123 replies to this topic

[DerKrieger]

From what I've heard, the F-15SE is a relatively inexpensive fighter offered to nations that can't afford/are not allowed to buy the F-22 but want an advanced air superiority fighter. It does have greater range, is more useful vs. aircraft and is less expensive than the F-35. It's basically Boeing trying to challenge the F-35 and take advantage of the current laws against exporting the F-22.

[CommanderJB]

While it's true Boeing is attempting to undercut the F-35, the troubles are twofold.
Firstly, the F-15SE is not a fifth generation fighter and thus cannot operate in areas of heavy SAM threat or against upcoming competitor aircraft such as the PAK FA, J-XX, FGFA or indeed the F-35, so it's not of much use to a customer that expects to need forces capable of confronting equipment operated by or lent from Russia, China, the United States, India, and possibly Japan and South Korea (which comes out to be pretty much everyone).
Secondly the price of an F-15SE is given as $100 million US, including training, parts, spares and maintenance. Even allowing a (very generous) $20 million for the non-airframe costs, the F-15SE still comes in at considerably higher than the $58 million US quoted by Lockheed Martin as the 'flyaway' price for the JSF for partner nations (but not, interestingly, the United States). It should be noted that I regard LM's claims of providing JSFs to partner nations at a cost of $58 million in 2007-year dollars when the US pays the actual cost and covers the rest as complete and utter baloney to put it lightly. They say it works like this: that the USAF buy their low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft at the cost it takes to produce them (over $200 million for the first aircraft, lessening to $100 million for the first large batches and down to $70 million by the end of LRIP) and subsidise partner nations so they can procure the exact same aircraft at only $58 million. The idea is that the US helping subsidise people convinces them to get LRIP aircraft; due to the economy of scale effect, the more you produce the cheaper they are to build, and because the US will be producing JSFs long after everyone else is done it's in their interests to get long-term costs down as fast as possible. It's still rubbish as it means the US will be paying three times what they need to pay to get a single fighter for them and half a fighter for everyone else during LRIP - it might as well just buy them itself and not need to get other ones at full-rate later.
It's all ridiculous, but it's a topic of no small interest to me and Australia (what with us basing our entire future air combat capability on the thing as we have) and I've been arguing it at length recently on another forum. Anyway, back to the F-15SE, what this means is that if nations believe what LM is telling them about fixed costs for an aircraft 5% of its way through testing (and, on the whole, they do) there is no reason for them to even bother looking at the F-15SE. Moreover, given the low-observable features and advanced AESA fitted to the Silent Eagle, I doubt that the US Government will people it won't let buy the Lighting II get the F-15SE instead - and even if it did, I'd sure as hell feel snubbed about only being allowed to get a second-best product if I were the nation involved, and probably start casting eyes in the direction of the PAK FA, which by that time should be flying and showing promise (and is already cleared for full license production in India). And the F-15 is going to be up against the F-35 in just about all of its prospective markets - Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, the lot. I'd be very interested to see if they get sales, but frankly, I think LM has all the cards with this one. The F-35 may not be as fast as the F-15SE, but the former holds all the cards over the latter in air combat given its stealth. It's that simple.

Edited by CommanderJB, 20 March 2009 - 01:07.

[Cuppa]

What are your thoughts on the think tank Air Power Australia?

[CommanderJB]

News just in: Lockheed Martin divulges critical performance characteristics of the F-22!

Quote

Lockheed Martin Divulges Critical F22 Raptor Technical Details

Wed, 01 Apr '09
Admits F-22 Actually Propelled by 'Sheer Awesomeness'

AN APRIL 1st "SPECIAL" EDITION: Lockheed-Martin has held yet another press conference in order to attempt to explain the amazing flight characteristics of its star military fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor, and avoid the program's possible termination.

"We have explained repeatedly that the F-22 does not violate any laws of nature." says Lockheed spokesperson George Heeber, continuing his policy of insisting the F-22 is a "normal" jet.

Despite the consistent story of aerodynamics and gimbal-mounted engines being responsible, even experienced aviators observing the F-22 in flight have been known to express disbelief.

"No (deleted) way!"

"Unbelievable!"

"Are you going to finish that hotdog?"

Those are just some of the comments heard at a recent air show in Pensacola, where the F-22 powered through slipping and skidding turns, looped around its lateral axis, and recovered from flat spins before teleporting back to Earth and curing the common cold while it was at it.

In fact, several independent studies of the aircraft have revealed that more than just jet fuel is required to power the F-22 through its amazing aerobatics.

