance network in day 1 is capable to destroy all strategic targets like airports and command centres as well. Then it does not matter how many F-22's you have lying in your hangars. I do not think that that is the war we are talking about here.

In a symmetric war the defendant has options to prevent the total destruction and is also able to cause havoc to the opponent so that they have no near infrastructure to operate whatever super duper weaponry. Tomahawks are not invisible and indestructible. If you attack your enemy's radar stations with your F-35 you certainly expose yourself to very dynamic air defence.

Iraq War I ? 1991? 1998? Saddamic Iraq is by no means comparable to a modern European country.

The long range, early warning radar systems are by their very nature, not mobile. They are rather fixed to a particular location, and in the early periods of an air campaign, one would be using their passive surveillance systems to pinpoint the locations and engage them as needed.

The advantage with aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 is not only do they have low observable features, they also are equipped with sensors that can detect the world around them, and present the information collected to the pilot in a easy to understand and readable manner. So even if a hidden SAM site suddenly decides to go active along the planned route of a F-22 or F-35 strike package, their sensors would automatically detect it, tell the pilot where the threat is, and allow the pilot to make a quick decision to either engage the popup threat immediately, or go around it.

The main advantage with aircraft like the F-35 is that compared to their older 4th gen brethren, you require considerably less supporting assets to penetrate the enemy air defences; see this visual as an example:



As the detection ranges are drastically reduced against low observable aircraft, you don't need to systematically dismantle the entire enemy air defence grid over a period of a couple of days in order to open up enemy air space; you just need to do enough to start opening up gaps in their coverage to penetrate and attack the high value targets. As the campaign rolls on, you can continue to take apart the enemy's air defences as needed.

tommy1808 wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

no European force has the current capacity to do anything about almost anything Putin decides to do. In other words you better hope for the best until you decide to invest in deterrence..

how many Russian fighers are not flying with basically 80s avionics?

A hand full of Mig-29 SMT, a bunch of Su-35 and ~100 SU-27SM ..... 200 modern fighters total? How many of them are not in Siberia, protecting against the Chinese?

Russia has just enough to confidently defend its own territory, but not enough to invade much, let alone taking up even the European part of NATO.

best regards
Thomas

Thanks for the reality check. Lobbyist use fear as prime marketing tool, because facts / numbers become irrelevant quickly.

Ozair wrote:

Something to add for those pinning their hopes on a future European fighter jet. It seems the two big industry options are already starting the political lobbying to win the project and I fail to see how this will be sorted out in a manner than won’t again result in sour grapes on both sides.

Airbus, whose mostly Germany-based defence arm makes up about a quarter of its sales, laid claim to the leading role in an op-ed article published on Friday.
“On the assumption that the necessary political will is in place, Airbus is offering to drive cooperation with its European partners and to shape this aspect of our common European future,” Dirk Hoke, chief executive of Airbus Defence & Space, wrote in Germany-based defence newsletter Griephan Briefe.
He described his company as “the lead...for a project of this nature.”
Dassault has itself offered to be the “architect” of the Franco-German project and Chief Executive Eric Trappier told Reuters recently that it would be the natural leader due to its experience in building an all-French fighter plane.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-germany-defence/airbus-dassault-vie-for-leadership-of-franco-german-fighter-idUKKBN1D31TD

The final and obvious issue being how funding will actually occur.

But at least for now, such considerations are likely to take a backseat to how the project will be funded amid tight defence budgets, an industry source said.

As expected it's between the French and Germans, Dassault being a good integrator (and always striving to be in control) and the Germans fully understanding appreciating this but determined to make clear things changed since the Panavia & Eurofighter days. They are not in to mainly pay the bills. They gave in a lot on the Eurofighter and NH90 and want a winner for their money now. Benefitting German aerospace more then French Aerospace. And that's new.

And this means whatever the project will be, it will be too late for the Tornado replacement.

seahawk wrote:

And this means whatever the project will be, it will be too late for the Tornado replacement.

? no ?

