Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Sancho]

Some important fighter metrics:

1. RCS & IR signature
2. Avionics & sensors
3. Combat payload
4. Combat range
5. No. of integrated weapons

I might post a first comparison between Gripen C and E later, still gathering more Infos on the F16.

RCS/IR signature are too much speculation, since nobody can contribute reliable sources for that. Trying to find reliable sources for radar diameter or TR modules now too, but I want to avoid speculative criterias.
Combat range, if official figures are available, but as I said earlier, it always depends on the specific config or the approach, ferry range might be simpler to find and to rate.
Mission loads will ne added for sure, but I need to find an appropriate base for comparison first.

 

[asianobserve]

I might post a first comparison between Gripen C and E later, still gathering more Infos on the F16.

RCS/IR signature are too much speculation, since nobody can contribute reliable sources for that. Trying to find reliable sources for radar diameter or TR modules now too, but I want to avoid speculative criterias.
Combat range, if official figures are available, but as I said earlier, it always depends on the specific config or the approach, ferry range might be simpler to find and to rate.
Mission loads will ne added for sure, but I need to find an appropriate base for comparison first.

It is always going to be difficult to compare fighter since their true specs are mostly confidential.

 

[Armand2REP]

Some important fighter metrics:

1. RCS
2. IR signature
3. Avionics & sensors
4. Combat payload
5. Combat range
6. No. of integrated weapons

According to that metric the Rafale is a better fighter than the F-22.

1. RCS = F-22
2. IR signature = Rafale
3. Avionics and sensors = Rafale
4. Combat payload = Rafale
5. Combat range = Rafale
6. No. of weapons = Rafale

 

[Immanuel]

Since it's MTOW puts it their, which is the criteria to distinguish fighters or helicopters in weight classes.



That's the aim for the procurement cost in some years, the operational cost per hour however is far higher, since it's difficult to maintain a stealth fighter.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-u-s-militarys-fighter-fleet-infographic/amp/

As you can see, the F35A is 20.000 Dollar costlier per hour than an F16C. Add that for the high flying hours IAF has and to the requirement of 114 fighters and you have a significant cost difference. Not to mention that even Rafale would be cheaper and therfore more affordable.

Please man, we are fighting with them for proper ToT for basic stuff like Javelin ATGMs, the M777 howitzer or decades old F16s and you think we would get it for their highest tech weapon system? Also only partner nations of the F35 programme itself, or close partners get parts of assemblies and India is none of those.

So as said before, neither is it available to India, nor does it fit to the cost and industrial requirements of the MMRCA / SE MMRCA tenders.

In Javelin deal had India asking for 100% TOT, US finally came down to 97% except providing seeker related tech. That said Javelin still didn't make it.

As for the operational cost of the F-35 will slowly come down to around 16-18K range as deliveries pick up. It is silly to assume that if India acquired around 100-200 F-35s local assembly wouldn't come along. We'd end up being one of the largest operators outside the US, that kind of order gives a lot of leverage. Heck if a G2G deal is what we would seek for such an order quantity of 114+ we would be talking about a proper line with a good amount of local content. Also assuming we still don't sign CISMOA, the aircraft's IFF, Comms, Datalinks, satcom etc would be from India.

 

[Vinod DX9]

Seeker thing I don't know...but rather it was algorithm of guidance which I know. Besides, the main reason why the deal (Javelin replaced by SPIKE, but if Javelin would win contract, that too would face same fate) was scrapped because NAG did ultimately what both Javelin & Spike failed to do.

So it's better that HAL readies Tejas Mk II and readies it fast so that only HAL gets order ....in meanwhile we can procure 3-4 sqrdns of foreign jets only as a stop gap measures...

 

[Sancho]

It is always going to be difficult to compare fighter since their true specs are mostly confidential.

Of course, that's why I want to avoid those criteria and focus on know or visible capabilities.