"They'll try to throw around buzzwords like 'thrust-vectoring' and 'particle physics' but the truth is that it's just forced forward by the sheer density of the arrogance behind it," so says totally jealous French aerospace engineer Jean Fornier.

According to sources at Lockheed-Martin, this is accomplished when the arrogance emitter--located directly aft of the aircraft's yoke--activates the "freaking sweet" avionics (a recently upgraded milspec variant on its prior fly-by-wire system).

"At that point the arrogance explodes violently out of the aircraft's exhaust ports, creating this... this Trail of Awesome," says rookie engineer Sean Phillips, who doesn't know not to talk to reporters -- says an anonymous source.

"It's the sheer awesomeness of it that holds it up in the air."

The science is cutting-edge, as the world has come to expect from the Skunk-works, but the real secret is in the fuel, says Lockheed-Martin sanitation engineer Jim Orlen. "I see them every day preparing the Hydrazine like normal," he whispers, wide-eyed, "but then…at the end," (as he lowers his voice conspiratorially), "they pour tons of taxpayer dollars in it."

"Dude, like, TONS."

I lol'ed. Hard.

Also Cuppa I'll get to your answer as soon as I can, but I'm afraid that it'll be kind of in-depth, so I've refrained from posting it so far with RL going bonkers.

Edited by CommanderJB, 01 April 2009 - 06:24.

[BeefJeRKy]

¡p,lol ı

[Pav:3d]

lmao very funny

[tank50us]

It certainly seems like an interesting fighter, and being based on the F-15E design, I doubt there would be much in the way of cross over training for countries already operating the Strike Eagle (or whatever it's called by other nations). Also, spare parts wouldn't be hard to come by in a pinch, since I'll bet most critical internal components, like the engines, will be compatible with this new fighter. And, I'll bet that Boeing (if they're smart) will offer a "Trade-in" program where if a country already operating the Strike Eagle brings in X# of planes for trade, they'll receive the same number Silent Eagles at a lower price since Boeing can "recycle" the airframes, and offer them to other countries looking for a cheap, but highly effective airforce. Granted yeah, the planes would be Refurbished, but their lower cost then what they would be brand new isn't bad when you want something with a proven record. (no F-15 has ever lost an air-to-air engagement [real, not simulated], and can take an enormous amount of punishment before being destroyed, just ask Zivi Nedivi and his co-pilot). To me, the F15SE has potential, lets not dis it before it can prove it's metal.

[CommanderJB]

Cuppa, on 27 Mar 2009, 7:51, said:

What are your thoughts on the think tank Air Power Australia?

Okay, well that was about the longest I've ever taken to reply to anyone's post. Apologies, I postponed it and completely forgot about it.
Right, so, APA. They're a clever enough bunch but they have an axe to grind that's so large they can barely lift it, and moreover they've buried themselves in the filings.
(For those of you not familiar with Air Power Australia, they are a group of Aussie military aviation enthusiasts with a record of blasting RAAF acquisition processes, who publish comprehensive in-house assessments of regional weapons systems and the systems that Australia does field/plans to field/has the option of fielding against them, with an emphasis on fighter jets).
What I mean by this is that Dr. Carlo Kopp in particular is a very smart man. He's much better qualified than almost any aviation journalist you'll come across to commentate on developments in the aviation field. Thus the factual data he presents and basic premises of his arguments bear serious consideration in an argument IMO. The problem is that if he was ever allowed near an F-22, they'd be holding the wedding that afternoon, whereas he'd be put in a federal prison after a few minutes left alone in a hangar with an F-35 for vandalism of defence property, accomplished with his teeth if he had to. He's also an avid fan of the F-111C, but it's his love for the Raptor that really knows no bounds; and conversely, he simply doesn't think that the F-35 is going to be a viable weapons platform for a number of reasons, most of them revolving around the fact that it doesn't really fit the classical model of a high-performance jet fighter. Both of these points have a solid basis in fact, but he is extremely selective when presenting his case and will often assume the absolute worst scenario for the F-35 and best scenario for its opponents, then use this comparison (with highly iffy data for both) to build a picture of complete Lighting II inferiority. Much the same held true for his former pet hate, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. He is also sadly a master of basing an entire analysis on a speculation; nowhere is this more obvious than his latest hatchet-job on the Lightning II, which takes RCS figures for the F-22, F-35, Su-35 and PAK FA and builds an entire argument on logical conclusions drawn from these when in reality we don't know any of these and most likely won't for a very considerably number of years. They're totally and completely speculative.
Anyway, I would sum APA up thus: make sure to read their work, take careful note of what is fact and what is not, acknowledge their points, then ignore their conclusions and draw your own. They are not, as many Lockheed Martin fanatics would have you believe, totally discredited scum of the Earth; but neither should you ever take anything they conclude for granted without doing a little independent analysis acknowledging that whatever they say is twisted through a filter of promoting the F-22/F-111 and panning the F-35/F/A-18.
Also, w00t for 3000th post.

