Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
Furthermore, IADS are very expensive. 1x S-300PMU2 is around $300 million, and the radars and SHORAD increase that cost substantially more. The new generation of AESAs are also not cheap, though prices are not known at this time.

quote:


F-35 is actually reasonably priced in comparison to its competition. Current LRIP 8 costs are 110$ mil/aircraft, with FRP costs somewhere between $80 and $90 million. Dassault Rafale is $110mil FRP and Eurofighter tranche 3 is $124mil. The only real competitor that's less is Gripen at about $70 million, but Gripen is substantially less capable.

Furthermore, IADS are very expensive. 1x S-300PMU2 is around $300 million, and the radars and SHORAD increase that cost substantially more. The new generation of AESAs are also not cheap, though prices are not known at this time.

quote:

The Nebo-M system is clearly designed to hunt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The VHF-Band component of the system provides sector search and track functions, with the X-Band and L-Band components providing a fine track capability. By good placement of the radars relative to the threat axis, the L-Band and X-Band components illuminate the incoming target from angles where the target RCS is suboptimal. Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.

quote:


Current F-35A cost around $148 million. If you count everything. Although this is still excluding research and development. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398

quote:


My worry is that the USA is building a plane which is already partially absolute before they even have them out in force. Usually the idea is that you built a new generation platform and it takes some 10+ years before your potential enemy comes up with a newer generation and creates something better.

quote:


With the use of different band radars from different angles you can get all the info you need, including height which is usually hard to get with VHF, to guide a missile into the proximity of the F-35. then once the missile is close enough it can use it's lower wave-length radar to home in on the plane, particular from the F-35s rather unstealthy sides.

quote:


A bit of miscommunication I think. I am complete agreement that all 4th generation aircraft are basically useless against a modern and up to date enemy. That was not my point. My point was that the F-35 has no advantage on SAM systems that Russians are currently acquiring. And that is the problem. The US is building an aircraft when at the same time the Russians are building a counter system for it. Why build something that is already effectively countered?

quote:


If you should build something as big and expensive as the F-35 project you should at least have multiple advantages for the coming 10 years on your potential foes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
The F-35 is not useless against these systems, for the aforementioned reasons. JASSM, SDB-II, and AARGM, combined with the ability to get closer to these sites enable vastly superior SEAD and DEAD capability from F-35 than from any other platform. Additionally, S-400 and S-500 are SARH systems, and cannot leverage the additional detection range provided by the VHF band radars against F-35.

quote:


Which is why the Russians build the SA-22. Precisely to deal with PGM like the JASSM, SDB-II and AARGM.

quote:


And by the way you can't shoot at something that isn't radiating

quote:


Shoot and scoot practices would be a hell to find or even defeat

quote:


Why do you think that VHF and SARH missile are not compatible? Because of accuracy?

quote:


And the VHF radar (RLM-M) is also capable of staring at a target with sufficient accuracy (something low band radars always lacked) to guide a missile.

quote:

But the cost of 65 tomahawks is < $140 mil since that was the price to the UK in July 2014 which included all of the spares and support. So rough equivalence is that for a single F35 I can purchase 65 Tomahawks. So for the price of the S-400 system (i'll assume Dutchie's price tag is close), I can purchase 260 t-hawks -- more than enough to overwhelm that S-400, whatever it was protecting, and several other targets as well. Did I miss something in the math? That of course assumes that the price tag for the F35s includes the munitions and fuel for the mission.

quote:


Which is why the Russians build the SA-22. Precisely to deal with PGM like the JASSM, SDB-II and AARGM.

quote:

Pantsir is relatively easily swamped when compared to the assets it is protecting. The approach times are too small for it to handle more than 2-3 targets.

quote:


And by the way you can't shoot at something that isn't radiating

quote:

All three of the systems I named were designed to handle non-radiating threats. SDB-II and AARGM incorporate sophisticated millimeter wave radars, and JASSM has IIR terminal guidance.

quote:


Shoot and scoot practices would be a hell to find or even defeat

quote:

Good luck shoot-and-scoot with S-400. It takes 2-3 hours to pack up and move.

quote:

All antenna components employ hydraulic stow/deploy and chassis levelling mechanisms for rapid “hide, shoot and scoot” operations. Cited stow and deploy times are 15 minutes, which is highly competitive, and consistent with a number of other recent designs.

quote:


Why do you think that VHF and SARH missile are not compatible? Because of accuracy?

quote:

