Know Your 'Rafale'

[p2prada]

I stated that you do not need radar for gun shoots and you have proven it by the pix posted above. But if you have very accurate range measurement, you can use less bullets to kill. The OLS-K system of Mig-35 when cued to its gun system can take out an ac in just 3-5 bullets. Atleast this is what russians claim.

Okay. I suppose so. The Americans are used to their death dot though. Perhaps that's why the F-15 pilot failed to get a proper lock on the F-22. It is us, the Russians and the French who like IRST and IR missiles. I wonder if the Rafale used IRST for the same in the video.

If the Americans are very confident that the F-22 can kill using only active missiles, then they are of the opinion that very few fights will end with a merge.

I think your opinion is that most fights will end up with dog fights because missiles are not reliable, which is the opposite school of thought.

IMHO, both opinions can exist today because the American method isn't completely proven.

While we were pushed to induct Rafale for MRCA because of the primary requirement of inducting a proven fighter of which there are no 5th gen equivalent available, we are also pushing for the development of a fighter which follows the American school of thought at the same time. Regardless of which system works, the American system of relying on stealth is the safest bet over the French reliance on agility and electronics. Better yet, the Russian system of relying on stealth, agility and electronics.

That puts us in the best position.

 

[Decklander]

I wud like to correct you here a bit. IMHO, there is place for BVR and WVR but the problem is low reliability of BVR. Secondly, either a fighter fires all its BVR and runs or if maintains its path, it will end up in a merge. Now take a case, an F-22 lets go all its AIM120Ds from max range to have interception at 180kms. Now the F-22 is flying at M 1.6 towards the target and the target is also flying towards it at 0.9M. So we have a closure rate of M 2.5 between the two. meaning about 3000 kms/hr or 50kms/minute. AIM120D with an average speed of M 3 will travel this distance of 180 kms in 3minutes while the ac wud be closer by 150 kms during this time till the missile impact takes place.
Now the missile has a max range of 180kms which means that at the time of firing the launch ac can be about 234 kms from the target which will allow a target flying at M 0.9 to travel a distance of 54kms when the missile is in flight so that the impact takes place exactly at 180 kms from the launch point of missile. I have assumed M 1 to be 1200kms/hr for these calculations.
So 234-150=84kms. Now after firing the F-22 has to turn 180* to run away and using a STR of 12*/sec it will take it 15 secs to turn 180* which will bring the target closer by another 30 kms as the target has a speed and F-22 needs that much radius of turn at M 1.6 at 50k ft. So at the time of impact the two ac are just 54kms away. Which is well within the detection range for most IIR WVRAAMs/IRST and even if we accept the tail RCS of F-22 to be same as its nose profile, the poorest of radar will also detect it at that range. I have also presumed that F-22 will have to frequently use the radar to keep the target illuminated for missile update and for that reason it will have to maintaion a flight path generally towards the target.
For this scenario I have assumed the two ac to be exactly headon as any deviation from this will result in reduction of range of engagement of AIM120D.
Now this is most ideal condition with launch and impact taking place at max possible range which has not occured in any BVR engagement till date. So I have my own views about BVR and ability of F-22. It will end up in merge if you ever have a force which outnumbers the number of BVR missiles carried by the attacking F-22 force. And then, F-22 will not be able to save itself.
Now take another case, F-22 vs 4.5gen ac like Rafale. The F-22 radar is picked up by rafale the moment it transmits, the pilot is now ready for AIM120D, he picks up the incoming missile on his OSF and uses that to localise the position of F-22. It now goes into full jamming mode to decieve the missile. The incoming missile is updated by F-22 by frequent sweeps by its radar which further helps SPECTRA to pin point it position. The rafale now launches its Meteor which has a very large NEZ for a target receding compared to AIM120D.
Phir kee hoga F-22 da bhai?

 

[Decklander]

I forgot to mention one last thing. What will be the kinematic performance of AIM120D at 180 kms considering it glides after initial burn out of its motor and what will be the effect of target maneaver on the accuracy of engagement?
F-22 may not have shot down down anything till now but it has shot down the Pentagon budget for sure.

 

[p2prada]

I forgot to mention one last thing. What will be the kinematic performance of AIM120D at 180 kms considering it glides after initial burn out of its motor and what will be the effect of target maneaver on the accuracy of engagement?
F-22 may not have shot down down anything till now but it has shot down the Pentagon budget for sure.

I don't believe any missile will be fired at its max range.

Anyway, there is an interesting post from keypub which I should share,

There has been a lot of arguments over the performance of A2A missiles here --
some of which are well backed by facts, some are so far out there it is like claiming that
they fly on hyperdrive.

I want to take this opportunity to introduce everyone to a very simple formula that
can be used for estimating the performance of a missile. It goes like this:-

Change in Velocity (Delta V) = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN (initial weight / final weight) m/s

This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and
none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity.
In otherwords, it assumes an all-boost motor not a boost sustain motor.

For example, let'a take a look at the AIM-120A AMRAAM which we have some decent info on...

Launch weight = 335 lbs (Published stats)
Motor weight = 156 lbs (WPU-6/B HTPB rocket motor weight as per Raytheon)
Approximate specific impulse = 245 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors)
Approximate fuel fraction of motor = 85% (typical of robust aluminum cased aerospace rocket motors)

OK... if 85% of the motor's mass is the fuel, we have about 132 lbs of fuel in the AMRAAM-A
-- roughly a 39.4% fuel fraction (sounds about right). So let's run the numbers...

Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s

The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (~Mach 3.7) faster than it started.
If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2.
In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast.
The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible.
The AMRAAM's motor is a boost-sustain design.
It is probably grained to take the weapon to abut Mach 2.5~2.8 faster than it started at
(Mach 4+ in a typical Mach 1.5 release).
The rest of the fuel is shaped to burn much more slowly to keep it's velocity at
or near the achieved maximum out to a longer range before the motor burns out.


Well, for any given fuel fraction and specific impulse,
a designer can decide how fast he wants to go and how long he wants to stay at
or near the peak velocity achieved. For instance, if a missile carries 40% of its launch weight
as fuel and uses the typical a modern HTPB propellant motor, it can:-

(1) Spend 25% to get an approximate Mach 2.1 delta V and 15% on sustaining that speed for a relatively long while.
(2) Spend 30% to get an approximate Mach 2.7 delta V and 10% on sustaining that speed for a shorter while.
(3) Spend 40% to get an approximate Mach 3.8 delta V have no sustain burn time at all.

BTW, in reference to the above comment on deceleration... it doesn't really work that way.
If a missle starts at Mach 4 at burn out and decelerates 25% to Mach 3 after 10~15 seconds,
it WILL NOT decelerate to Mach 2 (another 33% from Mach 3) after 20~30 seconds.
This is impossible because aerodynamic drag (Fd = Cd x A x 0.5 x P x V^2) is a function of
the square of velocity.
As velocity decreases, drag force decreases exponentially in relation to it.
Hence, if the drag for at Mach 4 causes a 25% loss in velocity in 10~15 seconds,
there is no way a much lower drag force at Mach 3 will cause a 33% loss in velocity after
another 10~15 seconds.
What happens is that deceleration is non-linear;
you start off steep and the slope flattens out over time as velocity and hence drag drops.
It'll take a missile a heck of a lot longer to decelerate from Mach 4 to Mach 2 compared to
say Mach 2 to Mach 1 for instance.



Actually it also depends a heck of a lot on altitude (air density)...
Let's plug some numbers shall we?

Question: How much thrust is needed to sustain Mach 3.0 in an AAM like the AMRAAM?

Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A

P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ; ~1.29 kg/m^3 @ sea level; ~0.232 kg/m^3 @ 12,000 m
V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = 340 m/s @ sea level; ~295 m/s @ 12,000 m
Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; ~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage,
nose and tail profile
A = Sectional Area (m^2) ; ~ 0.025 m^2 for a 7" diameter missile.

For an AMRAAM like AAM going at high altitudes (40,000 ft)...

Drag Force @ Mach 3 = 0.5 x 0.232 x (295x3)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 1590 Newtons = 357 lbs
Drag Force @ Mach 2 = 0.5 x 0.232 x (295x2)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 707 Newtons = 159 lbs
Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 0.232 x 295^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 177 Newtons = 39.8 lbs

The same missile going Mach 3 at Sea Level...

Drag Force @ Mach 3 = 0.5 x 1.29 x (340x3)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 11,744 Newtons = 2640 lbs
Drag Force @ Mach 2 = 0.5 x 1.29 x (340x2)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 5,219 Newtons = 1173 lbs
Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 1.29 x 340^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 1,305 Newtons = 293 lbs

Assuming that there is no sustainer,
the deceleration experienced at Mach 3 by the 203 lbs (empty) missile is

Deceleration @ Mach 3 = -F / mass = -1590 / (203 x 0.454) = -17.3 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.059/sec @ 40,000 ft
Deceleration @ Mach 2 = -F / mass = -707 / (203 x 0.454) = -7.67 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.026/sec @ 40,000 ft
Deceleration @ Mach 1 = -F / mass = -177 / (203 x 0.454) = -1.92 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.0065/sec @ 40,000 ft

Deceleration @ Mach 3 = -F / mass = -11744 / (203 x 0.454) = -127 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.39/sec @ sea level
Deceleration @ Mach 2 = -F / mass = -5219 / (203 x 0.454) = -56.6 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.17/sec @ sea level
Deceleration @ Mach 1 = -F / mass = -1305 / (203 x 0.454) = -14.2 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.042/sec @ sea level

OK... enough of the math and the formulas... what does all these mean?
Well, it means that while coasting at Mach 3 an AAM is going to lose about less than 2% of
its velocity a second at high altitudes while it stands to lose about 13% of its velocity at
sea level! Huge difference isn't it?
Remember though that the rate of deceleration actually DECREASES as the
missile's velocity decreases.
It is easy to see that one can claim that a missile can burn out burn out its booster
and sustainer and be effective out to over 100 km at high altitudes or be useful only
against helos after 10km on the deck!

Also, we can make a pretty educated guess as to how much thrust the sustainer has to make.
An AMRAAM class missile with a 400 lbs sustain thrust will be able to stay
above Mach 3 at high altitudes and stay about Mach 1.2 at sea level.
An AMRAAM class missile carrying about 10% of its launch weight as sustainer
grained propellant will be able to keep this level of thrust lit for 20.5 seconds
in addition to whatever the boost time was using the 30% of its fuel to get a
roughly Mach 2.7 Delta V after launch.
A missile like this when fired at Mach 1.5 will reach Mach 4+ and keep
above Mach 3 for the duration of the sustainer at high altitudes.
It will also reach about Mach 2.5 and keep above about Mach 1.2 at sea level.
A motor grained for this thrust profile can have a 10 second boost at ~ 2460 lbs thrust and
a 20 second sustain burn at 400 lbs thrust -- this is a 5:1 boost sustain ratio.
This is also about right for thrust profiles of star grain vs
core burn solid propellant burn rate profiles.




Another rough rule of thumb:-

The time it takes for a missile to lose 25% of its velocity after burn out at supersonic speeds.

Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space
~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft)
~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft)
~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft)
~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft)
~5 seconds @ Sea Level

Remember, fractions over time are not additive.
In otherwords, if a missile loses about 25% of its velocity in 10 seconds,
in the 10 subsequent seconds (t =20s) the missile loses approximately another 25% of
the remaining 75% not a 100%. Total velocity loss is ~43.75% not 50%.

This is highly collated to the fall in air density.
Drag = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A.
Holding everything else constant Drag falls proportionally to density.
Drag also falls exponentially with Velocity which accounts for the loss in velocity
in the given time slices being about 25% instead of closer to 40%.

This is for the base Aim-120A version, so we can assume the Aim-120D is nearly a Mach higher during the boost and adding the F-22s kinematic advantage to it too. If we consider the boost speed is Mach 4 at 12000m, after 25 seconds it would do above Mach 3 and should have travelled greater than 25 or 30 Km by then.

Anyway, no sane pilot will fire his missile at max range, that's why I pointed out the Greeks shoot their old Aim-120s from 18Km away, just before merge. Even IAF ROEs during CI-2004 was with 32 Km limit for the aggressor and 28 Km for the defender, altitude is not known. I suppose with better missiles coming out now, like the American XXRAAM, Meteor, Russian RAMJET, Astra Mk2, Israeli Stunner, Chinese PL-XX etc, engagement ranges along with NEZ will increase.

Russian LRAAMs may already be hypersonic.

 

[Decklander]

@p2prada, I had assumed most fav conditions which were hypothetical but even than we found that an ac like F-22 will end up in merge in most cases and their its huge size will act against it. Let us take a case where the merge is taking place at night and the other pilot has no visual clue of the target. But he will have F-22 on his radar and also IRST plus the m issile seeker cued to HMS will ensure that F-22 gets nailed.
if you may remember I had taken an average speed of Mach3 all thru the intercept for that scenario and altitude as 50k ft and mach as 1200kms/hr. You know that at 50k ft mach one will be less than 1100kms.
Speed of Sound at different altitudes (km/h, mph, knots)
I have tried many scenarios and each one of them has ended in merge for best of the BVR fighters. BVR neither offers you stealth nor surprise and ensures that you enter merge at a disadvantage compared to your opponent due to the need to keep the target illuminated till impact.
F-22, at best is white elephant.

 

[p2prada]

Let us take a case where the merge is taking place at night and the other pilot has no visual clue of the target. But he will have F-22 on his radar and also IRST plus the m issile seeker cued to HMS will ensure that F-22 gets nailed.

The current F-22 may be limited in some aspects, but the MLU should be taking care of some of these problems.

Lockheed awarded $6.9 billion F-22 upgrade contract

This problem will be non-existent on FGFA. Rather FGFA will be more or less at the same level as the F-35 when it comes to IRST and DAS type system.

The thing is both IRST and side radar arrays on the F-22 were put on hold due to the increasing cost of the program. The plan existed earlier. Instead they have planned something better on the F-35. Overall, the F-22 was developed with the idea that it won't be entering a merge willingly. That's one reason why even the USAF's best missile is still not operational on the F-22.

F-22 Raptors need helmet-mounted cueing system to take full advantage of AIM-9X

So yeah, the F-22 has vulnerabilities when it comes to WVR as of today and perhaps even after 2017.

From what I've heard, the F-22's primary sensor is its RWR. The radar comes into the picture only when it is time to fire the missile. Signal emissions are mostly restricted to communications on the F-22. But this requires the enemy to emit.

I have tried many scenarios and each one of them has ended in merge for best of the BVR fighters. BVR neither offers you stealth nor surprise and ensures that you enter merge at a disadvantage compared to your opponent due to the need to keep the target illuminated till impact.
F-22, at best is white elephant.

This opinion can only come about if you steadfastly believe that a BVR missile has a 0% success rate. Meaning a BVR missile has to be completely and utterly useless from any range outside of 18Km.

So the F-22 is definitely a white elephant if you consider it does not have a capable IR AAM and that BVR will always fail. But if BVR success is whatever the Americans have presumed to be, there is a chance the F-22 will never see WVR combat in most of its operational life.

Anyway, an active missile doesn't need target illumination until impact, the seeker kicks in during end game. Only a semi-active missile needs it.

 

[Decklander]

The current F-22 may be limited in some aspects, but the MLU should be taking care of some of these problems.

Lockheed awarded $6.9 billion F-22 upgrade contract


This opinion can only come about if you steadfastly believe that a BVR missile has a 0% success rate. Meaning a BVR missile has to be completely and utterly useless from any range outside of 18Km.

So the F-22 is definitely a white elephant if you consider it does not have a capable IR AAM and that BVR will always fail. But if BVR success is whatever the Americans have presumed to be, there is a chance the F-22 will never see WVR combat in most of its operational life.

Anyway, an active missile doesn't need target illumination until impact, the seeker kicks in during end game. Only a semi-active missile needs it.

fighters hunt in packs and not solo. even if we assume 25% Pk for BVR, a flight of four F-22 carrying 24 AIM120D will kill only four of enemy forces for the remaining they will have to use AIM9X and get into merge. You are well aware that 25% Pk is too high for any BVR missile till date. Let us take a case wherein 2 F-22 attack four Mig-21Bisons. Mind you that Bisons have excellent jammers onboard including RWRs. 12 Aim120Ds are fired which take out three MIG-21Bisons. Now Mig-21Bison has HMS guided R-73s. The single surviving Mig-21Bison will be too much to handle for these two F-22 in merge as they neither have HMS nor the high off boresight capability of R-73. Let us take a case that this surviving Mig-21 is shot down but manages to shoot just one F-22 down. Do you know what it means!!!! 500million dollars lost for just 80 million dollars for four Mig-21s.
Now regarding BVR launch, For active guidance missile the launch ac must detect and track the target by its own radar and pass on the target data to the missile. Once the missile is fired, its own radar remains quite while the launch platform continues to paint the target at reguler intervals to update the target cordinates to the missile thru data link. Once the missile is close enough to the target, its own seeker searches and locks on to the target. So you will see that there is no such thing as fire and forget in BVR A2A combat. This means that even before the BVR game starts, the potential launch ac can be detected by RWR.
In semi-active guidance what you stated is correct. We have true fire and forget only in WVR LOBL mode.