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 April 2009 - 11:15.

[JJ]

Hmm, a question that popped up in my mind.

How well does placing explosive charges like C4 on a tank work? You see it in many games, but I'm not sure if it is capable of destroying tanks.

[Razven]

Well, you can slap a C4 or chuck it onto the rear of the tank (right behind the turret) and hope it blows out the engine block. But given how modern tanks seem to survive HUGE IED blasts, chances are the crew will survive, unless you're talking about a Cold War era tank or a light tank.

[CommanderJB]

The fact that it doesn't happen an awful lot shows you that it's really not that great of an idea, mostly because tanks will rarely if ever expose themselves in such a way as to allow an unnoticed close approach by enemy infantrymen. Typically they'll either be charging along at forty kilometres per hour in the open, in which case the bomb-planter will need very long legs, or, when deployed in a city, be deployed so as to cover each other and often operate alongside infantry teams who will award any opportunistic demoman with a short burst of rifle fire.
If one did hypothetically get through it's hard to say. So much of damage effects to tanks is situational that I can't really give any universal projections (and keep in mind that you should never take anything I say as gospel because it is all second or third hand and often depends on who I've been listening to and reading lately). I would have to say though that it would depend entirely on the size of the charge, the composition of the charge, where you put it on the tank, which tank you're putting it on, whether it stays where you put it (a bundle of C4 would actually be very difficult to stick to a very large rumbling and moving metal object, and no, magnets won't cut it very well). You could probably score a mobility kill against a tank in a street with a satchel charge, but when you could put the same explosive in an EFP instead and take the thing out altogether there's no reason why you'd want to. Keep in mind that the modern composites used for the actual armour on the turret and hull will have in places better strength than a metre of rolled steel. Putting a backpack of C4 against that wouldn't work too well in the open and while I really, really wouldn't want to test my theory out personally, the only IEDs that have actually resulted in tank kills are heavier than your average satchel charge will ever be.
So, put simply, it would be extremely difficult in real life and far from guaranteed to work. AT mines, ATGWs and heavy RPGs are the real way for infantry to combat tanks. That or their radio.

[tank50us]

Although a mobility kill might be the best option in some situations. Take Saving Private Ryan as a good example. While the scenario IS fictional, it does showcase a reason to go for a M-Kill. If you are able to force a tank into a narrow street, close to an object that they must use (like an intact bridge over a river), then infantry storming out of the building to plant C4/TNT on the tracks is a viable option for creating an instant 60ton road block. At which point, if you're lucky, you may be able to capture the tank, and turn it against it's former owners. While I'm not sure if this has ever been done in history, but it is still a good idea, and a very viable option. As for clearing out the infantry protecting the tanks rear, all you need to do is place several Claymore Mines and set them to detonate simultaneously on command. once those claymores go off, any infantry units in the blast will be either dead, seriously wounded, or too disoriented to fight back.

[Katmoda12]

I'm not sure this is the right place to post it but I thought this was a hot thread so i could get my answer quicker.

I fail to understand the RL difference in utilization of some of the rocket7missile artillery of russian army.

I'm making a little scheme about what i understood, tell me if i'm wrong or not.

Currently there are 3 type of rocket/missile artyllery:

-Rocket artillery: with the pssibility to fire a lot of volley in a row and with a limit range of about 90 km (bm-30 Smerch)

-Tactical ballistic missile: with a range of less than 300 km, with just one of two missile (Iskander)

-Theatre ballistic missile: with a range between 300 and 3500 km, with just one missile and an heavy payload.


I'm also listing some of russian counterparts form the oldest to the newest:

-Rocket artillery: Bm-8/13/31 Katyusha;Bm-21 Grad;Bm-27 Uragan,Bm-30 Smerch

-Tactical ballistic missile: Scud; Iskander-E/M

-Theatre ballistic missile: Latest version of the scud;guessing anyone?

