F22 analysis expanded

[Gessler]

---

---

@Picard

Is there a possibility that a stealthy version of Gripen can be developed as a further
enhancement to theupcoming Gripen NG variant? I would really like it if that happens.

[brahmastr]

@Picard

Is there a possibility that a stealthy version of Gripen can be developed as a further
enhancement to theupcoming Gripen NG variant? I would really like it if that happens.

Just my opinion that Tejas have more scope for stealthy version in further enhancements.. (comparing with present and upcoming stealth fighters)

[Picard]

@Gessler

There certainly is, but I really don't see the point in doing it.

First, canards are damn hard to optimize for stealth, though it can be done by limiting their movement to certain number of degrees, but that would limit maneuverability of aircraft, so it would actually be counter-productive.

Second, stealth is damn expensive for minuscule return. F22 is barely more advanced than Eurofighter Typhoon, electronically, yet it is twice the flyaway cost. F35 also costs far more than the Typhoon, despite being far less maneuverable (only 7 Gs, thus not requiring airframe as strong as Typhoon's) and having about 20 - 50 % more empty weight (11 000 kg for Typhoon vs 13 - 16 000 kg for F35) while being smaller in terms of length, wingspan and height - especially damning is its small wing, giving it wing loading of 526 kg/m2, as opposed to 312,5 kg/m2 for Typhoon. Only area stealth is effective in is BVR combat, which is coupled with such problems of identification, missile performance and enemy countermeasures that it is basically useless against numerically and technologically comparable enemy, even if we forget about any LO / VLO characteristics of opposing fighter aircraft.

Third, even if stealth was effective, Gripen can never be true stealth aircraft (that is, VLO). It would require complete redesign of airframe, at which point you can simply take existing engine and electronics and design a new airframe from ground up. Best it can hope for is something like US Silent Eagle project, which basically doubles cost of F15 for barely giving it LO characteristics - I'd say that even with that package Typhoon and Rafale may have lower frontal RCS, since I didn't see any redesign of air ducts. Granted, SE carries weapons internally, so missiles may increase Typhoon's / Rafale's frontal RCS to the point where it will be comparable to that of SE, or larger (doubtful, unless Boeing redesigned engines themselves to have lower RCS - doubtful at least); and Silent Eagle's cost is probably doubled by addition of RAM alone, meaning it would have flyaway cost that is barely less than that of F22 (probably cca 200 million USD; F22s flyaway cost is 250 million USD).

Fourth, Gripen would have to make use of internal weapons bays, which would increase drag, weight and complexity as well as increase response time from missile, thus worsening its dogfight performance, as well as its ground attack capabilities.

[brahmastr]

Put a decent engine with 120 KN and above & T50 radar in Tejas and make it stealthy version. This will beat F22 hands down... Compromising with take off weight and ferry range... (as Tejas is smaller in dimension than F22 )

[Picard]

Yeah, but how much will it increase weight? Although I doubt it will be crippling increase, considering its large wing and small starting weight...

[kewlol]

Blah Blah Blah
I've seen 12 year old kids who talk more sense than you.
'Largest army in the world, 3rd largest airforce in the world, regional naval power'. And that is supposedly enough to shatter the myth the 'superiority myth'.
I can't waste my time on you. But for some light reading I'd suggest you read into the defense budget of the two countries if you can comprehend what that even mean.

Not related in anyway, but would like you to see what happens when Uncle strikes.......

................these are some 90 Iraqi tanks

.................destroyed by 3 GBU-97's dropped by a B-52.


Can't wait to see what happens to the largest army in the world.

One thing you need understand here is the budget is not directly proportional here, in other words, the salary that US pays its trooper is not the same for a Chinese trooper. Plus the production, maintenance and many more elements of defense costs will not be equal on both cards.

So if you make a math based on local inflation and spending parity, you might find that $120 billion china spends on defense could turn out to be more than $600 billion US spends on its defense. So don't just take things just by numbers.

[brahmastr]

F 414 SE for Tejas MK II is compatible anyway of 120 KN power which is under development.. and honestly no idea about the weight difference btwn T50 radar and present radar integrated in Tejas..

and no comments about airframe change... some other more knowledgeable person shall comment on that ..

[Picard]

Actually, total US defense spending is few million USD above 1 trillion mark, per year.

[kewlol]

Guys in a modern warfare, Quality matters than quantity.
And don’t pitch in weapons vs weapons. It is complete integration of the all units which works as one force.
China is about a decade behind the tech advancements of US considering the conventional warfare.
China is about 2 decades behind US in Space based assets..
And there will be no war between the 2. WHo tends to loose more. Is it China or US economically.
China doesn’t have the capability of projecting power outside south China sea.
US has the capability to project power all over the world.
Electronic warfare China doesn’t own single Tier 1 lines of total 5. And US defense owns 2 of them.
Space based asset China is not even match with the tech capabilities of US, example Chinese didn’t even know until X37-B was snooping around their satellites for a year.

