Hoping for a Longshot: F-22s in Israel?

[haamimhagolan]

For the sake of completeness, I am posting a link to a news report, suggesting that the Israeli government plans to reapproach the new US Administration regarding the possible sale of F-22 fighters to Israel:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/10/318621/israel-revives-interest-in-f-22-purchase.html

I personally don't believe there is much chance of this ever amounting to anything, but thought that I should post the report anyways to head-off some of the nonesense that I am sure the general news media will make out of it.

Put simply, the US is highly unlikely to ever approve the F-22 for export - to Israel or anyone else - for a variety of reasons. Among the first concerns is that unlike the F-35, the F-22 was never intended for export, and its avionics suite consequently does not have some of the same safeguards to prevent its technology from being reverse-engineered. Some of the difficulties associated with revising the F-22's software and avionics for export are described in the thesis paper attached below, originally submitted at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-7239.html

The Israeli air force has already indicated that they would gladly delay purchase of the F-35, if they could purchase the F-22 instead. The F-22 offers air-to-air capabilities that no other airplane, the F-35 included, can match. However, this option was repeatedly denied under the Bush Administration, a stance that is unlikely to change under an Obama White House. In addition to the political resistance to such a sale, the USAF is also not keen on sharing their most advanced weaponry with anyone, including Israel. Part of it is a sensitivity to the possibility that the airplane's technology might be reverse-engineered. Part of it is concern that Israel's neighbors (and their Russian patrons) might gain valuable intelligence simply by monitoring Israeli deployment of such a weapon.

As stated earlier, I don't believe that anything is going to come out of these latest queries on the part of the Israeli government. That doesn't mean that the general news media, however, won't misinterpret this wish list as something as something that it is not.

[WABA]

Basically,unless Israel can organize some miracle, there is no hope whatsoever that the USA will sell F22's to anyone.

As it stands at the moment I think only 183 are actually going to be built for the US Airforce. They had planned a F22 force of over 300, but this has been cut back to 183, then the F22 production line is to be closed down.

The possible reason for this is the F22 is very expensive, they have also realized the AESA radar ( which is fitted on the F22 and F35) is also easily fitted to the F15, F16 and SH/F18. It (the AESA) is a far cheaper and quicker alternative than building more F22's, and most inportant gives the existing retrofitted F15/16/18 aircraft similar capabilities to the F22/35 at a fraction of the price.

AESA radar has many added features over ordinary air to air radars. It also can be used for electronic networked warfare and SIGNIT, plus electronic Jamming .

Israel would be far better served to get AESA radars for their F15's/16's, they would be using aircraft they already own, and Israeli pilots are well trained on.

Then in the near future bring in the F35's that are on future order. For Israel the F35 is going to be a fantastic step up in air to ground caoabilities, plus air to air.

The F35 in Israeli airforce hands will be the king of the air over anything else flying in the M.E. for decades, it is an incredible aircraft.

WABA

[HideNSeek]

Basically,unless Israel can organize some miracle, there is no hope whatsoever that the USA will sell F22's to anyone.

As it stands at the moment I think only 183 are actually going to be built for the US Airforce. They had planned a F22 force of over 300, but this has been cut back to 183, then the F22 production line is to be closed down.

The possible reason for this is the F22 is very expensive, they have also realized the AESA radar ( which is fitted on the F22 and F35) is also easily fitted to the F15, F16 and SH/F18. It (the AESA) is a far cheaper and quicker alternative than building more F22's, and most inportant gives the existing retrofitted F15/16/18 aircraft similar capabilities to the F22/35 at a fraction of the price.

AESA radar has many added features over ordinary air to air radars. It also can be used for electronic networked warfare and SIGNIT, plus electronic Jamming .

Israel would be far better served to get AESA radars for their F15's/16's, they would be using aircraft they already own, and Israeli pilots are well trained on.

Then in the near future bring in the F35's that are on future order. For Israel the F35 is going to be a fantastic step up in air to ground caoabilities, plus air to air.

The F35 in Israeli airforce hands will be the king of the air over anything else flying in the M.E. for decades, it is an incredible aircraft.

WABA

Why is it incredible? I don't think its even complete yet (besides the test versions), and everything that's written about it says quite the opposite (besides the company itself).
Basically the only feature that makes it somewhat worthwhile (for the cost) is the stealth, everything else about it is quite ordinary (well, it does have a bunch of sensors and that kind of stuff, but I'm talking about air to air capabilities etc). Israel will of course buy it (or some American plane) because it will use US aid.

[panzermk2]

Honestly bang for buck the new JSF is the way to go. The VTOL would make for some really sneaky places to base them.

[joejd12]

Honestly bang for buck the new JSF is the way to go. The VTOL would make for some really sneaky places to base them.

except it would come at the cost of payload+fuel capacity and cost much more, not to mention the fact that that model of the f-35 is on the brink of being cancelled...

[WABA]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q

Hopefully this video on SOME of the F35's capabilities will settle any doubts about its capabilities.

The F35B is going to be used by both the US Marines (to replace AV8B Harriers) and the RN ( their 2 new carriers have been specifically design to fly off only VTOL aircraft & helicopters). It will not be cancelled.

There is a lot of rubbish being print by some "aviation writers" bad mouthing the F35.

The F35 is actually more 'electronically advanced' than the F22. It is a later aircraft and much of what has been learnt from the F22 development has ben incorporated into the F35.

Yes, the F22 is the premium fighter aircraft in the world, and it also replaces the F117 stealth fighter which has recently been taken out of service. It is a 'golden bullet', very expensive and very deadly. However as of this moment it doesn't have Link 16 fitted?

But, the USAF is the only airforce that really needs F22's.

The F35 will do every thing the F22 can do, it is not as capable air to air but air to ground it is far better.

The F35 is much more economical to run and maintain, one engine verses two. Because it is more multi-functional it can replace all other fighter and light bombers in any Airforce. There are immense savings in logistics and training in a 'one aircraft' airforce.

Australia's future airforce will be built around the F35,and hopefully we will get some F35B's for the new LHD carriers we are getting.

WABA

[joejd12]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q

Hopefully this video on SOME of the F35's capabilities will settle any doubts about its capabilities.

The F35B is going to be used by both the US Marines (to replace AV8B Harriers) and the RN ( their 2 new carriers have been specifically design to fly off only VTOL aircraft & helicopters). It will not be cancelled.

There is a lot of rubbish being print by some "aviation writers" bad mouthing the F35.

The F35 is actually more 'electronically advanced' than the F22. It is a later aircraft and much of what has been learnt from the F22 development has ben incorporated into the F35.

Yes, the F22 is the premium fighter aircraft in the world, and it also replaces the F117 stealth fighter which has recently been taken out of service. It is a 'golden bullet', very expensive and very deadly. However as of this moment it doesn't have Link 16 fitted?

But, the USAF is the only airforce that really needs F22's.

The F35 will do every thing the F22 can do, it is not as capable air to air but air to ground it is far better.

The F35 is much more economical to run and maintain, one engine verses two. Because it is more multi-functional it can replace all other fighter and light bombers in any Airforce. There are immense savings in logistics and training in a 'one aircraft' airforce.

Australia's future airforce will be built around the F35,and hopefully we will get some F35B's for the new LHD carriers we are getting.

WABA

that video did not, as you said, "settle any doubts about its capabilities" as it only discussed a few of the aircrafts projected capabilities...

but more important than that, is the fact that you're trusting a video made by the comapny which has developed and manufactured the f-35 to judge its future abilities...

in my opinion, though the sources you referred to as "bad mouthing the f-35" may not be entirely accurate and you can never be sure as to their agenda, you CAN be sure of the agenda of Northon Grumman, who has spent billions of dollars developing and manufacturing the f-35 and is pushing for increased sales of the aircraft...

and another point you seem to be missing, is the fact that the f-35 will only be ready (and thats only if they keep up with the schedule) for exporting in 2014, and other nations like Australia will be on the top of the list for export because they contributed to the development of the aircraft, so Israel would likely only get this aircraft in small numbers by 2015...

that would mean there would be a 6 year gap where our airforce would be flying increasingly aging planes, and though i dont admit to being an aviation expert, that doesnt seem to be too good of an idea to me...

so that also raises a question; would it be more beneficial both economicaly and strategicaly for Israel to just go in the UAV and UAFV route instead of buying expensive manned airplanes? (assuming it cant get the f-22 or the f-35 before 2014 or so)

[HideNSeek]

It’s not just some writers who have these doubts, if you read around many officials from various countries have doubts (including Australia). The F-35 was designed from the onset to only slightly exceed the F-16 in air to air combat, which would really make it already inferior to SU-30, Mig-35 etc in this area (not to mention newer planes which will be out by the time it’s even inducted).

Italy announced they will not be buying and evaluating test aircraft (will they buy the plane at all?)

And Norway seems to be leaning towards the Gripen.

Even grumblings from England have been heard, and some want to create a sea version of the Eurofighter, and not bothering with the F-35B.

Australia wanted the F-22, so did Japan. Japan doesn't seem to be too interested in the F-35.