Physics. The antennas needed to receive the VHF signal are too big for the missile to carry. This is why the HARM can't engage the EW radars, and also makes VHF SARH SAMs physically impossible.

quote:


And the VHF radar (RLM-M) is also capable of staring at a target with sufficient accuracy (something low band radars always lacked) to guide a missile.

quote:

An ARH missile which patently doesn't exist outside of the US.

quote:


The SA-22 can engage 4 targets simustaneously (three by radar and one by EO). Lets say a engagement radar is protected by two of these systems you need more then 8 PGM -at exactly the same time- to overwhelm the system. That is pretty secure.

quote:


What I meant was that they are not going to be in the same place after they turned off their engagement radar. The weapons you mentioned can only search a limited space in which the last known contact was seen.

quote:


Ah come on. That is just incorrect. And I don't believe it for a minute. Modern Russian SAM systems are highly mobile and highly automated and for the TELS of the S-400 stow times are given of under 5 minutes. Which seem very realistic. Radars take a little bit longer. Although the new radars of the Nebo M system are impressively fast:

quote:


The system has an interface for digital data transmission directly to a 30N6E/E1/E2 Flap Lid, using cabled links to the S-300PMU/PMU1 and optical fibre cables or microwave links to the S-300PMU2. Deployment and stow time is 5 minutes for the mobile variant, and 30 to 120 minutes for the semi-mobile and mast mounted variants respectively.

quote:


Good point. I didn't think of that. But it still leaves two other capable radars to guide the missile

quote:


Don't know about that. Which missile is that?

quote:

SA-22 is ACLOS, so multiple target engagement with 1 tracker isn't possible with it. The best that it can do seems to be two missiles on two (radar/EO) guidance vectors, so you only really need 4 PGM.

quote:

For the TELs. Not the radars.

96L6E (APA, numbers are likely optimistically low):

The system has an interface for digital data transmission directly to a 30N6E/E1/E2 Flap Lid, using cabled links to the S-300PMU/PMU1 and optical fibre cables or microwave links to the S-300PMU2. Deployment and stow time is 5 minutes for the mobile variant, and 30 to 120 minutes for the semi-mobile and mast mounted variants respectively.

This is likely typical of all of the S-400 battery component radars, especially Clam Shell and its variants. TELs are much simpler than the radars that are the real targets, and have correspondingly shorter stow times.

Furthermore, we're talking about moving nearly 28 vehicles, in an operation potentially involving a mobile crane and about 150 people. While the radars and TELs individually can move quickly, it is highly unlikely that the entire battery will be able to move anything like that fast.

quote:

No, it doesn't. First, remember that your argument is based on the increased RCS of F-35 at long wavelengths, so at these ranges only the VHF radar is able to resolve the F-35. Secondly, Nebo can only provide midcourse updates to the missile, not guidance. Guidance has to happen with the FCR, which works on X-band, which the F-35 has excellent LO characteristics against.

quote:

Also, F-35 likely has a very small VHF RCS. If we assume that F-35 has similar RCS to F-117 in the VHF band, it's about .01 sq m. Nebo can detect it at about 50km then, but only with its VHF radars, and this is also assuming that the aircraft is not leveraging ground clutter to minimize signal-to-noise.

quote:


Well everything I read about the SA-22 says that it is capable of engaging 4 separate targets simultaneously. What do you want me to say? When I read that I tend to believe it.

quote:


The X-band component of the SSTsR is used for target tracking, and uplink of missile steering commands., the Ku-band component for target and missile beacon tracking. The system typically guides one or two missile rounds against a single target.

quote:


Ability to capture 4 missiles after launch;

quote:


So to be safe let's keep it somewhere between the 5 minutes claimed and the deploy and stow times of the Nebo M system of 15 minutes. That is still incredibly fast. And enormously complicates SEAD and DEAD operations. Besides in your last sentence you talk about shoot and scoot operations of an entire battalion. But the entire S-400 system with radars, command posts and TEL's is completely wirelessly linked. With range limits of a 100 kilometers.

quote:


After an engagement only the elements which have exposed themselves a TEL and engagement radar have to shoot and scoot

quote:


I don't know how the Russians plan to guide their missiles to LO and VLO aircraft

quote:


(figure)

quote:


Study of the shaping of the aircraft and comparison with other designs shows that the Joint Strike Fighter can provide genuinely good stealth performance only in a fairly narrow ~29° sector about the aircraft’s nose, where the shaping of the nose, engine inlets, panel edge serrations, and alignment of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators results in the absence of major lobes or “spikes” in the radar signature. The ±14.5° angular limit is constrained by the principal reflecting lobe of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators. The signature degrades rapidly due to the influence of the lower centre fuselage as the angle swings past ±45° off the nose, refer Diagram 4.

quote:


I wonder where you got that number of 0.1 RCS @ VHF band

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
What I see is that when a US company or org makes a claim about a system like the F-35, there is immediate poo-pooing and denigration of it. But China shows a freaking model of a missile and people see China immediately shifting the balance of power. I just don't get it.