 

[p2prada]

fighters hunt in packs and not solo. even if we assume 25% Pk for BVR, a flight of four F-22 carrying 24 AIM120D will kill only four of enemy forces for the remaining they will have to use AIM9X and get into merge.

Pk values change depending on range and altitude. Pk values are best at short ranges and lower altitudes because the missile can maneuver better and the missile range is short anyway. At higher altitudes and ranges the Pk values are heavily dependent on the enemy's ability to detect the launch and the Russians have shot down non-maneuvering target drones at over 300 Km ranges with high Pk.

Let us take a case wherein 2 F-22 attack four Mig-21Bisons. Mind you that Bisons have excellent jammers onboard including RWRs. 12 Aim120Ds are fired which take out three MIG-21Bisons. Now Mig-21Bison has HMS guided R-73s. The single surviving Mig-21Bison will be too much to handle for these two F-22 in merge as they neither have HMS nor the high off boresight capability of R-73.

I wonder what is the mental state of the Mig-21 pilot when he knows three of his mates have died. And that even if he survives the encounter history will repeat if such a scenario happens again, and that this time it may be his turn to lose.

Also, even IR missiles have small Pks.

Let us take a case that this surviving Mig-21 is shot down but manages to shoot just one F-22 down. Do you know what it means!!!! 500million dollars lost for just 80 million dollars for four Mig-21s.

F-22 costs $145 Million, not $500 Million. Sunk R&D costs can materialize in other programs and is not a write off just because one F-22 was shot down. Even with R&D costs, it is $350 Million.

That's one $145 Million lost + 1 pilot vs $80 Million + 3 or 4 pilots. This is considering only 2 F-22s were part of the group and not 2 more carrying A2G munitions bombing airfields or targeting AWACS and tankers while the other two were fighting off the 4 Mig-21s or a heavy bomber showing up with LGBs and cruise missiles as the last Mig-21 takes the dive.

This is not considering there are over 30 or 40 F-22s in the air with fleet support against even 4 times the number of Mig-21s with fleet support which won't really fit into the battlespace. Which is better, one or two AWACS directing around 6 F-22 groups or one or two AWACS supporting 20 Mig-21 groups?

Now regarding BVR launch, For active guidance missile the launch ac must detect and track the target by its own radar and pass on the target data to the missile. Once the missile is fired, its own radar remains quite while the launch platform continues to paint the target at reguler intervals to update the target cordinates to the missile thru data link. Once the missile is close enough to the target, its own seeker searches and locks on to the target. So you will see that there is no such thing as fire and forget in BVR A2A combat. This means that even before the BVR game starts, the potential launch ac can be detected by RWR.
In semi-active guidance what you stated is correct. We have true fire and forget only in WVR LOBL mode.

I am aware of this and do agree with it.

I also agree that LOBL for WVR is indeed true fire and forget, but even WVR missiles don't have high Pks, especially when the F-22 can vamoosh instantly. In the end, just like BVR missiles, even today's WVR missiles are untested and countermeasures exist against them too.

However you did not count the lessons learned from the engagement you talked about. If it turns out that they lost 1 F-22 while fighting 4 Mig-21s, they will react to that with a plan. They may come with more aircraft, they may not engage the remaining Mig-21 the next time, better yet they may wait it out. F-22 can stay in the air for 4 hours, Mig-21 for half hour. They can play a cat and mouse game and wait till the Mig-21 has to return to base. Think about how pressed the situation will be if you are to keep 4 Mig-21s constantly in the air, with incoming jets requiring to be refueled immediately, the toll on the aircraft and pilot for continuous take-offs and landing round the clock, all the while the F-22s will simply back up, refuel using tankers or in buddy mode and get back to combat faster than the fastest turnaround time of a light fighter.

If 2 or 4 F-22s manage to bring down 2 or 3 Mig-21s using BVR constantly, without any loss and the group is rotated with another group of F-22s, while the Mig-21 base commander is trying to keep the remaining Mig-21s in the air, how long would the Mig-21 squadron survive? The base morale is going to be in the gutter. That lone F-22 kill is not worth the effort if the remaining F-22s never come in to play with the Mig-21. The Mig-21 itself does not have any kind of kinematic advantage over the F-22 to force it into a dog fight either. It isn't drastically different if you replace the Mig-21 with another light fighter like the LCA, Mirage-2000 or F-16.

In the end, it is the loss of 1 F-22 against the loss of ~18 Mig-21s, probably half the pilots, an airbase and some of its personnel and maybe the supporting fleet if any. The Americans will simply expend more BVR missiles, if they think WVR is not working. Probably a reason why even the US is doing what Russia and France are doing and spending money on high off-bore sight WVR missiles with BVR ranges of 40 Km. HMS won't help at that range and during Red Flag 2008, MKIs used the R-73 to get apparent BVR kills at 32 Km and greater, probably using LOAL, if we are to believe Col Ternof.

As of today, all countries are quite mum about the advancement in D/CIRCM technology. @halloweene pointed out that Rafale will be getting a DIRCM system in the F3R upgrade.