I hope Israel buys a few, and uses them mainly as bombers, but Israel really needs something else as an air superiority fighter.

[haamimhagolan]

so that also raises a question; would it be more beneficial both economicaly and strategicaly for Israel to just go in the UAV and UAFV route instead of buying expensive manned airplanes? (assuming it cant get the f-22 or the f-35 before 2014 or so)

The Israeli military has reportedly been looking at where and how to best employ armed UAVs (or UCAVs) for a long time. As some of us are aware, Israel was one of the leading pioneers in deploying practical UAV technology on the battlefield back in the 1980s.

The bottom line is that there are some things that UAVs do best, and some things that are better served by manned fighter-bombers. You should expect to see both in the future Heyl HaAvir.

[WABA]

It’s not just some writers who have these doubts, if you read around many officials from various countries have doubts (including Australia). The F-35 was designed from the onset to only slightly exceed the F-16 in air to air combat, which would really make it already inferior to SU-30, Mig-35 etc in this area (not to mention newer planes which will be out by the time it’s even inducted).

Italy announced they will not be buying and evaluating test aircraft (will they buy the plane at all?)

And Norway seems to be leaning towards the Gripen.

Even grumblings from England have been heard, and some want to create a sea version of the Eurofighter, and not bothering with the F-35B.

Australia wanted the F-22, so did Japan. Japan doesn't seem to be too interested in the F-35.

I hope Israel buys a few, and uses them mainly as bombers, but Israel really needs something else as an air superiority fighter.

__________________________________________________ _________

A lot of what you say above is the tactics of the various 'governments' trying to get the best possible deal from America.

For a start the Americans have flatly stated they will NOT sell the F22 to anyone.

Australia wanted the F-22

Not really. There is a small vocal minority aviaton group that has been pushing for Australia to buy the F22.
Australia has just had a change of Government. The previous Government (Liberal) had selected the F35.
The present Labour Minister for Defence (Fitzgibbon) is an idiot who would not know the difference between JSF or a C17, and was just trying to score political points against the prior administration.
The RAAF had made the choice of the F35 after exhaustive studies, the RAAF is one of the premium quality Airforces in the world, they picked the F35 because it was the best plane for Australia bar none.

so did Japan. Japan doesn't seem to be too interested in the F-35.

Japan has a non-aggressive Constitution the forbids attacks on other countries and is basically has a self-defense Armed Forces. The F35 is basically a light bomber with excellent air-to-air capabilities.
The F22 fits their self defence structure better than the F35, mainly Japan's area of concern would be a mass attack from mainland China, something the F22 was specifically designed for.
Japan recently had a massive security outage when USN 'Aegis' naval radar information was compromised.
So America is not going to hand over their F22 secrets.
It would be cheaper and easier if Japan went for fitting their F15's with AESA.

and some want to create a sea version of the Eurofighter, and not bothering with the F-35B.

It would cost England mega bucks to design and build a navalized version of the Eurofighter, plus change the new Carrier deck layout.
The F35B is the ONLY replacement for the Harrier.
The Brits are argueing for better access to sensitive electronic codes used on the F35's something America has concerns about.

The F-35 was designed from the onset to only slightly exceed the F-16 in air to air combat, which would really make it already inferior to SU-30, Mig-35 etc in this area (not to mention newer planes which will be out by the time it’s even inducted).

For a start the F35 is a true 'stealth fighter', none of the above are. The Su-30 or Mig 35 will not even see what hit them. The future air -to -air combat will be BVR, however if it comes to WVR the F35 will more than handle Su30's or Mig35's.

It is the 'electronics' that are fitted that are going to win fights in the future, and the F35 has the best there is.

Waba

[HideNSeek]

__________________________________________________ _________

A lot of what you say above is the tactics of the various 'governments' trying to get the best possible deal from America.

For a start the Americans have flatly stated they will NOT sell the F22 to anyone.

Australia wanted the F-22

Not really. There is a small vocal minority aviaton group that has been pushing for Australia to buy the F22.
Australia has just had a change of Government. The previous Government (Liberal) had selected the F35.
The present Labour Minister for Defence (Fitzgibbon) is an idiot who would not know the difference between JSF or a C17, and was just trying to score political points against the prior administration.
The RAAF had made the choice of the F35 after exhaustive studies, the RAAF is one of the premium quality Airforces in the world, they picked the F35 because it was the best plane for Australia bar none.

so did Japan. Japan doesn't seem to be too interested in the F-35.

Japan has a non-aggressive Constitution the forbids attacks on other countries and is basically has a self-defense Armed Forces. The F35 is basically a light bomber with excellent air-to-air capabilities.
The F22 fits their self defence structure better than the F35, mainly Japan's area of concern would be a mass attack from mainland China, something the F22 was specifically designed for.
Japan recently had a massive security outage when USN 'Aegis' naval radar information was compromised.
So America is not going to hand over their F22 secrets.
It would be cheaper and easier if Japan went for fitting their F15's with AESA.

and some want to create a sea version of the Eurofighter, and not bothering with the F-35B.

It would cost England mega bucks to design and build a navalized version of the Eurofighter, plus change the new Carrier deck layout.
The F35B is the ONLY replacement for the Harrier.
The Brits are argueing for better access to sensitive electronic codes used on the F35's something America has concerns about.

The F-35 was designed from the onset to only slightly exceed the F-16 in air to air combat, which would really make it already inferior to SU-30, Mig-35 etc in this area (not to mention newer planes which will be out by the time it’s even inducted).

For a start the F35 is a true 'stealth fighter', none of the above are. The Su-30 or Mig 35 will not even see what hit them. The future air -to -air combat will be BVR, however if it comes to WVR the F35 will more than handle Su30's or Mig35's.

It is the 'electronics' that are fitted that are going to win fights in the future, and the F35 has the best there is.

Waba


You’re interjecting your own opinion into the decision of purchasing the F-35 by Australia. In fact, there was a disagreement. As to who was right, well the future will tell. But there is a trend here, wherever the F-35 goes, controversy is not far behind (with few exceptions), England, Australia, Norway etc, doubt seems to follow it around. It’s not just “political” either; most of the independent analysis also questions its purpose as a strike fighter.

As far as Japan is concerened, they already started their own fighter program (having the F-X contest).

That “stealth” aspect you mentioned, which is supposed to give it the edge over all fighters, is an extremely “western” mentality. It reminds of Vietnam, and how it was decided not to have an internal cannon on the F-4, because new air to air missiles would spell the end of days for dogfights. Well, we know how that turned out. Just because you have stealth doesn’t mean you won’t engage in dogfights. The beauty of the F-22 is that it is stealthy (more so than the F-35 even) but can also dogfight with the best of them.

Let’s remember Serbians shot down an F-117 with ancient equipment, the last thing I want to rely on in a life or death situation is “stealth”, especially in about 10 years as there are already reports of new radars which can detect stealthy aircraft.

All I can hear about the F-35 are buzz words, like electronics, sensors, stealth and etc etc. That’s not a good indication, and it’s especially not in line with Israeli mentality of what makes a good fighter. Its supposed to be a next generation fighter (lasting for 30 years), yet it seems to be already obsolete in terms of aerodynamics.

Like I said, Israel should probably get these and use them as bombers, and look for something else in the air to air category.

[haamimhagolan]

A couple of points need to be clarified, for the benefit of forum members who might not have been following aviation news as closely.

As far as Japan is concerened, they already started their own fighter program (having the F-X contest).

Japan's "fighter" program is a non-starter. Although in theory Japan is one of a handful of nations that could develop a low observable fighter of their own, the Japanese have so far proven unwilling to increase their defense budget to the point where this could become a reality.

What the Japanese proposed doing - a little over a year ago - was to develop the ATD-X or Shinshin stealth demonstrator. This airplane would have proven out key technologies needed for a stealth fighter, but was too small to be a practical fighter in its own right. It would have been roughly the size and range of an F-5E - hardly suitable to the long-range patrols that Japan's Air Self Defense Force is called upon to perform.

Even this stealth demonstrator, however, has been cut from the Japanese budget. All that remains is life-support funding to continue studying the idea, but not enough to actually build and test a technology demonstrator:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/01/221236/japan-cuts-back-funds-for-atd-x-steath-demonstrator.html

Building a low observable platform requires extremetly deep pockets. There are only three nations in the world today that are known to be actively developing a stealth warplane for operational service: the US, Russia, and China.

Let’s remember Serbians shot down an F-117 with ancient equipment, the last thing I want to rely on in a life or death situation is “stealth”, especially in about 10 years as there are already reports of new radars which can detect stealthy aircraft.

The downing of the F-117 over Serbia was the product of American arrogance and poor operational planning. The US fighters continued to follow the same flight pattern for weeks - allowing the Serbs to pre-position heat-seeking missile batteries, knowing full well when and where the US warplanes would be coming.