They just have to take care not to invite all of the western world and give all opportunity to add their specific requirements. Other (UK, Canada, Spain, Italy, Sweden, ...) can join in, but mainly on an industrial basis, having to accept a limited say in the requirements / design.

The Eurofighter was build & re-sold long after the requirements it was build for expired.

Tornado needs to go until 2030, that leaves 12 years and the program has not even started. For once it would be wise to buy something off the shelf and not end up with wasting money on obsolete platforms that are expensive to keep in the air. The Luftwaffe did this enough in the last years and in the end it made things just worse, as the huge maintenance costs of the old planes ate into the budget for the spares of the new ones.

seahawk wrote:

Tornado needs to go until 2030, that leaves 12 years and the program has not even started. For once it would be wise to buy something off the shelf and not end up with wasting money on obsolete platforms that are expensive to keep in the air. The Luftwaffe did this enough in the last years and in the end it made things just worse, as the huge maintenance costs of the old planes ate into the budget for the spares of the new ones.

I don't know if you are trying to push the F-35, but that one first flew in 2000 and would be close to a 30 yrs years old design entering service for the next 30 yrs when the Tornado is replaced. Limited payload-range, single cockpit, outdated design & not from her seem weak selling points at this point in time.

Anyway it more and more seems a done deal. Interesting will be the strategy of UK / BAE. Are LM or Boeing eager to give them a share of their pie? Or is it America First ? Lets be realistic here, UK Aerospace wasn't exactly pushing a Brexit..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-germany-defence/france-and-germany-to-develop-new-european-fighter-jet-idUSKBN19Y1FJ

keesje wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

no European force has the current capacity to do anything about almost anything Putin decides to do. In other words you better hope for the best until you decide to invest in deterrence..

how many Russian fighers are not flying with basically 80s avionics?

A hand full of Mig-29 SMT, a bunch of Su-35 and ~100 SU-27SM ..... 200 modern fighters total? How many of them are not in Siberia, protecting against the Chinese?

Russia has just enough to confidently defend its own territory, but not enough to invade much, let alone taking up even the European part of NATO.

best regards
Thomas

Thanks for the reality check. Lobbyist use fear as prime marketing tool, because facts / numbers become irrelevant quickly.

And even these 200 don't employ stealth. Neither do their bombers.

Ozair wrote:

Something to add for those pinning their hopes on a future European fighter jet. It seems the two big industry options are already starting the political lobbying to win the project and I fail to see how this will be sorted out in a manner than won’t again result in sour grapes on both sides.

Airbus, whose mostly Germany-based defence arm makes up about a quarter of its sales, laid claim to the leading role in an op-ed article published on Friday.
“On the assumption that the necessary political will is in place, Airbus is offering to drive cooperation with its European partners and to shape this aspect of our common European future,” Dirk Hoke, chief executive of Airbus Defence & Space, wrote in Germany-based defence newsletter Griephan Briefe.
He described his company as “the lead...for a project of this nature.”
Dassault has itself offered to be the “architect” of the Franco-German project and Chief Executive Eric Trappier told Reuters recently that it would be the natural leader due to its experience in building an all-French fighter plane.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-germany-defence/airbus-dassault-vie-for-leadership-of-franco-german-fighter-idUKKBN1D31TD

The final and obvious issue being how funding will actually occur.

But at least for now, such considerations are likely to take a backseat to how the project will be funded amid tight defence budgets, an industry source said.

As expected it's between the French and Germans, Dassault being a good integrator (and always striving to be in control) and the Germans fully understanding appreciating this but determined to make clear things changed since the Panavia & Eurofighter days. They are not in to mainly pay the bills. They gave in a lot on the Eurofighter and NH90 and want a winner for their money now. Benefitting German aerospace more then French Aerospace. And that's new.

If it were up to me, I'd have both Airbus and Dassault apply independently and propose their own solution. Then the better model is chosen and produced jointly by Airbus and Dassault in Germany and France, with full disclosure of the technology and appropriate revenue sharing. The winning bidder oviously gets more since they will need to do majority of the development. It forces them to cooperate while still maintaing some competition.

