Cain Marko wrote:I understand what you are saying Viv, and also get the point that a jsf would be your favorite for an import.
The F-35 yes of course. Easily more survivable. But in that specific penetration role,
also the PAK FA and J-20.
Fact of the matter is, low level ingress is a very dicey proposition even before you factor in the enemy's air assets. The RAF Tornados serve as an apt example, sustaining heavy losses in 1991 before switching exclusively to high altitude PGMs (in 2003). The Tornados were doing low-level automated flight profiles,
years before the Rafale with just as much payload and range.
WAR IN THE GULF: R.A.F.; British Pilots' Risky Mission: Low-Level Raids on Airfields -
January 25, 1991
DHAHRAN, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 24— They fly the most dangerous mission of the air war against Iraq, these daring young British pilots, most in their 20's, who must skim over Iraqi territory just a few dozen feet above the desert sands and try to bomb well-defended airfields.
So far, 10 of the Tornado bomber airmen have died or are missing; 6 of the planes have been shot down over enemy territory or crashed. That compares with 15 planes lost by the much larger American bomber fleet.
Another two-man Tornado crew disappeared today when its plane went down over Iraqi territory.
"The margin for error is very small," said Group Capt. Bill Hedges, detachment commander of Tornado bombers flying from bases in western Saudi Arabia. "Some of the American planes are a mile up. We are flying at 100 feet in the face of antiaircraft fire in darkness. There is no time to recover."
He spoke of his admiration for pilots "climbing into those cockpits to undertake what are patently the most hazardous tasks of the war so far."
Target: Iraqi Runways
The Tornados have been given such a difficult and dangerous mission because that is just what they were designed for, to attack the most important, best-protected targets behind enemy lines.
Britain has sent at least 36 Tornados to the Persian Gulf. The planes have been supplied with an extraordinary cargo, the British-made JP-233 cluster bomb, which can disable an Iraqi airfield by leaving dozens of large craters in the runway.
"Our bombs have dropped very accurately and we have done a lot of damage to Iraqi airfields and seriously restricted the operation of their aircraft," Group Captain Hedges told a pool of British journalists organized by the British Defense Ministry. Their reports were made available to American news organizations.
A senior British commander, Air Vice Marshal Bill Wratten, said earlier this week that the Royal Air Force had expected even higher losses in its low-flying missions over Iraqi airspace.
"Low flying is an inherently dangerous business," he said of the Tornado missions. "Our young air crews are all experiencing conflict for the first time in their lives and nobody told them, and nobody expected it to be easy, and it is certainly not."
Working in Silence
Because their missions are carried out in such well-defended areas of Iraq, the Tornados do their work in total radio silence, from takeoff until the moment the crews return to friendly airspace, to foil Iraqi air defense.
For Tornado squadron commanders, that means a nerve-racking wait until their radios crackle with word from the crews that they have returned safely from Iraq. "It can be a hair-raising experience, but the crews soon get used to it," said Group Captain Hedges, who oversees No. 16 and No. 20 Squadrons.
Flying close to the ground leaves almost no room for error, and much of a Tornado pilot's work must be completed before he leaves the ground.
For the most part, the bomber flies itself on instructions from a small spool of computer tape inserted into a slot on the instrument panel just before flight time.
The tape contains everything from the flight plan to a map of Iraqi air defenses near the target air field. The navigation system is so precise that each bombing mission is timed with a margin of error of 10 seconds or less.
"The computer is central to the Tornado's night-flying capability and is the main reason our low-level bombing missions have been so successful," Group Captain Hedges said.
As they skim across the desert floor, the Tornado's pilot and navigator watch anxiously on a computer screen to make sure the disk has been programmed properly, and that Iraqi warplanes are nowhere nearby.
"On the first night, I suppose my enduring memory would be of being uncomfortable -- I don't know if that's how fear manifests itself," said Flight Lieut. Paul Smyth, a 29-year-old Tornado navigator who has flown five combat missions over Iraqi territory, all at night.
"There is a realization that I was a long way across the border, and if I was going to come down, there was going to be a hostile reception."
Be that as it may, and your points notwithstanding, the IAF still sets store by the fast and low bit...consider that their jags performed exceptionally well in their last alaskan outing. The IMs did well against the usn carriers as well. Of course exercises have their own roe, but the point remains that the iaf considers this mode very effective. And while range and speed become an issue in this flight profile, the raffle still comes out on top when it comes to this vs. The jags or mirage and possibly even mki. The tfr modes come to play right here for SA not to mention the range plus payload.The iaf does not have the vast array of stand off pgms like the usaf nor does it have the stealth platforms with the necessary support platforms. It makes do with what it can, and for them the raffle is IT.
CM, the fact that the IAF is trying to re-engine the Jaguar for more thrust suggests it recognizes the limitations of the Jaguar's low-level optimized design and needs to mitigate that with better performance at altitude.
Also, given what we're willing to spend on this deal, I don't why money would be an issue when it comes to investing in stealth or stand-off weaponry.
Re. Osf...the ng is on offer, the original had issues.
Re. Nose size, if the osf is taken out, it'll have a large enough space for a decent dish, but they continue with the osf.
- I'm fairly certain the plan to develop an OSF-NG was junked years ago. Only the basic OSF-IT with the TV channel is planned for the F3R.
- The radar antenna is limited by the dimensions of the nose. OSF is not an issue. Its a bit of add-on kit that can be installed/removed in the field.
I'm no expert here, but my guess is that a maws' work against an iir missile is not very easy...especially if you are not using a laser rangefinder and have no idea that a missile is on its way. There will be no missile warning unless the plume is somehow detected, and this is difficult.
The LRF is designed to complement the primary IRST. MAWS on the other hand works the same way irrespective whether the incoming missile is IIR or EM. Usually operates in the UV/IR spectrum but can also function as an active EM set (as in the Eurofighter). In terms of its reach, there's no reason to think and IIR-based MAWS' range would be very much lower than the range of a missile's IIR seeker.
Its actually the RWR alarm that a IR seeker will keep from triggering (not the MAWS).
Mehh..
I think its more like a Viper Blk 60 on steroids (better EW suite, better payload, better maneuverability but nothing revolutionary).
Be that as it may, in most competitions against a variety of fighters, from the gripen to the f15, the French bird has often made it to the top in technical evaluations. More importantly, it did so in the iafs eyes.
Yes, but then wouldn't you
expect a Blk 60 on steroids to be better than its fellow 4.5 gen fighters? I know
I would. But that still doesn't make it a good deal, not at a 5th gen price point.