I do agree that "stealth" is not the only feature that Israel needs to look for in a fighter. The Israeli air force would definitely prefer a mix of F-22 and F-35 fighters, rather than relying on the F-35 on its own. Unfortunately, I just can't see the US opening the door to an F-22 sale - and I don't see any other stealth fighter on the horizen.

[HideNSeek]

A couple of points need to be clarified, for the benefit of forum members who might not have been following aviation news as closely.



Japan's "fighter" program is a non-starter. Although in theory Japan is one of a handful of nations that could develop a low observable fighter of their own, the Japanese have so far proven unwilling to increase their defense budget to the point where this could become a reality.

What the Japanese proposed doing - a little over a year ago - was to develop the ATD-X or Shinshin stealth demonstrator. This airplane would have proven out key technologies needed for a stealth fighter, but was too small to be a practical fighter in its own right. It would have been roughly the size and range of an F-5E - hardly suitable to the long-range patrols that Japan's Air Self Defense Force is called upon to perform.

Even this stealth demonstrator, however, has been cut from the Japanese budget. All that remains is life-support funding to continue studying the idea, but not enough to actually build and test a technology demonstrator:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/01/221236/japan-cuts-back-funds-for-atd-x-steath-demonstrator.html

Building a low observable platform requires extremetly deep pockets. There are only three nations in the world today that are known to be actively developing a stealth warplane for operational service: the US, Russia, and China.



The downing of the F-117 over Serbia was the product of American arrogance and poor operational planning. The US fighters continued to follow the same flight pattern for weeks - allowing the Serbs to pre-position heat-seeking missile batteries, knowing full well when and where the US warplanes would be coming.

I do agree that "stealth" is not the only feature that Israel needs to look for in a fighter. The Israeli air force would definitely prefer a mix of F-22 and F-35 fighters, rather than relying on the F-35 on its own. Unfortunately, I just can't see the US opening the door to an F-22 sale - and I don't see any other stealth fighter on the horizen.


Well, Japan essentially said that its either the F-22, or they will be going with the Eurofighter (or something non-American), which is unusual as they almost always buy US.

As for the F-117, I heard a different reasons as to why it was shot down. Excuse me if I can't trust everything the American weapons industry or military says, those patriots from the first gulf war were something like 90% successful according to them...



Our review of the U.S. Army report Analysis of Video Tapes to Assess Patriot Effectiveness leads us to conclude that it is seriously flawed both at a conceptual and technical level. More than two thirds of the descriptions of Patriot video sequences in the Army report contain important omissions, misleading information, or use poorly selected video sequences.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/pl920908.htm


So really, I don't have much faith in what they say about the F-35, or how great stealth is. I'm sure it is a nice thing to have, but it should be an enhancement to an already potent fighter (F-22, which can still dogfight with anything if needed), not something to be completly (or nearly so) depended on (F-35). If stealth is compromised, what is an F-35? Looks like an F-16 with more bells and whistles.

[HideNSeek]

"Skittish Israel Pares F-35I Extras

Lockheed CEO: More Workshare A Possibility
By barbara opall-rome
Published: 17 November 2008


TEL AVIV - Stunned by projected program costs for their Israel-unique version of the F-35, Israel Air Force (IAF) and MoD officials are struggling to pare a hefty list of customized subsystems and add-ons that threaten to ground the aircraft as unaffordable.

Meanwhile, the CEO of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) prime contractor Lockheed Martin dangled the possibility of more workshare for Israeli firms if the government places its orders promptly.
In September, U.S. program officials gave rough price and availability data to their Israeli counterparts, who reacted with sticker shock to the price tag of $200 million per plane. Since then, both sides have been seeking a new configuration that can meet Israel Air Force performance and budget requirements.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) General Staff had been expecting to pay about $2 billion - $80 million per plane - for the first 25 aircraft.
"Their budget was not in sync with the rough order of magnitude data they received. To put it mildly, they were overwhelmed," a U.S. government source said. "The customer was drawing from their experiences with the F-15 and F-16, which are third-generation, rather than a fifth-generation fighter with significant international content that is evolving and becoming real."
"It's unbelievable," a member of the IDF General Staff said. "First it was $40 million to $50 million, and then they [the IAF] told us $70 million to $80 million. Now, we're looking at nearly three times that amount, and who's to say it won't continue to climb?"
Pentagon estimates, based on Israel's letter of request (LoR) to the Defense Security and Cooperation Agency, put total program costs for Israel's planned 75-aircraft buy as high as $15.2 billion. That figure includes all 75 aircraft, engines, electronic warfare and C4I systems, training and logistics support and a host of other services, features and capabilities, including "unique systems for sovereign requirements." A fairly detailed summary of Israel's LoR was published in a Pentagon notification to Congress dated Sept. 29.
U.S. and Israeli sources say government liaisons are meeting or speaking almost daily in attempts to finalize a configuration for a program management review scheduled for mid-December. Once the two sides agree on an F-35I configuration, the U.S. government and prime contractor Lockheed Martin will be in a position to come up with a more reliable price.
"The Israelis were very aggressive in their demands, and their LoR was extremely extensive," the U.S. government source said. "The price estimate sent up to Congress was based on an educated guess of the total package. ... Now, they need to pick through the menu of options and separate the nice-to-have from the need-to-have."
Meanwhile, Lockheed executives have been doing their best to ease Israeli concerns while supporting government-to-government talks toward a JSF contract commitment.
In interviews here, company sources insist that Pentagon estimates to Congress unfairly misrepresented actual costs and that the flyaway price tag is not far removed from initial estimates. In a meeting last month with reporters here, Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice president and general manager of the JSF program, estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in 2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected 2014 dollars.
"Remember, there are three distinct elements to this program," a company representative here said. "There's the baseline aircraft, there's infrastructure, and then you have to factor in all the nonrecurring development and integration costs associated with Israeli-unique systems."
He said of Pentagon cost estimates: "It doesn't mean it will cost that much, but just that it could cost that much."

More Workshare?

In meetings here the week of Nov. 10, Lockheed CEO Robert Stevens encouraged Israeli authorities and industry executives to consider the benefits of early commitment to the program.
He noted that seven Israeli firms already have secured a combined $200 million in contracts for JSF, and indicated that local workshare could grow significantly once the government's role in the program is definite. Burbage, in his visit last month, was more explicit, citing a potential $500 million worth of Israeli content for inclusion in the program.
"The earlier one can participate in the program, the greater the [industrial] participation," Stevens told reporters here Nov. 9.
Stevens wouldn't discuss projected Israeli costs or details regarding local technologies and subsystems to be included in the program.
"Our job right now is to support government-to-government discussions on configuration, scheduling and price."
Nevertheless, the Lockheed chief said Israel's contractual commitment would generate greater returns on the government's overall acquisition investment.
"Capital investment adds to the quality of the product, the sustainability of the product and the satisfaction of the customer," Stevens said. "Israel has an opportunity to become a global partner over time."
He added, "Pound for pound and dollar for dollar, there won't be a more affordable, capable and sustainable aircraft than the JSF.""

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3823104&c=FEA&s=CVS

The F-35 is turning into a real bargain (about 200 million per plane). Russia is buying some Israeli UAV's, why not ask them for some SU-30's at a fraction of the cost (of course I'm kidding, as this will never happen), and use the US funding to buy other US equipment?

[joejd12]

"Skittish Israel Pares F-35I Extras

Lockheed CEO: More Workshare A Possibility
By barbara opall-rome
Published: 17 November 2008


TEL AVIV - Stunned by projected program costs for their Israel-unique version of the F-35, Israel Air Force (IAF) and MoD officials are struggling to pare a hefty list of customized subsystems and add-ons that threaten to ground the aircraft as unaffordable.

Meanwhile, the CEO of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) prime contractor Lockheed Martin dangled the possibility of more workshare for Israeli firms if the government places its orders promptly.
In September, U.S. program officials gave rough price and availability data to their Israeli counterparts, who reacted with sticker shock to the price tag of $200 million per plane. Since then, both sides have been seeking a new configuration that can meet Israel Air Force performance and budget requirements.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) General Staff had been expecting to pay about $2 billion - $80 million per plane - for the first 25 aircraft.
"Their budget was not in sync with the rough order of magnitude data they received. To put it mildly, they were overwhelmed," a U.S. government source said. "The customer was drawing from their experiences with the F-15 and F-16, which are third-generation, rather than a fifth-generation fighter with significant international content that is evolving and becoming real."
"It's unbelievable," a member of the IDF General Staff said. "First it was $40 million to $50 million, and then they [the IAF] told us $70 million to $80 million. Now, we're looking at nearly three times that amount, and who's to say it won't continue to climb?"
Pentagon estimates, based on Israel's letter of request (LoR) to the Defense Security and Cooperation Agency, put total program costs for Israel's planned 75-aircraft buy as high as $15.2 billion. That figure includes all 75 aircraft, engines, electronic warfare and C4I systems, training and logistics support and a host of other services, features and capabilities, including "unique systems for sovereign requirements." A fairly detailed summary of Israel's LoR was published in a Pentagon notification to Congress dated Sept. 29.
U.S. and Israeli sources say government liaisons are meeting or speaking almost daily in attempts to finalize a configuration for a program management review scheduled for mid-December. Once the two sides agree on an F-35I configuration, the U.S. government and prime contractor Lockheed Martin will be in a position to come up with a more reliable price.
"The Israelis were very aggressive in their demands, and their LoR was extremely extensive," the U.S. government source said. "The price estimate sent up to Congress was based on an educated guess of the total package. ... Now, they need to pick through the menu of options and separate the nice-to-have from the need-to-have."
Meanwhile, Lockheed executives have been doing their best to ease Israeli concerns while supporting government-to-government talks toward a JSF contract commitment.
In interviews here, company sources insist that Pentagon estimates to Congress unfairly misrepresented actual costs and that the flyaway price tag is not far removed from initial estimates. In a meeting last month with reporters here, Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice president and general manager of the JSF program, estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in 2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected 2014 dollars.
"Remember, there are three distinct elements to this program," a company representative here said. "There's the baseline aircraft, there's infrastructure, and then you have to factor in all the nonrecurring development and integration costs associated with Israeli-unique systems."
He said of Pentagon cost estimates: "It doesn't mean it will cost that much, but just that it could cost that much."