All comes who best manages the available assets. I don’t believe only tech wins the war. Winning a was mainly comes in experience, battle readiness, quick deployment and asset management.
They are no match.

Quality matters yes, but not all quality product are flawless, for example the F4 phantoms were the quality fighters was said to be one of the best during that era, but it was humbled by Vietnam Mig's the reason being, it was a quality product but was flawed and it met its doom in the Vietnam war. On the other hand what Chinese are doing is, they are not making new weapons to fail, they are creating aircrafts that are known performers and amassing them.

All this decade stuff is relatively useless info, Germany was way advanced than US and UK when the WWII started yet they lost, one wrong move and never mind your supremacy and all bull crap, you are toast and thats reality for you. So I don't think wars based on assets rather is about strategy and the way we play the game. At the end of the day it all boils down to what you do and how sane you are. Hitler made one mistake and that marked his end.

[kewlol]

Actually, total US defense spending is few million USD above 1 trillion mark, per year.

Yes, not sure thats a figure i read somewhere maybe it was excluding defense research and procurement and stuff or alien base management cost. Even if its a trillion mark, i guess it would still not be that 1:10 advantage, because price variation is effective on everything they do.

For example, A cadet in IA gets paid around 30000(USD500) per month, while a similar cadet would be paid around 4000-5000USD a month on the minimum, so considering that, India can hire 10 cadets at the price of one cadet in US army. I am not going to speak about the quality of the cadet, rather in a number game, this is how it works a $120bn budget should not be viewed in direct comparison with US, it can vary based on local conditions.

[layman]

Quality matters yes, but not all quality product are flawless, for example the F4 phantoms were the quality fighters was said to be one of the best during that era, but it was humbled by Vietnam Mig's the reason being, it was a quality product but was flawed and it met its doom in the Vietnam war. On the other hand what Chinese are doing is, they are not making new weapons to fail, they are creating aircrafts that are known performers and amassing them.

All this decade stuff is relatively useless info, Germany was way advanced than US and UK when the WWII started yet they lost, one wrong move and never mind your supremacy and all bull crap, you are toast and thats reality for you. So I don't think wars based on assets rather is about strategy and the way we play the game. At the end of the day it all boils down to what you do and how sane you are. Hitler made one mistake and that marked his end.

Quality is not only for equipments. It constitutes everything. Including personal training, facilities and everything.

ANd regarding Hitler, the mistake he made or you can say strategical error is over estimating is power. It was wrong to go against Russia in winter. He was bogged down. And could not fight a war both the sides. But had advanced weapons. His V1’s and V2’s are in league of its own. When they were getting successful what was the need to cut their resource and divert it to other war machines required to support a losing front. Well we can sit and analyze as much as we want on what has happened.

But it takes experience to make right decisions at right time when you are cornered. And Chinese doesn’t or lack that capabilities. That is why is said who can manage all the assets properly will win irrelevant of drawbacks.

[Picard]

@kewlol

Yes, I know. But thing is, US keeps spending on weapons while infrastructure in its cities, public health care and other essential things are literally falling apart around them. Spending helps boost economy in time of recession, but it should be smart spending, on things that actually return the value put into them (meaning infrastructure, shipbuilding, education etc.) and not into arms industry, which is just a black hole, and is dangerous to democracy, of which US are graphic illustration.



@layman

Germany produced 6 000 V2s, 29 000 tanks and 4 900 Stukas during WW2. Resources expended on V2s - which were militarily completely ineffective, and failed to make a dent in British determination or industry - could have been used to produce 24 000 additional fighters and Stukas, or 48 000 additional tanks. Either option would allow Germany to win against Soviet Union. Germany also produced 25 000 bombers, which were equal in cost and crewing requirements to 125 000 fighters / Stukas. Heavy bombers also suffered losses five times greater than Stukas.

[layman]

Yes, I know. But thing is, US keeps spending on weapons while infrastructure in its cities, public health care and other essential things are literally falling apart around them. Spending helps boost economy in time of recession, but it should be smart spending, on things that actually return the value put into them (meaning infrastructure, shipbuilding, education etc.) and not into arms industry, which is just a black hole, and is dangerous to democracy, of which US are graphic illustration.

You are right. Bush ‘era was literally pointless.

[Picard]

To be fair, Obama's changes have been mostly cosmetic in nature, and "Bush era" started with Reagan.

[kaku]

As fighter, the F-15 has proven is the best, now is old, but still has combat ability, even Russian histories acknowledge it is an excellent aircraft

Ok, in last 50 years I have seen that America always invaded or attack the third world country which has the budget of only 0.1 % of US budget. So, how F-15 proven, to kill the Mig-29 of those countries which donot have the money to even buy the ammunition for plane, forget about the BVR. Why in history it didn't attack a single first class army, because they know that they can't sustain. They can't sustain the air superiority on those countries, mark my word if the China was equal to the Iraq in tech., then it was invaded before you can thought about.