Keejie, on the one hand you advocate the start of European 5th Gen AC development program and on the other assert that those of us who suggest the F35 is the better option are fear mongering

Do I have that right?

Planeflyer wrote:

Keejie, on the one hand you advocate the start of European 5th Gen AC development program and on the other assert that those of us who suggest the F35 is the better option are fear mongering

Do I have that right?

I think for Europe to build a 6th generation fighter bomber for 2030 is the right direction to go. Europe has a 100 yrs tradition building fighter bombers, it would be unlogical / a waste to outsource that. We have and want to keep that strategic capability, like others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQsPurczluk

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Sound is certainly accurate enough, more accurate than a long distance radar. Its problem is the delay due to sound velocity, but scanning radars also have their delay.

And you can prove that claim how? Are you aware of a sound sensor that is able to identify within approx the radar rez cell of a long distance radar, for your sake we can use the RRP-117, which probably has a rez cell about a few ks wide, at 200km range?

Give me a couple of millions and I will build you a demonstration system.

I am not aware of a sound sensor that is able to identify that, but a grid of cheapest available microphones will give remarkable accuracy. If such costs less than a dollar, and military pays ten dollars, then with a cost of one radar you can buy one million sensors, to have 2 sensors per square kilometre over Germany and you still have a couple of hundred thousand left to be hidden over the borders.

I would bet my life for a 1 km resolution, my balls for 100 m, my hair for 10 m and my reputation for 1 m. It is less accurate for high altitudes and more accurate for low altitudes (below radar horizon).

Ozair wrote:

The delay from sound travelling at 300 ms compared to the speed of light is a bit different... What happens if the target aircraft is flying faster than the speed of sound?.

With the sonic boom, we will talk about centimetres, at least low altitudes. That is enough to hit it with one bullet, if it just goes straight ahead (assuming a gun with such an accuracy in the right place, not always possible). How fast and often you turn when supercuising?

The time delay from highest altitudes may be up to a minute. Rotating radars also have a limited time delay, up to 15 seconds typically. Of course, you can lift the sensors to 15 km if you want, though you may not be able to make a dense and symmetric grid in the air.

Note that the sound sensors are practically undestroyable and unjammable.

keesje wrote:

I don't know if you are trying to push the F-35, but that one first flew in 2000 and would be close to a 30 yrs years old design entering service for the next 30 yrs when the Tornado is replaced. Limited payload-range, single cockpit, outdated design & not from her seem weak selling points at this point in time.

Anyway it more and more seems a done deal. Interesting will be the strategy of UK / BAE. Are LM or Boeing eager to give them a share of their pie? Or is it America First ? Lets be realistic here, UK Aerospace wasn't exactly pushing a Brexit..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-germany-defence/france-and-germany-to-develop-new-european-fighter-jet-idUSKBN19Y1FJ

The only thing I am pushing for is to buy something that has a chance to be fully operational by 2025-30 and that has a wider user base, so that the Luftwaffe is not stuck with an orphan jet. That surely is not the French/German project that is to replace the EF/Rafale.

This rules out the EF, as no other partner nation wants an up-dated version. It could be a Rafale F4+, if France buys a number too and if Germany achieves partner status or at least is getting a guarantee to buy spares for the same price as French Air Force. It could be Grippen E, if Germany wants to buy a few years earlier. And it could be F-35, which could carry the US A-bombs, has an anti-ship missile and ARM integrated or planned for integration, which will be paid for by the main customer.

What it should not be is a paper airplane that is very unlikely to be fully ready by 2025 and that will just hurt the core of the forces by sucking the budget dry with increased costs to keep the old planes flying, while paying for the development and purchase of the new plane.

ThePointblank wrote:

The long range, early warning radar systems are by their very nature, not mobile. They are rather fixed to a particular location, and in the early periods of an air campaign, one would be using their passive surveillance systems to pinpoint the locations and engage them as needed.

Modern radars are installed on a heavy vehicle (8x8 truck). They cannot operate in the run but can be moved quickly. Indeed only a fraction of radars will be operative all the time as most of them will be in the move or shut down. Some very long range OTH radars may be fixed, though. Radar stations also have always some self-defense, sometimes even against missiles.