Avionics Magazine :: Countering MANPADS

 

[Decklander]

You did not get my point. BVR and WVR both are equally important but to say BVR alone will siffice is wrong. Now let me share with you a tactics which was developed when I was still flying fighters to decieve and shoot down BVR missile firing ac. this holds good even for F-22.
we fly in trail i.e we fly two pairs one behind another separated by 12-15 kms. The missile seeker has about that range for engagement and detection of about 20-25 kms. But the algorithms are such that they go for target which is easiest to engage. So if the lead pair is targetted, both pairs get advantage of early warning, if the trailing pair is targetted, the missile seeker will pick up both the pairs and go for the trailing pair as it will be too close to the lead pair. This will give the time to trail pair to start last ditch while the lead pair will get into merge with the attackers.

The sortie rate of F-22 is the lowest of all fighters in the world and its ability to fight in rains or fly thru clouds is severly limited due to its skin. How many will actually fly and for how many hours is a very very big question which even the Americans have no answer.
I hope you remember kargil war? One of the reason for MANPADs effectiveness was altitude and cooler tempratures which gave the seekers extended ranges and missiles a thinner atmosphere to fly thru. A F-22 flying at 50k ft at M1.6 will be a lantern in a dark night & will be locked on by a missile IR seeker from 75-80 kms while it may not be able to shoot it down at that range. In Libya campaign, MICA seekers had picked up fighters well before OSF did.
Regarding your point of cat & mouse game, what if we send 12-16 Mig-21s together against 4-6 F-22s, Will even one F-22 survive to return? I hope you remember by statement about Lanchester's Equations. Please read them again and you will know that there is limit to which a superior tech can overcome the numerical superiority. A missile needs to pull 12 times more g at close ranges to shoot down a maneavering target so if an ac is turning at 5g, the missile will need to pull 60g to be able to hit it. i hope you are aware of this rule. It is much easier said than done that BVR will knock out ac from sky with ease.
The FPA & IIR WVR missiles have no known counter measures against them. Only the old gen IR missiles cud be fooled, the latest gen BVR active homing missiles can be fooled by variety of means starting from good old chaff to active towed decoys to jammers.
lastly any fighter pilot who is scared of combat is not worth sitting in a fighter cockpit. To be a a fighter pilot, one needs to be made of strongest mental fibre known to mankind. Fighter pilots, commandos, Armoured corps guys are a special breed in every armed force of the world.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN
(335/(335-132)) = 1227
m/s
@p2prada
what is "LN" ?

 

[p2prada]

You did not get my point. BVR and WVR both are equally important but to say BVR alone will siffice is wrong.

I did get your point and I am not saying WVR is not important, I am saying if a fighter doesn't have to then it won't go WVR.

The sortie rate of F-22 is the lowest of all fighters in the world and its ability to fight in rains or fly thru clouds is severly limited due to its skin. How many will actually fly and for how many hours is a very very big question which even the Americans have no answer.

A senate document answered a lot of these questions. The sortie rate, I don't know, but the thing about rains, clouds etc are myths.

It is an interesting read.

A Senate's Document about the claims recently made against the F-22A:

" F-22 Assertions and Facts
July 2009

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It?s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22?s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.


Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.


Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.


Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.


Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been
redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.


Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.


Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered

prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are
occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.


Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.



Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie
Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.



Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.



Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today?s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.


Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft?s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts.



Assertion: Are these accusations in the recent lawsuit valid?

Facts: We believe the allegations are without merit. While we are aware of the Olsen lawsuit, the Corporation has not yet been served in this matter. We deny Mr. Olsen?s allegations and will vigorously defend this matter if and when it is served.


Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn?t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today?s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF."

A F-22 flying at 50k ft at M1.6 will be a lantern in a dark night & will be locked on by a missile IR seeker from 75-80 kms while it may not be able to shoot it down at that range. In Libya campaign, MICA seekers had picked up fighters well before OSF did.

EF-2000 pilots claim even their onboard seekers can pick up the F-22 only at 50 Km.

What's more important is that Rafale and EF pilots have trained with F-22s, so they know the IR signatures of the F-22. But how will you train your pilots to identify the IR signature of the F-22 among all other enemy aircraft signatures when most of our pilots have not even seen a real F-22?

Even if an IR signature is picked up, there is no way of knowing whether it is a F-22 or a passenger aircraft. Let's not forget that IR never provides ranging information.

Regarding your point of cat & mouse game, what if we send 12-16 Mig-21s together against 4-6 F-22s, Will even one F-22 survive to return?

What if the first group of 4 F-22s pick up the Mig-21s from 100-200Km away and simply turn tail, will your 16 Mig-21s give chase?

And what if another group of 4 F-22s walked into the Mig-21s airbase because the entire squadron was out to fight somewhere else 200 Km away?

If the 16 Mig-21s are heading straight for the F-22s, then the Pk of the BVR missiles will increase dramatically. Let's not forget that IR does not provide ranging. So before the launch of the BVR, the Mig-21 pilots have no idea whether the F-22s are 100 Km away or 50 Km away. At 50 Km away, they have roughly around 30 secs to make their move, lesser if both the F-22 and Mig-21 are flying at Mach speeds. It all comes down to the first shot capability of the F-22. So that's 16 Mig-21s vs 4 F-22s + 24 missiles closing in at an apparent speed of Mach 6. What will the Mig-21s do?

Let's face it, apart from the fact that the Mig-21 isn't a reasonable aircraft to fight the F-22, there are still many BVR options the F-22 has that we may not know about.

How did the Mig-21s pick up the 4 F-22s anyway, that R-73 seekers managed to spot them when EF pilots are on record saying 50 Km for their PIRATE?