More Workshare?

In meetings here the week of Nov. 10, Lockheed CEO Robert Stevens encouraged Israeli authorities and industry executives to consider the benefits of early commitment to the program.
He noted that seven Israeli firms already have secured a combined $200 million in contracts for JSF, and indicated that local workshare could grow significantly once the government's role in the program is definite. Burbage, in his visit last month, was more explicit, citing a potential $500 million worth of Israeli content for inclusion in the program.
"The earlier one can participate in the program, the greater the [industrial] participation," Stevens told reporters here Nov. 9.
Stevens wouldn't discuss projected Israeli costs or details regarding local technologies and subsystems to be included in the program.
"Our job right now is to support government-to-government discussions on configuration, scheduling and price."
Nevertheless, the Lockheed chief said Israel's contractual commitment would generate greater returns on the government's overall acquisition investment.
"Capital investment adds to the quality of the product, the sustainability of the product and the satisfaction of the customer," Stevens said. "Israel has an opportunity to become a global partner over time."
He added, "Pound for pound and dollar for dollar, there won't be a more affordable, capable and sustainable aircraft than the JSF.""

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3823104&c=FEA&s=CVS

The F-35 is turning into a real bargain (about 200 million per plane). Russia is buying some Israeli UAV's, why not ask them for some SU-30's at a fraction of the cost (of course I'm kidding, as this will never happen), and use the US funding to buy other US equipment?

well... at 200 million per plane we might as well be flying the f-16, because no one in their right mind would risk losing a 200 million dollar plane it would become a lame duck, never to be used.

i remember reading about the f-22 as a young kid (i must have been about 8) and being amazed by the price tag (which was then projected at $120 million) and everyone else in my family was too, so the question is... if the israeli public is barely willing to pay for the $20 million f-16's and f-15's, how is the government going to sell this to them?

and on another note... wasnt the f-35 supposed to be more suitable for ground attack missions AND more cost effewctive then the f-22?

[HideNSeek]

well... at 200 million per plane we might as well be flying the f-16, because no one in their right mind would risk losing a 200 million dollar plane it would become a lame duck, never to be used.

i remember reading about the f-22 as a young kid (i must have been about 8) and being amazed by the price tag (which was then projected at $120 million) and everyone else in my family was too, so the question is... if the israeli public is barely willing to pay for the $20 million f-16's and f-15's, how is the government going to sell this to them?

and on another note... wasnt the f-35 supposed to be more suitable for ground attack missions AND more cost effewctive then the f-22?

It was supposed to be many things (although air to ground should be it strong suit)...I'm sure they'll spin the price somehow.

Also, Israel was willing to spend $80 million, but $200 million, for this questionable, unproven aircraft? Yikes!

[haamimhagolan]

There are a lot of questions and unknowns that remain unclear from the partial report provided by Defense News. We'll need to watch, and reserve judgement on this one.

The news article quotes a procurement cost - but it doesn't clarify which-year-dollars the cost estimate is quoted in. Are these 2014 dollars, or 2002 dollars? The report doesn't say. It also quotes the upper-most cost estimate provided by the Pentagon, but not the lower cost estimate, nor the most likely cost estimate. It also does not specify which version of the F-35 this cost estimate is based on. The STOVL version adds 30% to the cost of the baseline airplane - even without factoring in Israeli avionics.

What we need is a more complete breakdown of what this estimate includes, and what it assumes. We also need to be careful about comparing total procurement costs (which include support equipment and training) to flyaway costs. Flyaway costs are usually 40 to 60% of the total procurement effort.

Hopefully in the next week or so more details surrounding this Pentagon cost estimate will emerge.

I still would like to see the Israelis procure the F-22 . . . but given the alternative of no stealth aircraft or the F-35, the Heyl HaAvir will have to take the alternative that they are offered. We still need to see the complete picture on cost, however, before anyone can draw conclusions regarding how much this program is going to cost the Israelis, and how many they can afford. The Defense News article is only giving us part of that picture.

[HideNSeek]

There are a lot of questions and unknowns that remain unclear from the partial report provided by Defense News. We'll need to watch, and reserve judgement on this one.

The news article quotes a procurement cost - but it doesn't clarify which-year-dollars the cost estimate is quoted in. Are these 2014 dollars, or 2002 dollars? The report doesn't say. It also quotes the upper-most cost estimate provided by the Pentagon, but not the lower cost estimate, nor the most likely cost estimate. It also does not specify which version of the F-35 this cost estimate is based on. The STOVL version adds 30% to the cost of the baseline airplane - even without factoring in Israeli avionics.

What we need is a more complete breakdown of what this estimate includes, and what it assumes. We also need to be careful about comparing total procurement costs (which include support equipment and training) to flyaway costs. Flyaway costs are usually 40 to 60% of the total procurement effort.

Hopefully in the next week or so more details surrounding this Pentagon cost estimate will emerge.

I still would like to see the Israelis procure the F-22 . . . but given the alternative of no stealth aircraft or the F-35, the Heyl HaAvir will have to take the alternative that they are offered. We still need to see the complete picture on cost, however, before anyone can draw conclusions regarding how much this program is going to cost the Israelis, and how many they can afford. The Defense News article is only giving us part of that picture.

Well, I'm pretty sure congress was notified of a possible F-35 sale to Israel for 75 F-35s, with the cost of 15.2 Billion (that means today's money). So you can estimate based on that...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=98358&session=dae.42902356.1226968550.4JlnvX8AAAEAACXugr gAAAAl&modele=release&prod=98358

So even with all the "training" etc, the plane is too expensive.

[haamimhagolan]

the plane is too expensive.

Unfortunately, there are very few alternatives. Many don't realize it, but Israel has already begun retiring some of their older F-15 and F-16 airframes. They are simply wearing out. Buying more F-15s or F-16s would only be a stop-gap measure. The F-35 could provide Israel with abilities that the older generation of airplanes cannot, including the ability to reach targets in Iran without being detected by Saudi, Syrian or Iraqi air defenses en route. That's an important asset. Iran's ayatollahs are going to be a thorn in Israel's side for a long time to come.

Israel will eventually buy the F-35. It's a question of how many, with what features, and what other assets would be needed to complement the capability of a shrinking Israeli air force. I suspect that they are going to need to look at a range of precision munitions, cruise missiles, and UCAV's to help fill in the gaps in coverage.

[WABA]

* ‘Aviation Week’ reports the USAF is looking to propose a new requirement for between 250 and 275 F-22A Raptors, rather than the 381 it said it required previously, but more than the 187 currently funded. This number would allow the USAF to field 10 combat squadrons of F-22s as well as maintain the conversion unit at Tyndall AFB in Florida and the OT&E unit at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Just when everything looked cut and dried on F22 numbers ( 183 ) the USAF managed to get approval for another 4 aircraft ( 187 ) to keep the various F22 componet lines going..

Now it appears that they are trying to go for up to 275 F-22's.

I wonder what the Congress will say given the current fiscal situation?
And as far as I recall it was Congress that set the F22' numbers at 183,

Maybe the USAF will try to horse trade the retirement of a significant number of the older F15's/16's ?

And more interesting what will Obama do ?

:pat:

[HideNSeek]

Unfortunately, there are very few alternatives. Many don't realize it, but Israel has already begun retiring some of their older F-15 and F-16 airframes. They are simply wearing out. Buying more F-15s or F-16s would only be a stop-gap measure. The F-35 could provide Israel with abilities that the older generation of airplanes cannot, including the ability to reach targets in Iran without being detected by Saudi, Syrian or Iraqi air defenses en route. That's an important asset. Iran's ayatollahs are going to be a thorn in Israel's side for a long time to come.

Israel will eventually buy the F-35. It's a question of how many, with what features, and what other assets would be needed to complement the capability of a shrinking Israeli air force. I suspect that they are going to need to look at a range of precision munitions, cruise missiles, and UCAV's to help fill in the gaps in coverage.