For example, based on size, used materials or ducted intakes, it is likely that the Gripen has a lower RCS than the F16. But there is no reliable figure available to rate that properly. Gripen C was often estimated with 1/10th or less than an F16, but that also gives you only a broad idea.
On the other hand, we can find out what sensors both fighters have, what technical capabilities and advantages these sensors offer, which then can be rated too.

 

[Sancho]

In Javelin deal had India asking for 100% TOT, US finally came down to 97% except providing seeker related tech. That said Javelin still didn't make it.

Lol, another bogus claim. It was widely reported that the US rejected critical tech transfer, that and the higher costs, lead to the selection of Spike. And didn't the recent row about an alleged F35 offer made it clear once and for all? F35 is not on offer for India, even off the shelf, let alone in an assembly or licence production deal. Not to mention that the operational costs don't go down over time, but actually increase, because of higher demands of the fighter after upgrades. That's why later models of the same fighter, tend to have higher operational costs, than newer once. You might confuse the procurement costs.

 

[kalakaar]

1. RCS = F-22
2. IR signature = Rafale

This is absolutely incorrect.
In both the cases the F22 has advantage.

It's a proven and experimental result that circular nozzles have more IR signature than flat nozzles for similar amount of thrust and fuel composition.

It's only the agility which Rafale has as per my view due to it's delta wing and unstable flight profile.

 

[Armand2REP]

This is absolutely incorrect.
In both the cases the F22 has advantage.

It's a proven and experimental result that circular nozzles have more IR signature than flat nozzles for similar amount of thrust and fuel composition.

It's only the agility which Rafale has as per my view due to it's delta wing and unstable flight profile.

Oh really.................??

 

[kalakaar]

Oh really.................??

It looks pretty clear that rafale was shot while landing and F22 video was shot while throttling up.

 

[Armand2REP]

It looks pretty clear that rafale was shot while landing and F22 video was shot while throttling up.

The picture of it in the thumbnail isn't landing.

 

[kalakaar]

The picture of it in the thumbnail isn't landing.

The picture in the thumbnail is night time IR, one can easily notice. For all Aircrafts night time IR is way different than taken in the afternoon. More over it's just a single photo taken randomly.
When we carry out such experiments, we measure the outside temperature, the wind chill, the intensity of sun light in Candela and the time of flight/experiment, total duration of flight before capturing the IR signature.

 

[Sancho]

@Babloo Singh @asianobserve

I started the first ratings and included integrated/planned capabilities and loads of Gripen NG/E and the F16 Block 70.

The rating as mentioned earlier, should be applied to different fighters with the same rating base, that's why it will include capabilities of modern fighters, that neither Gripen E or the F16 might have. The more difference a certain capability makes, the higher the score, but I'm open for suggestions.

For the weapon loads, I checked infographics for the load out at each station, as well as original pics of weapon loads of operational fighters in similar roles:

It should be no surprise, that the F16 with it's good number of hardpoints and CFTs to further increase weapon and fuel loads, beats the Gripen clearly in this part. Whenever a fighter can load 1 or 2 more weapons or fuel tanks above the standard load, 1 point was added, 3 to 4 above the standard, 2 points. Anything above that, should be MKI level of loads with the highest ratings of 4 points.

However, I'm still working on radar, avionics, EW, as well as some flight performance spec ratings, as you guys suggested.
For the earlier, rating the integrated jammers and RWRs is tricky, any idea what a good criteria to distinguish them would be?

For flight performance, I am looking at ferry and combat range, maximum speed, G limits, or ceiling, since those specs are often shared by the manufacturer, or operators. If anybody has official sources for the F16 B52 and above, would be happy to see them.


Improvements and corrections are much appreciated! Trying to develop the comparison model just out of personal interest and took the SE participants as a starting point.

 

[Babloo Singh]

@Babloo Singh @asianobserve

I started the first ratings and included integrated/planned capabilities and loads of Gripen NG/E and the F16 Block 70.