A missile needs to pull 12 times more g at close ranges to shoot down a maneavering target so if an ac is turning at 5g, the missile will need to pull 60g to be able to hit it. i hope you are aware of this rule. It is much easier said than done that BVR will knock out ac from sky with ease.

I am aware of this too. I spent quite a few posts explaining to a member how it works too. This rule applies to all missiles, BVR and WVR. Anyway, BVR missiles have a greater advantage in using proportional navigation compared to WVR missiles. So a 5G maneuver from 20 Km away will be a minute degree change in heading for the missile.

The FPA & IIR WVR missiles have no known counter measures against them.

Exactly, the word you used here is "known." We simply don't know.

Only the old gen IR missiles cud be fooled, the latest gen BVR active homing missiles can be fooled by variety of means starting from good old chaff to active towed decoys to jammers.

There is a difference. While IR systems may have no "known" CMs, BVR do have CMs, but the ability to program the active seeker and the amount of control it gives to the programmer allows the missile to counter the countermeasures. IR does not have any reasonable way of employing effective ECCM. In case the BVR missile is jammed, it will start seeking the jamming source, all it is doing is looking for an interfering signal and heading towards it.

lastly any fighter pilot who is scared of combat is not worth sitting in a fighter cockpit. To be a a fighter pilot, one needs to be made of strongest mental fibre known to mankind. Fighter pilots, commandos, Armoured corps guys are a special breed in every armed force of the world.

Then morale has no meaning for them.

 

[p2prada]

Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN
(335/(335-132)) = 1227
m/s
@p2prada
what is "LN" ?

Log Initial weight divided by final weight of missile.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

You did not get my point. BVR and WVR both are equally important but to say BVR alone will siffice is wrong. Now let me share with you a tactics which was developed when I was still flying fighters to decieve and shoot down BVR missile firing ac. this holds good even for F-22.
we fly in trail i.e we fly two pairs one behind another separated by 12-15 kms. The missile seeker has about that range for engagement and detection of about 20-25 kms. But the algorithms are such that they go for target which is easiest to engage. So if the lead pair is targetted, both pairs get advantage of early warning, if the trailing pair is targetted, the missile seeker will pick up both the pairs and go for the trailing pair as it will be too close to the lead pair. This will give the time to trail pair to start last ditch while the lead pair will get into merge with the attackers.

The sortie rate of F-22 is the lowest of all fighters in the world and its ability to fight in rains or fly thru clouds is severly limited due to its skin. How many will actually fly and for how many hours is a very very big question which even the Americans have no answer.
I hope you remember kargil war? One of the reason for MANPADs effectiveness was altitude and cooler tempratures which gave the seekers extended ranges and missiles a thinner atmosphere to fly thru. A F-22 flying at 50k ft at M1.6 will be a lantern in a dark night & will be locked on by a missile IR seeker from 75-80 kms while it may not be able to shoot it down at that range. In Libya campaign, MICA seekers had picked up fighters well before OSF did.
Regarding your point of cat & mouse game, what if we send 12-16 Mig-21s together against 4-6 F-22s, Will even one F-22 survive to return? I hope you remember by statement about Lanchester's Equations. Please read them again and you will know that there is limit to which a superior tech can overcome the numerical superiority. A missile needs to pull 12 times more g at close ranges to shoot down a maneavering target so if an ac is turning at 5g, the missile will need to pull 60g to be able to hit it. i hope you are aware of this rule. It is much easier said than done that BVR will knock out ac from sky with ease.
The FPA & IIR WVR missiles have no known counter measures against them. Only the old gen IR missiles cud be fooled, the latest gen BVR active homing missiles can be fooled by variety of means starting from good old chaff to active towed decoys to jammers.
lastly any fighter pilot who is scared of combat is not worth sitting in a fighter cockpit. To be a a fighter pilot, one needs to be made of strongest mental fibre known to mankind. Fighter pilots, commandos, Armoured corps guys are a special breed in every armed force of the world.

few arguments from my POV.
1)Aim 120 D has 180 km range, so f22 can fire it 80km -100km range which will ensure high pk.
2)f 22 alone is not going to fight the war, Americans can mix f 22 with other fighter formations..and can employ similar tactics.
3) will the RVV AE or any other radar guided missile seeker be able to track f22 which got very small rcs,numerous high quality ecm, etc.
4)if f22 is out of bvr missiles it can simply disengage, why should it put itself into a risky wvr combat..there are other 4th gen fighter which can take over the wvr fight.f22 is like a sniper, it got stealth and long range like a sniper, but fire rate and numbers are low like a sniper..just like a sniper which is not a replacement for regular soldier with machine gun f 22( or any other stealth fighter) is not a replacement but a complementing system..at least until stealth tech gets cheaper and more maintenance friendly.

 

[Decklander]

few arguments from my POV.

Possibilities are immense but what wud you do against a dedicated 4.5gen ac is what we need to factor in.

Than why call it frontline best fighter if it needs crutches and don't you think that the purpose of stealth will be defeated when the teen series can be picked up from far greater ranges. You will know the approach direction of the strike force

If your radar can't pick it up, how will you target it with BVR and on what will you fire your BVR?

In my earlier posts I had tried to prove that a BVR launch platform will reach a stage of merge and a 20m long ac can be picked up visually during daytime from over 25nms and at night by IRST easily.

 

[Decklander]

I did get your point and I am not saying WVR is not important, I am saying if a fighter doesn't have to then it won't go WVR.



A senate document answered a lot of these questions. The sortie rate, I don't know, but the thing about rains, clouds etc are myths.

It is an interesting read.