Highly speculative as stealth is not an invisibility cloak and Russia claims the S-300/S-400 can detect stealth aircraft (and those systems are for sale, now or in the future). In 10 years, there will be even more advanced radars which will probably make stealth a minor convenience rather than a necessity (speculation rooted in fact), this is even more true in regards to the F-35 as its stealth features are downgraded when compared to the F-22.

With respect to F-16’s, Israel didn’t even get all of their F16I’s yet, the last couple will arrive in the New Year. Israel can’t afford to lose 200 million dollar planes to SAM’s, so they might order just a few (just because of US pressure). If it’s really that expensive (or something isn’t thrown into the deal, like partial constructions in Israel or something), I expect to see more F15/16’s ordered, because in the Air to Air department, there is no real benefit of having the F-35s, especially when you can get 2/3 F-15’s with AESA to 1 F-35.

[haamimhagolan]

Russia claims the S-300/S-400 can detect stealth aircraft.

The Russians are nowhere close to being able to detect, much less intercept a stealth aircraft at anything approaching a useful range. Maybe if the Soviet Union had not collapsed and the Russians had been working on developing counter-stealth technologies for the past twenty years - instead of watching their air force rust - then maybe I could believe they had something. The reality is that the Russian defense industries have been in a state of neglect for nearly two decades with minimal R&D budget.

Defeating stealth requires a lot more than a bigger radar. It would require a networked detection system with a variety of sensors - something that the Russians have't had the budget for until two to three years ago. Yes, there eventually will be a means developed to defeat stealth technology. But it's nowhere close to being here yet.

Combine a low observable platform with Israeli electronic warfare expertise, and the stealth aircraft becomes the spear that allows a larger, conventional strike package to punch through. Unfortunately the Israelis may not be able to buy more than a token order of such aircraft. We'll have to wait and see what the real cost and outlines of an Israeli purchase are.

[haamimhagolan]

Just when everything looked cut and dried on F22 numbers ( 183 ) the USAF managed to get approval for another 4 aircraft ( 187 ) to keep the various F22 componet lines going.

Congress actually approved funding for an additional 20 F-22's. The Pentagon has been releasing only the minimum needed to keep the production line open until Obama takes office - despite Congressional protests that they should spend the full amount.

And as far as I recall it was Congress that set the F22' numbers at 183.

It was the Pentagon and Defense Secretary that have limited F-22 production, to make room in the budget for other priorities (submarines for the Navy, funding for F-35, etc). Congress has generally supported extending F-22 production to preserve jobs in various districts.

[HideNSeek]

The Russians are nowhere close to being able to detect, much less intercept a stealth aircraft at anything approaching a useful range. Maybe if the Soviet Union had not collapsed and the Russians had been working on developing counter-stealth technologies for the past twenty years - instead of watching their air force rust - then maybe I could believe they had something. The reality is that the Russian defense industries have been in a state of neglect for nearly two decades with minimal R&D budget.

Defeating stealth requires a lot more than a bigger radar. It would require a networked detection system with a variety of sensors - something that the Russians have't had the budget for until two to three years ago. Yes, there eventually will be a means developed to defeat stealth technology. But it's nowhere close to being here yet.

Combine a low observable platform with Israeli electronic warfare expertise, and the stealth aircraft becomes the spear that allows a larger, conventional strike package to punch through. Unfortunately the Israelis may not be able to buy more than a token order of such aircraft. We'll have to wait and see what the real cost and outlines of an Israeli purchase are.

Again, not sure where your getting this. I've been reading for years how the Czech have radar capable of doing just that (Tamara). And if they have it, I'm sure countries like China/Russia, can get it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1380555/US-fears-Iraq-radar-can-see-stealth-plane.html

and this was a while ago, before Iraq.

I also remember reading the US buying a Czech company developing this anti-stealth technology.

In the same time, it should be noted the Russians got there hands on that downed F117, so I believe them when they say they can detect some degree of stealth. And Remember the F-35 is not a B-2, its not even an F-22 in terms of stealth, its just stealthier than the previous generation fighters.

There are also systems like the Ukranian Kolchuga (probably exaggerated abilities, but still). So, in 10 years...

[haamimhagolan]

The Telegraph hardly qualifies as a reputable source - particularly on defense matters. If you want to quote me something from Jane's, or Flight International, or Aviation Week I am willing to listen. Otherwise it's all smoke.

You could also ask yourself the question of whether Saddam Hussein was able to track and target even one stealth aircraft using this reported technology. I think we both know the answer.

I understand that many may not appreciate just how difficult it is to overcome stealth technology. I will attempt to provide a simplified explanation. Bear in mind that everything I am about to relate are simple, textbook comparisons - nothing that hasn't been either published or posted before

The range at which a radar can pick up an opposing aircraft can be calculated by the radar range equation as follows[1]:

1095

The following items can be observed from this relation.


According to published accounts, US stealth aircraft have achieved a reduction in radar cross sectional area that is at least three orders of magnitude smaller than that afforded by previous generations of aircraft. This means that the range at which an opposing radar system can detect such an aircraft is reduced by over 80-percent compared to their effective range against legacy fighters.


Overcoming a radar cross section reduction of this magnitude - by increasing the power of the radar signal - would require an equivalent, 1000X increase in transmitter power. This is not, nor will it be feasible for the small antennae found on radar-guided missiles. Heat rejection alone would rule this out. And while this brute-force approach might eventually be plausible for a ground-based antenna, that only gives the hostile radar the ability to detect a stealth aircraft - not to guide a missile onto target.


Increasing the radar wavelength is also a means for countering stealth technology. Note, however, that the antenna gain will decrease in the same proportion:
1096
So while it is theoretically plausible to increase the wavelength by 31X to counter the effects of stealth, this would require that the antenna area be increased by 1000X to maintain a constant gain. Once again, while this might be theoretically plausible for a ground-based system, it is not possible within the confines of a missile. You might be able to track a stealth aircraft with such a system, but that doesn't mean you can fire on it.


A more effective means of detecting a stealth aircraft would be to deploy a networked air defense system, where the transmitting and receiving antennae are separated by a large distance. This approach is also referred to as a "bistatic" or "multistatic" radar, and effectively increases the observed radar cross section of the target to a more manageable level - by defeating the effects of stealth shaping. Once more, however, there becomes a disconnect between detecting the aircraft, and being able to home a missile in on it.

The bottom line is that defeating stealth technology would require a huge investment - both to develop the technology, and to deploy it. The Russians haven't had those kind of resources since the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one else is going to have those kind of resources readily at hand either.


References:

[1] Robert E Ball, The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design (New York, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1985), p. 381.

[HideNSeek]

The Telegraph hardly qualifies as a reputable source - particularly on defense matters. If you want to quote me something from Jane's, or Flight International, or Aviation Week I am willing to listen. Otherwise it's all smoke.

You could also ask yourself the question of whether Saddam Hussein was able to track and target even one stealth aircraft using this reported technology. I think we both know the answer.

I understand that many may not appreciate just how difficult it is to overcome stealth technology. I will attempt to provide a simplified explanation. Bear in mind that everything I am about to relate are simple, textbook comparisons - nothing that hasn't been either published or posted before

The range at which a radar can pick up an opposing aircraft can be calculated by the radar range equation as follows[1]:

1095

The following items can be observed from this relation.


According to published accounts, US stealth aircraft have achieved a reduction in radar cross sectional area that is at least three orders of magnitude smaller than that afforded by previous generations of aircraft. This means that the range at which an opposing radar system can detect such an aircraft is reduced by over 80-percent compared to their effective range against legacy fighters.


Overcoming a radar cross section reduction of this magnitude - by increasing the power of the radar signal - would require an equivalent, 1000X increase in transmitter power. This is not, nor will it be feasible for the small antennae found on radar-guided missiles. Heat rejection alone would rule this out. And while this brute-force approach might eventually be plausible for a ground-based antenna, that only gives the hostile radar the ability to detect a stealth aircraft - not to guide a missile onto target.


Increasing the radar wavelength is also a means for countering stealth technology. Note, however, that the antenna gain will decrease in the same proportion:
1096
So while it is theoretically plausible to increase the wavelength by 31X to counter the effects of stealth, this would require that the antenna area be increased by 1000X to maintain a constant gain. Once again, while this might be theoretically plausible for a ground-based system, it is not possible within the confines of a missile. You might be able to track a stealth aircraft with such a system, but that doesn't mean you can fire on it.


A more effective means of detecting a stealth aircraft would be to deploy a networked air defense system, where the transmitting and receiving antennae are separated by a large distance. This approach is also referred to as a "bistatic" or "multistatic" radar, and effectively increases the observed radar cross section of the target to a more manageable level - by defeating the effects of stealth shaping. Once more, however, there becomes a disconnect between detecting the aircraft, and being able to home a missile in on it.

The bottom line is that defeating stealth technology would require a huge investment - both to develop the technology, and to deploy it. The Russians haven't had those kind of resources since the collapse of the Soviet Union. No one else is going to have those kind of resources readily at hand either.