Here i fails to proper understand the function of armament system like FROG-7 or OTR-21 Tochka, They are rocket artillery or tactical ballistic missiles with very short range?

I know that during the cold war the division between missiles was short/medium/intermediate range/intercontinental missiles So i'm guessing they were numbered between the short range category.

Edited by Katmoda12, 21 May 2009 - 12:02.

[CommanderJB]

The most important thing to notice about all the systems you've outlined is that they are all under the control of the Ground Forces. Thus they're all designed to work in tandem with a conventional deployment; they're also all conventionally-armed. Thus categories one and two are indeed different levels of rocket artillery.
Your third category, that of the theatre ballistic missile, is not correct. This class of weapons, along with the ground-launched cruise missile, was eliminated at the end of the Cold War under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The key systems dismantled and destroyed under INF were the Russian RSD-10 Pioneer (NATO reporting name SS-20 'Saber') medium-range ballistic missile, R-400 Oka (SS-23 'Spider') theatre ballistic missile and RK-55 Granat (SSC-X-5 'Slingshot') ground-launched cruise missile. In response, the United States destroyed its Pershing II MRBMs and BGM-109G GLCM Tomahawk systems. The SS-20, like all MR and ICBMs, was under the control of the Strategic Rocket Forces and is thus not really an artillery system at all, but rather a system for the systematic and selective removal of NATO bases from Europe if and when they deployed nuclear weapons against the Warsaw Pact. There is no modern medium or theatre ballistic missile in service with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces (which is now comprised solely of ICBMs) or Ground Forces (the longest-ranged system of which is the Iskander).

The Luna-M (FROG-7) is a bit of an anachronism as it is a left-over from the Soviet days yet to be phased out as there has so far been no complete replacement. These are not uncommon; the garrison on Sakhalin Island only recently got new T-80s - to replace its T-55s! It is most akin to a version of the Smerch that uses one rocket instead of several; it fires on a flat trajectory and was intended to destroy a large area such as a base or troop concentration. It could, naturally, also be nuclear-armed.

The OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21 'Scarab') is sort-of-but-not-quite another anachronism. It's probably going to be phased out by the much more modern Iskander, but it's also far cheaper and around in significant quantity. It's designed to deliver extremely heavy firepower onto fixed targets mostly - just as it did when they used them to level market squares and hospitals in Grozny. As such it's a long-range bombardment weapon which is really just artillery but with a longer reach and more explosives at a time. It was also used in South Ossetia recently.

Lastly, the R-17/300 Elbrus (SS-1 'Scud-B') - or any other variant of the design - is no longer used by the Russian military, having been phased out due to their age, inaccuracy, low warhead weight and particularly the fact that it is a liquid-fuelled weapon that is very difficult to support and maintain in the field and is very vulnerable while preparing to launch. Don't believe Generals! You wouldn't want to be driving around with a fuelled Scud on your TEL...

It should be noted that the Iskander could reach a theoretical maximum of a 500km range, but this would violate the INF Treaty. The Russian Army version reaches about 400km, but they had to downgrade the export version to 280km to comply with treaty requirements. There is also a variant called the Iskander-K, which is a GLCM TEL, but this would be in direct violation of INF so it has, so far, remained on the drawing boards. They have, however, made a variant fitted with tubes for the Klub anti-ship cruise missile as a coastal defence system, so it would be an easy conversion.

[Katmoda12]

Thank you fro your answer commanderJB.
As always you've been very precise in your explanation.
I've nothing to add.

[Razven]

The worrisome bit is that one can never know how much modification is needed before it would step over the treaty and whether or not they are even stating the maximum range or underestimating it.

[CommanderJB]

As to the modification, in some cases, not a lot, really. In fact I've seen statements that suggest that the only thing inhibiting the range of the export version of the Iskander is effectively a software lock and the amount of fuel loaded during missile construction (being solid-fuelled it is delivered from the plant as a complete round, requiring no in-the-field maintenance of any kind). Modifications to boost the maximum range of the regular version would be more difficult; keep in mind that the Iskander had the treaty requirements in mind for its design, so there was no point building a design capable of violating INF when it would just have to be handicapped anyway. As a result the Iskander has a 'drawback' in that its missiles are small so it can fit two on each TEL - this is not really a drawback at all as it doubles quick-reaction salvo capability and still complies with treaty obligations - but the manufacturer's theoretical maximum of an extension to 500km is probably fairly honest.

[tank50us]

irc, didn't the Russians convert allot of their Scud launchers to airport/airbase fire-fighting vehicles?