ThePointblank wrote:

The advantage with aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 is not only do they have low observable features, they also are equipped with sensors that can detect the world around them, and present the information collected to the pilot in a easy to understand and readable manner. So even if a hidden SAM site suddenly decides to go active along the planned route of a F-22 or F-35 strike package, their sensors would automatically detect it, tell the pilot where the threat is, and allow the pilot to make a quick decision to either engage the popup threat immediately, or go around it.

Such a system can be installed in any modern fighter when the model is upgraded. Tomorrow's computers and sensors do not take that much space, weight and energy as those from 2-3 decades away when F-22 and F-35 were designed. Of course, most military are too stubborn to accept anything new or even modified.

If the SAM site suddenly gets active, you may be rather late to go around. They are also very mobile so they will not be where they were last time you flew there.

So, in summary, if the F35 we’re European it would be the perfect solution for Germany?

Yimby, you are arguing from both sides of your mouth advocating innovative if unproven ideas while arguing that existing 4 th gen ac that are obsolete are good enough.

Regards sound detection if it were as viable as you claim you don’t think all the defense contractors who have sonar capabilities would have already exploited this?

Planeflyer wrote:

So, in summary, if the F35 we’re European it would be the perfect solution for Germany?

keesje wrote:

I don't know if you are trying to push the F-35, but that one first flew in 2000 and would be close to a 30 yrs years old design entering service for the next 30 yrs when the Tornado is replaced. Limited payload-range, single cockpit, outdated design & not from her seem weak selling points at this point in time.

keesje wrote:

I think for Europe to build a 6th generation fighter bomber for 2030 is the right direction to go.

A question comes up for you, does it have to be a F35, regardless of German requirements?

YIMBY wrote:

Give me a couple of millions and I will build you a demonstration system.

So the answer is no system exists.

YIMBY wrote:

I am not aware of a sound sensor that is able to identify that, but a grid of cheapest available microphones will give remarkable accuracy. If such costs less than a dollar, and military pays ten dollars, then with a cost of one radar you can buy one million sensors, to have 2 sensors per square kilometre over Germany and you still have a couple of hundred thousand left to be hidden over the borders.

So again the answer is no system exists and despite that it apparently will take you no time at all to build and develop this no other nation or company in the world, who faces the very real prospect of facing a stealth aircraft it will struggle to identify on radar, has developed this system it clearly is possible…

YIMBY wrote:

I would bet my life for a 1 km resolution, my balls for 100 m, my hair for 10 m and my reputation for 1 m. It is less accurate for high altitudes and more accurate for low altitudes (below radar horizon).

A claim that you can not support nor have you provided any technical or mathematical evidence.

YIMBY wrote:

With the sonic boom, we will talk about centimetres, at least low altitudes. That is enough to hit it with one bullet, if it just goes straight ahead (assuming a gun with such an accuracy in the right place, not always possible). How fast and often you turn when supercuising?

Yimby, when the respective airframe is travelling towards you at a speed faster than the speed of sound, how do you expect to identify where it is before it reaches you?
Yes airframes turn when they are going supersonic, whether supercruising or using burner…

YIMBY wrote:

The time delay from highest altitudes may be up to a minute. Rotating radars also have a limited time delay, up to 15 seconds typically. Of course, you can lift the sensors to 15 km if you want, though you may not be able to make a dense and symmetric grid in the air.

It keeps getting better… So given the quality of a radar track from an EW radar, which will provide you with a hit every 10-15 seconds at the speed of light, is so low you cannot use it to cue weapons, apparently a sound sensor that has a delay of one minute is satisfactory?

YIMBY wrote:

Note that the sound sensors are practically undestroyable and unjammable.

Of course no one has ever invented a system that outputs audio noise into the spectrum…

Yimby, when you want to have an intelligent, logical and fact based discussion on this I will participate. If you want to enter fantasy land, make claims that are not only illogical but completely technically unsupported I have better things to do with my time.

mxaxai wrote:

If it were up to me, I'd have both Airbus and Dassault apply independently and propose their own solution. Then the better model is chosen and produced jointly by Airbus and Dassault in Germany and France, with full disclosure of the technology and appropriate revenue sharing. The winning bidder oviously gets more since they will need to do majority of the development. It forces them to cooperate while still maintaing some competition.