References:

[1] Robert E Ball, The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design (New York, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1985), p. 381.

I didn't choose the article to say Iraq had them, but simply that they existed.
But anyway, you don't believe Czech claims or even Russian claims, which is fine, your choice.

But here is an intersting article, the US for some unknown reason decided to buy the company that build the Vera surveillance radar.

http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2006/11/15/czech-radar-company-sold.php

Here is an article I found off another site, its actually fairly old from 2004. Someone posted it, and didn't list the link, but it does make some valid points.

"Advanced ESM/SIGINT systems

In the last few years, it has become commonplace for “shocking” reports to crop-up in western media about some new “anti-stealth radar” being sold to a number of third world countries like Iraq, Syria or North Korea. These ambiguous reports usually refer to the sale (or sale negotiations) of advanced ESM/SIGINT systems like Tamara or Kolchuga.

The use of advanced SIGINT systems in tactical & theater anti-air operations (rather than in war-warning & strategic reconnaissance duties as is common with NATO & western branches) was a principle long sought by the Warsaw Pact since around the mid/late-60s, after the doctrinal shift of both European alliances re-emphasized conventional counter-air means & tactics instead of nuclear strikes. For the WP this meant a re-emergence of the problem of NATO’s vast superiority in tac-air capabilities and a number of methods to deal with it were considered. The experience of the Middle East conflicts as well as the US SEAD campaign in Vietnam convinced the WP that active air defences alone were insufficient to deal with NATO's air onslaught. Therefore, they would have to be reinforced with more covert means of airspace surveillance and control.

The increasing reliance of aircraft on radar for the purposes of navigation, low-level penetration and target acquisition & engagement provided an Achilles’ heel that could be exploited. If the sensor and communication emissions of NATO's aircraft could be collected, correlated and analyzed fast enough, their location could then be triangulated and estimated accurately enough to provide an initial cue for other ground-based sensors or for friendly "silent" aircraft. Interestingly, the main development effort for such systems seems to have been undertaken in Czechoslovakia and Ukraine rather than Russia.



The first practical products of this development endeavor were the Czech "Kopac" and "Ramona" systems, for which little hard information is available. Their service introduction timeframe must have been around the mid-to-late 1970s. The first fully operational system was the Czech "Tamara", a more capable and comprehensive system introduced in the early 1980s. It is produced by the Tesla corporation and has gathered considerable press attention in the late years. This is a fully mobile system capable of recording and analyzing all emissions from emitting aircraft such as attack & navigation radars, communication radios, terrain-following radars etc. In order to achieve sufficiently good coverage against low- flying intruders (one of the classic headaches of the WP air defenses) the system uses a cylindrical drum receiver mounted on an extensible tube-pike, which is unfolded by a cross-country truck when striking-down for deployment. The system may operate autonomously or, as is usually the case, be integrated to a larger C4I network and contribute its information to the overall air picture. According to Maj. Gen. Oldrizhikh Barak, president of Tesla, Tamara uses a so-called "chronometric hyperbolic principle" that with three units spaced “several miles apart” can track aircraft from distances of “about 12 miles”. Also JDW credits the system as being able to track 72 targets concurrently.

Similar to the Tamara but apparently more capable is the Ukrainian "Kolchuga". This system was designed and produced by Topaz (Donetsk). The company has its own design and research facilities and production facilities left over
from the former Soviet state-owned defense industry. The Kolchuga is essentially a high-precision, passive, signals- intelligence (SIGINT) system, consisting of four elements: three detection and tracking stations and a command-and-control (C2) element with powerful analysis capabilities. Normally, when the system is deployed in the field, the detection elements are separated by about 60 km from each other, which enables precision location of an air target by tracking it with two or three stations simultaneously. Each station is equipped with a set of rotating antennas, covering the 0.1- to 18-GHz frequency band. The antennas and receivers are able to detect, track, and output data for further analysis. All aircraft emissions - such as non-autonomous navigation aids (e.g., TACAN), radar altimeters and Doppler radars,communications, fire-control radars, and IFF signals - can be intercepted and analyzed. About 40 elements of signal characteristics are analyzed, which ensures (according to the producer) a 90% probability of target identification and recognition (as a particular type of aircraft or helicopter). The system has two basic modes with two different ranges - one up to 600 km and another up to 200 km - but under ideal circumstances, it can track targets up to 1,000 km away. The system's intercept probability and ability to track multiple targets, however, is much better when operating at shorter ranges.

The system software on the C2 vehicle allows a basic assessment of the air situation, provides target prioritization, and determines the target's trajectories and modes of operation based on the target's radar mode - i.e., navigation, ground attack, air-target track etc.). The whole system is mounted on heavy cross-country tracks and is, thus, highly mobile. Each mobile element possesses its own means of autonomous secure communications for real-time data transmission and synchronization of operations with the other stations, as directed by the C2 element. The deployment and redeployment time is short, which enables the system to change positions rapidly, thereby increasing its combat survivability.



Though probably not designed specifically with VLO targets in mind, such systems can probably contribute significantly to an air-defence system's ability to cope with targets that are more likely to register on passive rather than active sensors. Hard as they are to detect on radar, VLO aircraft still have to use radar for navigation & target acquisition purposes (particularly when hunting mobile targets such as Scud launchers or mobile SAMs), in addition to regularly communicating with other assets to facilitate a flexible C4I and battle management system. For non-stealthy aircraft that are already tracked by radar, the giveaway of these emissions is not a great deal in the tactical confines (subsequent enemy analysis and eventual decoding of the emissions is a longer-term worry), but for stealthy assets the loss of the surprise factor can mean the difference between accomplishing their mission and having to abort as a result of enemy defences being pre-alerted and too dangerous to challenge (or worse, trying and dying).

Far from simply providing the friendly integrated air-defence system (IADS) an ambiguous heads-up or the general location of possible targets, modern systems can actually perform a substantial part of the detect-classify-track-engage loop in complete electronic silence. This was amply demonstrated during the state acceptance trials of the advanced S-400 SAM system on the Kapustin Yar test range on September 2003. One of the test-firings involved using the S-400’s ability for “late lock”, the Russian equivalent term for lock-on-after- launch capability. A Kolchuga system fed the S-400 initial targeting information and the missile launch was performed in total EMCON. When the missile reached the target area, the radar was switched from stand-by to normal operating mode, and the engagement was successfully completed.

The series production of the Kolchuga system started in 1987, and since that time, system manufacturer Donetz has produced 76 systems. Through January 1, 1992, under a Soviet order, 46 systems had been produced and introduced into Soviet service. Of these, 14 were deployed in Ukraine and were subsequently taken over by the Ukrainian armed forces, when the former Soviet republic became an independent state. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine produced 30 more systems (both the Kolchuga and the improved Kolchuga-M), of which 18 were delivered to Russia, eight to Ukraine, and four to China. The systems in Ukrainian service have been replaced by newly produced Kolchuga-M.

Aside from these, an unspecified number of the systems produced under the aforementioned Soviet order were left in Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR, modernized, and sold to Ethiopia. An idea as to the number of the systems exported to Ethiopia can be deduced from the Ukrainian government's statement that the country currently has 19 Kolchuga sets, which might suggest that three were exported. (It is often misinterpreted that a "set" means a single Kolchuga station, but a set, or system, actually consists of four such stations – 3 snoopers and a central C2 node). Delivery of these systems to a country in the developing world, such as Ethiopia, makes it unlikely that their further fate can be traced with any great certainty, and it is technically possible that some of them could have been re-acquired by other interested customers.

The Ramona and later the Tamara systems were common in Warsaw Pact dedicated air- defense SIGINT regiments (usually one per country, except for the Soviet Union, which had numerous sets, both Czechoslovakian and domestically produced). Presently, Russia operates large numbers of Kolchugas (not to be confused with the more modern Kolchuga- M, presently offered by Ukraine). Another system, VERA-E is produced by ERA (a kind of "daughter company" of Tesla) and is being negotiated for sale to China, and the BORAP system is manufactured by Tesla itself. India is interested in purchasing BORAP systems, and talks are underway.

It is reasonable to assume that, against a maneuvering target, the S-400 battery would have to partially break EMCON in order to uplink course corrections and target updates to the missile(s). However, these emissions would probably be significantly harder to sniff than the very strong signal of the main phased array radar. Furthermore, the uplink signal, while a strong indication that missiles are in the air, does not provide a clear clue (to enemy RWR or ELINT systems) of just who is being targeted and should take defensive action. Therefore, a significant degree of tactical surprise is still maintained even in this case.

Ukraine was recently accused by US authorities to have sold four Kolchuga-M systems to Iraq through Jordan just prior to PGW-III, but since a single Kolchuga system consists of four elements, this could be a misunderstanding. It is not known whether the sale was of four full systems or four elements of a single system. However, the value of the transaction - $100 million - indicates the latter. According to some reports, the system might had helped Saddam Hussein evade the "decapitation strike" from a US Air Force F-117A early in the air operation. Reportedly, the system was capable of detecting an approaching F-117A some five to seven minutes before the aircraft reached its target, enabling Hussein to evacuate the target zone just in time, before the attack was executed. This is technically possible and explains some early "misses," but the story is not fully confirmed.