EF-2000 pilots claim even their onboard seekers can pick up the F-22 only at 50 Km.

What's more important is that Rafale and EF pilots have trained with F-22s, so they know the IR signatures of the F-22. But how will you train your pilots to identify the IR signature of the F-22 among all other enemy aircraft signatures when most of our pilots have not even seen a real F-22?

Even if an IR signature is picked up, there is no way of knowing whether it is a F-22 or a passenger aircraft. Let's not forget that IR never provides ranging information.



What if the first group of 4 F-22s pick up the Mig-21s from 100-200Km away and simply turn tail, will your 16 Mig-21s give chase?

And what if another group of 4 F-22s walked into the Mig-21s airbase because the entire squadron was out to fight somewhere else 200 Km away?

If the 16 Mig-21s are heading straight for the F-22s, then the Pk of the BVR missiles will increase dramatically. Let's not forget that IR does not provide ranging. So before the launch of the BVR, the Mig-21 pilots have no idea whether the F-22s are 100 Km away or 50 Km away. At 50 Km away, they have roughly around 30 secs to make their move, lesser if both the F-22 and Mig-21 are flying at Mach speeds. It all comes down to the first shot capability of the F-22. So that's 16 Mig-21s vs 4 F-22s + 24 missiles closing in at an apparent speed of Mach 6. What will the Mig-21s do?

Let's face it, apart from the fact that the Mig-21 isn't a reasonable aircraft to fight the F-22, there are still many BVR options the F-22 has that we may not know about.

How did the Mig-21s pick up the 4 F-22s anyway, that R-73 seekers managed to spot them when EF pilots are on record saying 50 Km for their PIRATE?



I am aware of this too. I spent quite a few posts explaining to a member how it works too. This rule applies to all missiles, BVR and WVR. Anyway, BVR missiles have a greater advantage in using proportional navigation compared to WVR missiles. So a 5G maneuver from 20 Km away will be a minute degree change in heading for the missile.



Exactly, the word you used here is "known." We simply don't know.



There is a difference. While IR systems may have no "known" CMs, BVR do have CMs, but the ability to program the active seeker and the amount of control it gives to the programmer allows the missile to counter the countermeasures. IR does not have any reasonable way of employing effective ECCM. In case the BVR missile is jammed, it will start seeking the jamming source, all it is doing is looking for an interfering signal and heading towards it.



Then morale has no meaning for them.

I will not comment on the senate breifing but how can you give the cost price without including the cost of development. This was an eyewash and we all know the reasons for which this was done.

Regarding your last part. How wud you rate Seahawks and INS Vikrant of 1971 against USS Enterprise and F-4 Phantoms of the USN seventh Fleet?
IN fighter pilots had conveyed to Indira during 1971 war that they will do kamikazi strikes on USS Enterprise and its support ships but will not go down without a fight nor will they surrender to them. How is that for Morale. You don't lose if you don't succeed, you lose when you give up the will to fight and succeed.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

- Possibilities are immense but what wud you do against a dedicated 4.5gen ac is what we need to factor in.

against 4th gen fighters like Rafale or typhoon -f 22 got high possibility of success which may even compensate the cost factor..cost is relevant but if the operator has big enough pocket and utilise the f 22 like Platform for missions which is suited for it then f 22 is a very good asset.I don't know what all specific missions, tatics, formations etc are employed by air force..you must be knowing all those things better than me..I am sure USAF also -are experienced and wise enough to choose fighter jets..they must be knowing what they are doing by going for stealth jets.

Than why call it frontline best fighter if it needs crutches and don't you think that the purpose of stealth will be defeated when the teen series can be picked up from far greater ranges. You will know the approach direction of the strike force

I think initial plan was to replace most of the 4th gen fighters with 5 th gen but cost and maintenance factor lead to a strategychange and they decided to go for small number of 5 gen fighter to complement the existing 4 th gen fighters..so they are now upgrading 4 gen fighters with aesa and other goodies. - if you mix it up with 4th gen fighter, in front them, behind them or by the side with some distance -then enemy will only know about the approach of 4th gen fighter and will be busy in engaging them -f 22 can launch a surprise attack..it will put enemy into confusion,every time a fighter formation is approaching enemy will always be guessing if any stealth fighters are present in the package.

If your radar can't pick it up, how will you target it with BVR and on what will you fire your BVR?

f 22 can use lpi radar which will be hard to intercept, I think it has also got spectra like system also, ( I believe a spectra like suite -will be more useful in a 5th gen fighter than a 4th gen ) 4 th gen fighter radars can't detect f 22 from long long enough ranges to give themselves a fighting chance..f 22 detects first, shoots first..

In my earlier posts I had tried to prove that a BVR launch platform will reach a stage of merge and a 20m long ac can be picked up visually during daytime from over 25nms and at night by IRST easily.

46 kilometers ? naked eye or OLS ? -isn't it too much distance and too much optimistic distance if you are talking about naked eye detection ? And how often can you locate a fighter with Ols, Irst against a range detection ?chances are narrow isn't it ? besides what can you do by visual identification if you can't lock on to it with radar, only good chance is IR guided missiles..that is if you are behind f 22, with Ir imaging tech you could also target -it from front side also, but f 22 also got Ir suppression measure, so detection range will be shorter, but all this if f 22 is forced into a wvr fight isn't it ? - even WVR fight f 22 has 50% -60% chance of winning isn't it ? only problem here is the lose me money -involved if f 22 goes down. - so interms of capabilities f22 is far supeRiors only minus point is cost and maintenance..when something is attempted first time it will cost more but gradually with better tech and cost and maintenance -will come down..when starts giving better value for money leading airforce will start replacing all 4 th gen fighters with 5 th .gen fighter..probably 50+ years from now 6th gen will come and take the place of 5 th gen and 5gen will replace 4th gen.