There is certainly merit to that idea but it also significantly increases the timeframe. You have to give each vendor the time to design, build and test fly airframes and those respective airframes be evaluated, contract negotiation etc. Would be at least end of 2023 before anything was decided and that puts first flight of a production representative airframe at around 2029, plus 5 years of testing and then the start of production. Europe wouldn't conduct any concurrency after being so vocally against it so it is 2035 before the first frames hit IOC and another 10 years after that before there are 250 in service.

keesje wrote:

I think for Europe to build a 6th generation fighter bomber for 2030 is the right direction to go. Europe has a 100 yrs tradition building fighter bombers, it would be unlogical / a waste to outsource that. We have and want to keep that strategic capability, like others.

I'd like to see either Germany or France actually define what a sixth gen fighter is before we contemplate anyone designing and building it by 2030. The US hasn't defined what it believes are 6th gen technologies, it is still being studied, and they operate 5th gen aircraft, so I'd be surprised that either European nation could or would be able to define the concept, and develop the technology around it so quickly.
But the issue still remains, where is the funding going to come from for this? Does it come at the expense of Eurofighter and Rafale upgrades and if so those designs become dead in the water for future export potential. Any 6th gen fighter is going to require a minimum of 30 billion dollars to develop, before production starts, and given Europe has no 5th gen platform is fraught with risk in making the move from 4th to 6th…

Far more likely is that Europe design a jet that replicates most of the 5th gen capability of the F-35 but with two engines and perhaps slightly larger internal bays, it will cost twice as much but preserve European manufacturing. It also potentially faces competition from an evolved F-35 around the 2030-35 timeframe, as well as the US 6th gen coming around 2035-40.

Keeje, I enjoy the creativity and knowledge you bring to this forum. So I know you understand the mission of the Tornado and that the F35 is the only existing option to replace it in a reasonable time frame.

The fact that you have advocated for a European 6th gen AC tells me you understand that the existing 4th gen AC are not up to the job.

Like I said a hundred posts ago, save for politics this is just not that complicated. Either Europe invests in capabilities or it relies on the US to defend it.

YIMBY wrote:

Modern radars are installed on a heavy vehicle (8x8 truck). They cannot operate in the run but can be moved quickly. Indeed only a fraction of radars will be operative all the time as most of them will be in the move or shut down. Some very long range OTH radars may be fixed, though. Radar stations also have always some self-defense, sometimes even against missiles.

Except the RRP-117, which was mentioned earlier, is a static radar; it is not mounted on a truck.

And if the radar is shut down, then it cannot detect anything, meaning you could have gaps in coverage.

YIMBY wrote:

Such a system can be installed in any modern fighter when the model is upgraded. Tomorrow's computers and sensors do not take that much space, weight and energy as those from 2-3 decades away when F-22 and F-35 were designed. Of course, most military are too stubborn to accept anything new or even modified.

Except existing aircraft are at their limits in terms of internal bays to accept new electronics, and in terms of power generation and heat dissipation. This is the reason why many 4th gen fighters are hanging all of the electronics externally in pods or in external fairings; they need the external room to squeeze in all of the equipment, and provide systems to both power and cool the hardware.

YIMBY wrote:

If the SAM site suddenly gets active, you may be rather late to go around. They are also very mobile so they will not be where they were last time you flew there.

The likelihood of a SAM site suddenly going active and surprising the aircraft right above is fairly minimal, and aircraft like the F-35 had advanced sensors that can immediately detect the radar emissions of a radar, scan the ground with its own ground mapping radar and EO/IR sensors to detect hidden ground targets, detect & categorize missile launches and weapons fire from the ground, and alert the pilot so he/she can take appropriate action.

Bottom line is that it will take a wilfully ignorant pilot to be surprised by the enemy's sudden appearance.