If Iraq had indeed purchased a passive detection system like the Kolchuga, it need not have come from Ukraine. Many countries have worked extensively on such systems - four Eastern European countries among them. The Czech Republic, with its long-established experience (e.g., its Kopac, Ramona, and Tamara systems) currently offers no less than three: SDD, VERA-E, and BORAP. Poland has just developed and fielded on a limited scale its MUR-20 system, and Ukraine and Russia have their own such systems: Kolchuga and VEGA, respectively. All these systems are production rather than prototype hardware, and all have been fielded.

Interest in such systems has recently increased, as a result of their effectiveness in the management of air-defense systems in a heavy jamming (i.e. radar-eroding) environment. It has been reported (without any solid confirmation) that the use of such passive detection systems helped Serbian forces in shooting down a USAF F-117A over Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as badly shooting-up another one. Until recently, western tactical-level SIGINT systems (including the abortive and highly sophisticated PLSS) focused more on tracking ground forces (particularly HQ units and mobile SAM elements) than directly contributing to the immediate air picture. However, as part of the renowned interest in non-emitting airspace control techniques, western interest in this technological sector is likely to increase in the near future."

I'm sorry can't afford Jane's:
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jrew/jrew1944.html, but here is an outline.

[haamimhagolan]

But anyway, you don't believe Czech claims or even Russian claims, which is fine, your choice.

On this subject, I don't. If someone had a legitimate claim to having fielded (fielded - not dreamed of) counter-stealth technology it would be big news. It would be all over the pages of Jane's, Aviation Week, Defense News, Flight International and every other reputable defense publication.

But here is an intersting article, the US for some unknown reason decided to buy the company that build the Vera surveillance radar.

The US has routinely bought up examples of foreign technology for purposes of threat assessment. The US also used to fly a squadron of MiG's out of Nellis. That doesn't mean that the MiG's possessed some secret technology that the US lacked.

VERA-E is a signals intelligence system. They expect to detect the Raptor by means of signals intelligence? Good luck with that.

You still aren't getting what I was trying to explain. All of the counter-stealth techniques that are out there - at best - provide an avenue for detecting a stealth aircraft, although at considerable cost. They still do not allow for a radar guided missile to home-in on a target. None of these technologies lend themselves to being miniaturized for installation on a missile or fighter. The words of one USAF F-15 pilot that engaged with an F-22 at Red Flag are indicative of this reality: "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy."
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please reread what I wrote before. There is no easy, cheap means for overcoming stealth technology.

[HideNSeek]

On this subject, I don't. If someone had a legitimate claim to having fielded (fielded - not dreamed of) counter-stealth technology it would be big news. It would be all over the pages of Jane's, Aviation Week, Defense News, Flight International and every other reputable defense publication.



The US has routinely bought up examples of foreign technology for purposes of threat assessment. The US also used to fly a squadron of MiG's out of Nellis. That doesn't mean that the MiG's possessed some secret technology that the US lacked.

VERA-E is a signals intelligence system. They expect to detect the Raptor by means of signals intelligence? Good luck with that.

You still aren't getting what I was trying to explain. All of the counter-stealth techniques that are out there - at best - provide an avenue for detecting a stealth aircraft, although at considerable cost. They still do not allow for a radar guided missile to home-in on a target. None of these technologies lend themselves to being miniaturized for installation on a missile or fighter. The words of one USAF F-15 pilot that engaged with an F-22 at Red Flag are indicative of this reality: "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy."
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please reread what I wrote before. There is no easy, cheap means for overcoming stealth technology.

Alright, your clearly very "western" minded, everything from US pilots, saying this and that about their own planes. And I'm pretty sure you didn't even read the long article I posted, which at least gives a general overview of the situation. Right now the situation is iffy, I didn't say detecting stealth is easy or anything like that, I'm just saying that adding stealth to an F-16, doesn't make it worth 200million, because it can still be found etc. Probably now, and not to mention in 10-15 years.

Secondly, you won't see much on defensenews etc, because all these are "claims", and non-american claims at that (US will never admit anything) . Unless there is a war between Russia/US, and we have F-22 vs S-400 etc, this is all it will ever will be. Unless the US itself builds the radar, and decides to test it against its own planes. You will never hear anything from China in this respect.

Lastly, the thing in the Czech Republic was unsual (and it caused a minor uproar in the country) because the US already had the unit (it rented it), than it went ahead and purchased the actual company,that builds it, after trying to block several of the companie's deals with certain nations.

If you can read the (foreign) language look around the internet, there are a bunch of reports.

But anyway, this is getting nowhere, so to summarize, (I believe) stealth does not make an average or slightly above average, aircraft "super" which is what the US is basically telling Israel (not to mention that the F-35 is only stealthy when all the weapons are stored internally, and thats a pretty limited arsenal). Sure they will add some toys, and make it nice and techy, but in the end of the day, Israel understands (I hope) that a fighter needs to have the ability for down and dirty combat (because stealth won't save it forever ), which the F-35 lacks, for a 200million fighter that is . If it was 70million I'd say great, ok, its not the F-22, but you can buy more of them, and they are about the same price as F-15's. But what is the benefit of having 200million F-35's anyway?

[haamimhagolan]

I'm pretty sure you didn't even read the long article I posted, which at least gives a general overview of the situation.

I did read the long article that you posted. Unfortunately too many of the claims being made for the VERA-E and Kolchuga-M system are either rumor, or are outright false. For example, the article claims that:

According to some reports, the system might had helped Saddam Hussein evade the "decapitation strike" from a US Air Force F-117A early in the air operation. Reportedly, the system was capable of detecting an approaching F-117A some five to seven minutes before the aircraft reached its target, enabling Hussein to evacuate the target zone just in time, before the attack was executed.

VERA-M and Kochuga-M are passive signals intelligence systems. Anyone familiar with F-117 operations knows that these aircraft fly in radio silence when they are over enemy territory - all emitters turned off. There were some close calls over Kosovo, for example, where the F-117 had to avoid running into an F-16 during night operations, because the F-117 was under radio silence and could not notify the F-16 of his position. A signals intelligence system is not going to provide warning for an approaching aircraft that has its emitters turned off.

I could add that the Israeli air force routinely flies its longer range missions in radio silence, up until they reach the target zone. There are a number of well written accounts from the 1981 Operation Opera if you would like me to recommend one.

I did pull out a copy of Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems. There were no such grandiose claims about VERA-E being able to detect stealth aircraft. Moreover, there is no mention of the company being purchased by the US government - which makes me wonder if the journalists got it wrong. The US did purchase one copy of the VERA-E system for hostile threat evaluation, and also pressured the Czech republic into cancelling a proposed sale of the system to China (sounds familiar). The VERA-E is known to be operational only with the Czech Republic and Estonia, however. No one from Western Europe has been beating down their doors to buy the system - most likely because they are too busy funding their own electronics industries.

Alright, your clearly very "western" minded

I actually have the utmost respect for my competitors and adversaries in the former Soviet Bloc. They have had some brilliant engineers and scientists that have made the maximum use out of their available manufacturing capabilities. The weapons that they produced were all too lethal - despite whatever disadvantages their developers had faced in terms of precision manufacturing or electronics.

After the fall of the Soviet Union I had the opportunity to meet some of my counterparts from the other side of the Iron Curtain, including the late Oleg Samoylovich, former Head of Design at Sukhoi. I can tell you that he was a brilliant engineer, with an instinctive sense of aircraft proportion.

There are also limits, however, to what talent alone can do for you without the necessary funding for research, development, and testing. That's a reality. The former East Bloc industries have lost nearly two decades of development, and they cannot expect to recover from that overnight.

[HideNSeek]

I did read the long article that you posted. Unfortunately too many of the claims being made for the VERA-E and Kolchuga-M system are either rumor, or are outright false. For example, the article claims that:

According to some reports, the system might had helped Saddam Hussein evade the "decapitation strike" from a US Air Force F-117A early in the air operation. Reportedly, the system was capable of detecting an approaching F-117A some five to seven minutes before the aircraft reached its target, enabling Hussein to evacuate the target zone just in time, before the attack was executed.

VERA-M and Kochuga-M are passive signals intelligence systems. Anyone familiar with F-117 operations knows that these aircraft fly in radio silence when they are over enemy territory - all emitters turned off. There were some close calls over Kosovo, for example, where the F-117 had to avoid running into an F-16 during night operations, because the F-117 was under radio silence and could not notify the F-16 of his position. A signals intelligence system is not going to provide warning for an approaching aircraft that has its emitters turned off.

I could add that the Israeli air force routinely flies its longer range missions in radio silence, up until they reach the target zone. There are a number of well written accounts from the 1981 Operation Opera if you would like me to recommend one.