[CommanderJB]

I don't know if they converted them, but the same chassis, the MAZ-543, has certainly proven useful for that role with its superb carrying capacity:

ICBM tractors don't always come in useful for a lot - they're a bit big for most roads - but as mobile ICBM batteries need fuel and tech support in the field, the fairly single-purpose chassis have proven useful in the development of support vehicles for the missile TELs themselves. Since the engine on one of these things makes those from most other vehicles look like toys from the engineering play-pen, a battery's worth of them has fuel requirements to match, and as the fuel has to keep pace with the missiles they came up with the engineering and fuel vehicle 15T382 in response:

So yeah, there's sometimes quite a lot that can be done with a mega-truck.

Edited by CommanderJB, 05 June 2009 - 13:20.

[tank50us]

I guess in a way it beats the hell out of setting up the launchers on rails (something that North Korea is supposedly doing). While you don't have to worry about moving the whole package from point A to B (since it's all part of the same freaking train), one does have to worry about the hotshot American Pilot in an F-22 that's carrying a couple SDBs that happens to connect the dots about the rails, the train, and the trains cargo. Those TEL trucks, can hide themselves in a typical tunnel. But still... we have a way of getting them even when they hide there....

[CommanderJB]

Not necessarily - in fact, rail launchers are regarded as some of the most difficult for military intelligence services to track, particularly in the case of the Soviet Union. The entire point of rail-mobile ICBMs is that they are designed so they cannot be differentiated from normal civilian rail traffic. Try differentiating this:

From a freight car from orbit and you begin to get an idea of how difficult tracing rail-mobile ICBM squadrons and regiments is. Obviously their basing structures are fairly easy to find, but once they disperse on quick-reaction alert across an area the size of Russia with literally thousands of possible targets that they are near impossible to distinguish from and you've got problems. The problem would be significantly smaller in North Korea's case given their much smaller rail network and the increased capabilities of aerial surveillance since rail-mobile batteries were first deployed, but at least you can still tell an ICBM tractor from a regular freight truck.

[CommanderJB]

This isn't a real update, much as I'd like to do one, but I thought this image of Su-35 904 under construction was a very interesting one:

904 is, or rather was, only the third flying airframe of the new Su-35 (Su-35BM to give it its more precise name, but it's now generally accepted as just the Su-35, with the old Su-35 with canards being relegated to basically an Su-27M, which is more accurate anyway). This is it in final assembly at the Kosomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Organisation (or KnAAPO in common parlance, which is still a bit of a mouthful but definitely shorter) only weeks before its intended first flight. Unfortunately, last month, during taxi testing a bug in the flight control system software for the 117S engines sent one engine into full military power (throttle-to-the-stops 'dry' thrust, or thrust without afterburner) while the other one remained on minimum or idle. The pilot, one of Sukhoi's most experienced test pilots named Yevgenny Frolov, tried all methods - emergency shut-down, brakes, extinguishers et cetera - but the engine wouldn't close down. As a result the aircraft shot off the end of the runway and Frolov had to eject moments before it hit a ground obstacle and burst into flames. The wreckage also damaged a guard post, giving the unlucky guard within a heart attack, but fortunately he is recovering in hospital and the pilot escaped with only minor injuries. 904 was burned to a crisp and is totally unsalvageable. For a programme with a flawless test record of over one-hundred flights from airframes 901 and 902, this was a surprise to say the least, but fortunately the aircraft was insured and 902 can pick up the slack in the testing schedule.
A regrettable story, but I still think the picture's interesting (not least because it shows well just how large a Flanker is)!

[tank50us]

hmm... that paint scheme against that background almost makes it look like the Aurora from Generals. But still, that had to suck though when 904 malfunctioned, 30,000,000 US bucks gone, up in smoke (literally)

[CommanderJB]

Given the fact that it was a pre-production aircraft that also had a brand-new Irbis-E radar from NIIP installed and was trialling changes to the thrust-vectoring and FCS of the 117S engines, I'd estimate that you'd be looking at much more than thirty million - I'd say closer to sixty and maybe even up to eighty or more. Fighter jets are ridiculously expensive to construct in small numbers; they scale like almost nothing else. Fortunately, however, the aircraft was insured, so while it will definitely impact their flight test programme, it shouldn't leave a gaping hole in the budget. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few terse words exchanged between Sukhoi/KnAAPO and NPO Saturn, though.

Edited by CommanderJB, 22 June 2009 - 04:47.