The rating as mentioned earlier, should be applied to different fighters with the same rating base, that's why it will include capabilities of modern fighters, that neither Gripen E or the F16 might have. The more difference a certain capability makes, the higher the score, but I'm open for suggestions.

For the weapon loads, I checked infographics for the load out at each station, as well as original pics of weapon loads of operational fighters in similar roles:

It should be no surprise, that the F16 with it's good number of hardpoints and CFTs to further increase weapon and fuel loads, beats the Gripen clearly in this part. Whenever a fighter can load 1 or 2 more weapons or fuel tanks above the standard load, 1 point was added, 3 to 4 above the standard, 2 points. Anything above that, should be MKI level of loads with the highest ratings of 4 points.

However, I'm still working on radar, avionics, EW, as well as some flight performance spec ratings, as you guys suggested.
For the earlier, rating the integrated jammers and RWRs is tricky, any idea what a good criteria to distinguish them would be?

For flight performance, I am looking at ferry and combat range, maximum speed, G limits, or ceiling, since those specs are often shared by the manufacturer, or operators. If anybody has official sources for the F16 B52 and above, would be happy to see them.


Improvements and corrections are much appreciated! Trying to develop the comparison model just out of personal interest and took the SE participants as a starting point.

This is shaping well, My few suggestions
1. RCS Stealth should be may be 8-10 points, and we should have point scale from 1-5 for efficient RCS design.
In the current system a Su 30 & Rafale will get same points for RSC or even J-17 & Gripen will also get same points.
2. We need to have points for Radar & Sensors. In cases where we have confusion we can go generally accepted norms.... I mean AESA is better between 2 different AESA radars there is normally accepted views which one is better.. if not clear we can give same points to both.
3. Since collecting data is most important part, we need to have in mind that at later stage the comparison will go to which aircraft is better for what role & even within what range so keep adding columns in your file even if it's of no use as of now.

In case you need help, I and I am sure many others can join this effort through Google docs.

 

[Sancho]

This is shaping well, My few suggestions
1. RCS Stealth should be may be 8-10 points, and we should have point scale from 1-5 for efficient RCS design.
In the current system a Su 30 & Rafale will get same points for RSC or even J-17 & Gripen will also get same points.

As I said, we don't have reliable infos to differentiate the exact RCS of Gripen E and F16, that's why I avoided RCS estimates, by judging the aim of reduction by the "design" only. A fighter that is "designed" with a stealth airframe, therfore is evidently better, than a conventional design with external loads.

2. We need to have points for Radar & Sensors. In cases where we have confusion we can go generally accepted norms.... I mean AESA is better between 2 different AESA radars there is normally accepted views which one is better.. if not clear we can give same points to both.

Yes I have that part too and the radar comparison is actually easier, by judging the technology, the nose diameter and the possible Field of Regard, that each fighter offers.
My problem remains the EW part. The F16s latest EW upgrades include ALQ 187 internal jammers and ALR 93 RWRs, which should be the base for the Block 70 too. However I couldn't find reliable infos on what technology they are based on (AESA?), or how to compare them at best to Gripen E's counterparts.

which aircraft is better for what role & even within what range

That's too complicated, because it would not only include the loadouts, but also would require infos on fuel consumption with different weights and high or low level flights, which are not available in public domain.

The mission loadouts show, standard configs for such a mission, I also added infos on the fuel that usually would be carried and if hardpoints are free to carry more loads if required.
For example, Gripen E and the F16 could carry 2 x Spice 2000 with at least 2 fuel tanks (twice the capability of the upgraded Mirage 2000). The F16 however could add more fuel to extend the range even further if needed. That makes it more useful in deep strikes, but equally capable for targets in the medium ranges.

In case you need help, I and I am sure many others can join this effort through Google docs.

Thanks, but at this point I am limiting it to the SE fighters only and to set up basic parameters for the comparison, that can be reliably verified. If that is done, I might start an own thread to compare different fighters under the same parameters, if that's allowed and if there is interest. Then more data or a source collection might be interesting for sure.