I did pull out a copy of Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems. There were no such grandiose claims about VERA-E being able to detect stealth aircraft. Moreover, there is no mention of the company being purchased by the US government - which makes me wonder if the journalists got it wrong. The US did purchase one copy of the VERA-E system for hostile threat evaluation, and also pressured the Czech republic into cancelling a proposed sale of the system to China (sounds familiar). The VERA-E is known to be operational only with the Czech Republic and Estonia, however. No one from Western Europe has been beating down their doors to buy the system - most likely because they are too busy funding their own electronics industries.



I actually have the utmost respect for my competitors and adversaries in the former Soviet Bloc. They have had some brilliant engineers and scientists that have made the maximum use out of their available manufacturing capabilities. The weapons that they produced were all too lethal - despite whatever disadvantages their developers had faced in terms of precision manufacturing or electronics.

After the fall of the Soviet Union I had the opportunity to meet some of my counterparts from the other side of the Iron Curtain, including the late Oleg Samoylovich, former Head of Design at Sukhoi. I can tell you that he was a brilliant engineer, with an instinctive sense of aircraft proportion.

There are also limits, however, to what talent alone can do for you without the necessary funding for research, development, and testing. That's a reality. The former East Bloc industries have lost nearly two decades of development, and they cannot expect to recover from that overnight.

Hehe, I guess Czech politicians, newspapers, media, got it all wrong, if some American/"Western" source didn't mention it, it didn't happen right?

I won't get into this again, because we are going in circles, you'll stick to whatever you believe etc. The future will tell.

[WABA]

Source: Strategy Page

November 26, 2008: Eight Indian Su-30 fighters recently participated in U.S. Air Force "Red Flag" exercises in the United States (Nevada). There, they fought mock battles with U.S. F-15, F-15 and F-22 fighters, as well as some French Rafales. There were some interesting differences between how the three nations operated.
The Americans admired the skill of the Indian pilots, who were handpicked for these "Red Flag" exercises, but disappointed that more realistic training (as is the case between NATO pilots) was not possible. The Indians were not allowed to use some of their Russian avionics, to assure the Russians that NATO would not obtain secret information on how top line Russian gear operates.
U.S. and NATO pilots found that the Su-30, even the advanced Indian MKI model, was hardly a super-fighter. F-15s and F-16s could handle it in a real war, and the F-22 would probably really clean up. There were several reasons for this. One was the antiquated Russian data link system that prevented pilots from getting as complete a view of the battlefield as American and French pilots had. This resulted in Su-30s shooting down friendly aircraft, as well as being more vulnerable to U.S. jets. The fancy maneuvers the Su-30 was capable of making also proved to backfire at times. Being able to quickly halt the aircraft in mid air, and move in a different direction, also meant you lost altitude, and Western fighters were often able to take advantage of this, rather than the other way around. The Su-30s also required more maintenance per flight hour, and were more susceptible to things getting sucked into the engines, and causing the sortie to be aborted.
The French Rafales seemed more interested in collecting electronic information on Indian and U.S. fighters, than in actually fighting. Older pilots remembered French fighters doing the same thing over Kuwait back in 1991.
It was also noted that cannon was not useless. While long range missiles, or even short range heat seekers, could be neutralized by countermeasures. This often enabled aircraft to get within cannon range (a few hundred meters). Indian pilots pointed out that their updated MiG-21s had these countermeasures, and were still very small aircraft (for both radar and eyeballs) and could get close enough for a conventional dogfight with cannon. Currently, F-22 pilots don't see much opportunity to ever get close enough to use their 20mm cannon. What really bugs F-22 pilots is that they don't get much real action at all, and serving with F-22 squadrons is not as popular as you would think it is.

Waba


(javascript:__doPostBack('seeCommentLinkbutton','' ))

[haamimhagolan]

There has been a lot of comment on these videos on other web forums - and I have avoided getting dragged into that here. If anyone wants to see the original USAF lecture, it can be found at the site below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w

One item I will point out is that the USAF pilot mentions that the Americans were surprised that the Indian MiG-21 fighters still proved to be a potent opponent. Equipped with Israeli-supplied ECM systems, these fighters were able to close to within visual range of the US F-15s and F-16s without being detected - and once in visual range, the classical maneuver capabilities of the MiG could be brought into play.

[HideNSeek]

There has been a lot of comment on these videos on other web forums - and I have avoided getting dragged into that here. If anyone wants to see the original USAF lecture, it can be found at the site below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w

One item I will point out is that the USAF pilot mentions that the Americans were surprised that the Indian MiG-21 fighters still proved to be a potent opponent. Equipped with Israeli-supplied ECM systems, these fighters were able to close to within visual range of the US F-15s and F-16s without being detected - and once in visual range, the classical maneuver capabilities of the MiG could be brought into play.


:pat: even if true, you don't present it like this. The last thing you want to do is pound your chest and say how awesome your are. In fact, he (they) should have said the Su-30 was a capable fighter that fought well, it was a tough, even the F-22 had trouble, blah blah. That is it, why tip your hand, and give them (Russians, or anyone else) an idea how you feel about their fighter (on camera no less). Also, I kind of detect a lack of respect there, same compliments were really just sly swipes. Also, you want to instill some notion of fear in the pilots, you don't want them going up there thinking everything is going to be super easy.

The irony is that when the US got embarrassed in some these games (not only against Israel by the way, no F-22 I know), I heard almost nothing, and all the information was basically leaked. The responses I did hear were vague excuses.

True or not, its just plain old silly to present things as such. And I'm sad to say, I have this bad feeling that when (and if) the F-22 gets into real combat with a serious enemy, people will be in for a surprise when the ratio isn't 50-1 or whatever they claim. When you hype it like they are doing right now, it just tempts the fates.

[panzermk2]

STOVL does have draw backs, but one of the biggest is range and that's not an issue. Also Israel already has a semi under ground airbase. They could make a series of small under ground ones strategically placed. Use an aircraft carrier style elevator to rase them up. They could take off from it directly.

They would be very secure by being under ground alone.

[haamimhagolan]

Well unless the USAF want to keep them at AREA 51 in the Nevada desert and never deploy it to frontline operational USAF squadrons, I can't see how the Israelis or the USAF operating this aircraft would make much difference, what might be more of a genuine concern is the Israeli relationship with the People's Republic of China.

The US currently has no plans to deploy the F-22 into any theatre abroad, other than the Pacific theatre - where the Russians will find it difficult to observe up close just how the aircraft are deployed in practice. Israel, on the other hand, operates out of a much more narrow stretch of airspace. Even if Russian listening posts could not directly track the F-22, they would be able to observe how conventional aircraft were deployed in relation to the Raptor during air combat training. They would also likely be able to intercept and decode any voice transmissions between the aircraft.

The tactics that you apply to a stealth platform need to be tailored to maintaining maximum stealth. That means that you need to be aware of which quarters offer the lowest, and highest radar return, and when and where you are safe to transmit between aircraft.

I personally do not believe that this alone should be a good reason not to supply the aircraft to Israel - but I do understand that some in the USAF are sensitive on this subject.

With regard to Israeli arms sales to China, I assume that you are aware that Israeli shipments to China were initiated during the 1980s, when the US was intent on using China as a bulwark to siphon off Soviet resources from the European front. Israeli arms shipments were always seen as part of the larger US policy picture. In the latter 1990s, when the US reversed course on its China policy, the Israelis were told to - and did - shut down all arms cooperation with China. Had the US wanted Israel to halt arms shipments to China in the early 1990s, they could have done so. They didn't.

If you really want to research Israeli arms cooperation with China, there was a fairly good article on the subject published in the UK magazine Combat Aircraft a number of years back.[1] If you're looking for still more details, there was also a survey published on the evolution of Israeli-Chinese relations, released back in 1999.[2]

References
[1] "Piercing the Dragon’s Veil: Sizing-Up China’s J-10 Fighter," Combat Aircraft, Vol 7, No 9 (November 2006), pp. 20-25
[2] China and Israel, 1948-1998, ed. by Jonathan Goldstein (Westport, Connecticut, Praeger Publishers, 1999).

[haamimhagolan]

I think Israel was pushing the envelope when it came to the matter of seeking to fit Israeli AWACS radar to Chinese Il-76 aircraft.

The Israelis engaged in an open bidding war with BAE for the supply of AWACS to China. The US (and everyone else) was well aware of the competition. The US government chose not to protest the contract when it was originally bid, and awarded.

As it turned out, the US was fortunate that the Israelis won the bid. Several years after the fact, the US would reverse its policies towards arms trade with China, and pressured the Israelis to cancel the deal. The Israelis had to refund China's $190 million down-payment, and pay an additional $160 million in contract termination charges. Had BAE won the contract, it is doubtful that the US would have had enough leverage to cancel the sale so far after the fact.

[dzone]

Defeating stealth requires a lot more than a bigger radar.
I agree, brain and maginashion can play much bigger role then i big radar,for instace Serbian AA shot down F-117A with modified Soviet made anti-aircraft missile system, (SA-3) produced in 60s. Israel in past relied more on tactics, and today is not a situation and proof is summer 2006.