I am no flag-waver, but I am not seeing a balance view from some people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NickD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
What I see is that when a US company or org makes a claim about a system like the F-35, there is immediate poo-pooing and denigration of it. But China shows a freaking model of a missile and people see China immediately shifting the balance of power. I just don't get it.

I am no flag-waver, but I am not seeing a balance view from some people.

Well put. There's also often an assumption that China and Russia will be able to field large numbers of their new F-22 and F-35-equivalent aircraft, and in the near future. Given that it took about 20 years to develop each fighter type and the richest countries in the world have struggled a bit to pay for them, it seems odd to assume that poorer countries with less-developed (though still pretty good) aviation industries will somehow do better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Hold on a second here...while the F-35 is only now reaching some form of operational level, the PAK-FA is not even in series production yet. And most of the newer SAM-based IADSs are in limited deployment due to costs and politics.

It looks like the assumption is that the US just stands still at a certain point and lets SAM technology overtake it. If we can make assumptions and take an advertiser's word on Russian and Chinese system performance, I think we can assume there is a lot more the F-22s, F-35s, and F/A-18Gs. Those are deployed systems evolved from years of war. I would like to think certain people on the board would give that some credence.

What I see is that when a US company or org makes a claim about a system like the F-35, there is immediate poo-pooing and denigration of it. But China shows a freaking model of a missile and people see China immediately shifting the balance of power. I just don't get it.

I am no flag-waver, but I am not seeing a balance view from some people.

quote:


I would rather see our allies (I'm US) load up with the secondary platforms and the US shrink down to the tier1s. That way we don't need a plethora of multi-role aircraft. US can populate the SEAD/DEAD space, maybe air superiority, and allow platforms provided by allies (or hell, UAVs) for the strike missions, close air, etc. Spread the cost around rather than everyone building duplicate capability.

quote:

Martin says she expects the per-unit cost of the F-35A in 2019 – when full-rate production begins – to be $85 million in then-year dollars, or $75 million in current dollars. This includes an aircraft with the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and all mission systems, she says.

Martin claims this pricing will be better than competitors at the time. Boeing said that in today’s money, an F/A-18E/F would cost $50 million. However, Boeing is facing a production rate reduction by as much as half from 48 annually.

The target cost for aircraft in low-rate initial production lot 7 is just less than $100 million based on the most recent contract agreement between Lockheed Martin and the Penatgon. An LRIP 8 deal is expected to be signed next spring, Martin says.

quote:


2) go for the cheap option (F/A-18 or Griphen) and save yourself 25% (+ much cheaper operation costs) but lose the stealth

quote:

ORIGINAL: batek688

Y'all also went into a tangent discussing US versus Russia/China when this thread began as AUS purchasing the F35. Does the US have a role for the F35? Sure, for all the things discussed. But does AUS? Does AUS envision sustained offensive operations against a tier1 IADS when the US won't be there? I say no. AUS may have a reason for a pinpoint strike, but I don't see the threat where they need to establish the long-term superiority for all the follow-on ordinance where the cost of the 4 F35s becomes less than the price of 250 Tomahawks. They won't be controlling a battlespace ala Iraq/Afghanistan in any foreseeable future. Those scenarios are ones where the US is out there doing that and AUS is supporting -- which they can do with far less expensive platforms. I would rather see our allies (I'm US) load up with the secondary platforms and the US shrink down to the tier1s. That way we don't need a plethora of multi-role aircraft. US can populate the SEAD/DEAD space, maybe air superiority, and allow platforms provided by allies (or hell, UAVs) for the strike missions, close air, etc. Spread the cost around rather than everyone building duplicate capability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite

quote:


2) go for the cheap option (F/A-18 or Griphen) and save yourself 25% (+ much cheaper operation costs) but lose the stealth

F/A-18 isn't really an option, because the line's shutting down circa 2016. Because of this, the only cheaper option is Gripen, and Gripen has substantially less payload and range than F-35 does.