 

[Sancho]

Slovakia in talks to buy either F-16s or Gripen fighter jets

Slovakia's defense ministry said on Friday it was in talks to buy either American F-16s or Swedish Gripen fighter jets to replace its aging Russian-made MiG-29s.

The ministry said it would submit an analysis of the two options by June 29 for government approval.

Slovakia, a member of NATO, has a maintenance contract with Russia for its 12 MiG-29s until autumn 2019. That contract may need to be extended even if the government agrees to buy new jets by the end of this year, since the new jets typically take 18 to 24 months to deliver.

"Both options are good. F-16s are more expensive and they may take until around 2023 to be delivered," Jaroslav Nad from the Slovak Security Police Institute said...

Read more at:
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FM12K?__twitter_impression=true

It's not clear which versions of Gripen and F16 they are looking at, but new fighters are mentioned.

 

[Armand2REP]

The picture in the thumbnail is night time IR, one can easily notice. For all Aircrafts night time IR is way different than taken in the afternoon. More over it's just a single photo taken randomly.
When we carry out such experiments, we measure the outside temperature, the wind chill, the intensity of sun light in Candela and the time of flight/experiment, total duration of flight before capturing the IR signature.

Actually it is not and was taken by the same Rapier IR as the B-2 Spirit. It is clear that even the MKI has a lower IR signature than the F-22 and is a complete failure at hiding its thermal signature.

 

[Sancho]

@Babloo Singh @asianobserve

I started the first ratings and included integrated/planned capabilities and loads of Gripen NG/E and the F16 Block 70.

The rating as mentioned earlier, should be applied to different fighters with the same rating base, that's why it will include capabilities of modern fighters, that neither Gripen E or the F16 might have. The more difference a certain capability makes, the higher the score, but I'm open for suggestions.

For the weapon loads, I checked infographics for the load out at each station, as well as original pics of weapon loads of operational fighters in similar roles:

It should be no surprise, that the F16 with it's good number of hardpoints and CFTs to further increase weapon and fuel loads, beats the Gripen clearly in this part. Whenever a fighter can load 1 or 2 more weapons or fuel tanks above the standard load, 1 point was added, 3 to 4 above the standard, 2 points. Anything above that, should be MKI level of loads with the highest ratings of 4 points.

However, I'm still working on radar, avionics, EW, as well as some flight performance spec ratings, as you guys suggested.
For the earlier, rating the integrated jammers and RWRs is tricky, any idea what a good criteria to distinguish them would be?

For flight performance, I am looking at ferry and combat range, maximum speed, G limits, or ceiling, since those specs are often shared by the manufacturer, or operators. If anybody has official sources for the F16 B52 and above, would be happy to see them.


Improvements and corrections are much appreciated! Trying to develop the comparison model just out of personal interest and took the SE participants as a starting point.

Tried to get some performance specs and the available weapon options, but as expected , it will be difficult and not very reliable to get performance specs, because of limited sources and various configs of fuel tanks or weapons, depending on the operators.

I don't see a credible way to rate the weapon packs, because it mainly would be comparing the weapons with each other, not the fighters anymore.

 

[Babloo Singh]

Tried to get some performance specs and the available weapon options, but as expected , it will be difficult and not very reliable to get performance specs, because of limited sources and various configs of fuel tanks or weapons, depending on the operators.

I don't see a credible way to rate the weapon packs, because it mainly would be comparing the weapons with each other, not the fighters anymore.

True this weapons pack comparison is complex... let's see if other members suggest some workable idea's.
Regarding performance ratings adding points for SuperCruze will be good area....

 

[Sancho]

True this weapons pack comparison is complex... let's see if other members suggest some workable idea's.
Regarding performance ratings adding points for SuperCruze will be good area....

Supercruise is included in the Airframe / engine features part.