 

[Decklander]

I think I need to reclarify myself here so that you understand what I am trying to convey instead of filling pages here with stuff which is very well known to most of us.
1. BVR in itself will never succeed nor will WVR.
2. BVR will mostly end up in WVR and to get into WVR you need good BVR or counter measures for it.
3. Given the sophistication of sensors and availability of L-band radars on new fighters, Stealth is no more the kind of game changer which it was touted to be when it was introduced in early 90s.
4. The tech superiority has a limitation when it comes to numerical superiority unless the diff is of atleast stone age and present day tech.
5. Stealth is more of an defensive aid than an offensive tech.
6. In case of war, we have theatres of war and a small high tech force can be overwhelmed by numbers and its OODA loop saturated to the point wherein its ability to launch counter attacks on all fronts is greatly diminished.
7. Highly sophisticated ac need high tech bases and such airbases can be taken out by missile strikes and the whole fleet can be rendered useless in war till the airstrip is repaired.
8. Low tech and uncomplicated ac capable of being operated from dirt tracks and roads will dominate such a scenario.
9. The advent of high glide ratio bombs like SPICE have greatly reduced the need for stealth as they can still fire their weapons without being detected and without getting into harms way.
10. The alternate to costly stealth is long range stand off weapons- Imagine an ac firing its bombs from 100nms when you can't detect him, what use is stealth in such a case and why must you go close to the target?
11. Night bombing runs like those done F117s and B2s are no more possible as now we have AA arty equipped with EO targetting systems. So now we will have to fire our bombs from a much longer range so why need costly stealth?
12. Missiles have taken up the job of SEAD & DEAD. Why waste costly resources?
13. US wins can't be used as bench mark for any kind of decision on effectiveness of a weapon system as they have yet to face a formidable enemy. Viets had no airpower and USAF had the best. We all know 1975 and that pix with helo on top of US embassy in Hanoi picking up people.

Lastly, if anyone wants to know what BVR can do and how effective it can be, the best lessons can be learnt from Bekka Valley. Most cases ended up in WVR and syrians lost as they had just R-60s with a range of 4kms with them. That was a pure airbattle with no SAMs and no SEAD. It was ac vs ac.

 

[p2prada]

I will not comment on the senate breifing but how can you give the cost price without including the cost of development. This was an eyewash and we all know the reasons for which this was done.

Because if you shoot down a F-22, the anechoic chamber, radar range, manufacturing facilities etc that was purchased in the development budget is still functioning along with the spent salaries of the thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the program along with all the mines and production houses that were funded for the F-22's manufacture.

When you shoot down an aircraft, the cost of the aircraft and other assorted weapons and pilot (in case of injury or death) are written off, not the above mentioned facilities.

Note that the same facilities will be used for development of the F-35 and any other future aircraft. So the F-22s R&D budget will be carried over into future programs and are not an immediate write-off.

We are currently paying $5.5 Billion for the development of the FGFA, I don't know if you know it but at least $2.5 Billion of that money will be used to build research and manufacturing facilities in India. In the end, program cost is just a statistic.

Regarding your last part. How wud you rate Seahawks and INS Vikrant of 1971 against USS Enterprise and F-4 Phantoms of the USN seventh Fleet?
IN fighter pilots had conveyed to Indira during 1971 war that they will do kamikazi strikes on USS Enterprise and its support ships but will not go down without a fight nor will they surrender to them. How is that for Morale. You don't lose if you don't succeed, you lose when you give up the will to fight and succeed.

Getting into this type of a discussion in morale is pointless. There is a difference if we say there is a huge disparity in forces and we have to take such measures. But if we say the govt is willing to allow the military to induct F-22 equivalent and greater aircraft and still we talk about how we will gloriously sacrifice an entire squadron of Mig-21s just to take out 4 F-22s only to prove a point is not in order.

While I agree to the points you have made and I have made the same points as you did against other Americans ex-pilot in a F-22 vs 4th gen scenario, I am still inclined to believe that the picture is not as simple and rosy as you are portraying about WVR combat. I also don't agree with the American line either where they will try and keep kills within the BVR envelope. I am somewhere in between, I believe that if we are to keep up or do better, we are going to need everything. We will need F-22's stealth, speed and BVR killing capability along with Rafale's low speed performance, avionics and WVR killing capability (if it is actually as good as presumed) and not end up sacrificing one for the other as it is on both these platforms.

I don't agree that there is any space for a light fighter to survive in such a battlefield at all. Not because you think I am blind to accept there are certain qualities to a light fighter that are unique to itself, just that the disadvantages it has won't allow it battlespace immunity like a heavier counterpart can provide, that's long legs, a large radar and a powerful EW suite. Engine technology has caught up to negate many of the light aircraft's advantages.

 

[p2prada]

@Decklander

Northrop Developing Laser Missile Jammer For F-35

DIRCM for air to air missiles will be part of the F-35. Possibly Rafale too.

 

[Decklander]

@Decklander

Northrop Developing Laser Missile Jammer For F-35

DIRCM for air to air missiles will be part of the F-35. Possibly Rafale too.

I have been reading about it for sometime now and it has to happen considering the way tech is developing and I won't be surprised if we see EMP based weapons soon in place of jammers. The IR seeker tech has eveolved to such a level now that only possible counter measure against them are hardkill or directed energy weapons.I am for lasers which can blind pilots as an effectice WVR weapon rather than A2AMs. IMHO, F-22 is probably the last such fighter which Americans have developed after that they might develop only space based fighters.