F-35 or Gripen in Denmark

[sparkomatic 7]

True...if you had to face a 5-generation opponent...and that would be...

 

However, look at air war over the past, I dont know...60 years...and we can discuss Gripens going to Denmark all we want, but in reality the over all combat air capability of so much of the world has declined

 

10 Eagles is all I need...

[JediMaster 451]

Eagles have been downed by SAMs because they can be seen. Can the F-22? We don't know.

[BUFF 8]

Eagles have been downed by SAMs because they can be seen. Can the F-22? We don't know.

I would put money on that they can be by 1 of the latest generation hyper velocity electro-optical/beam riding missiles like Starstreak if it comes within range of them.

[sparkomatic 7]

Starstreak is cool, but an SA-20 is not to be taken lightly

[JediMaster 451]

To shoot a plane down, you need to do 3 things.

First, to find it. If you can't see it or know it's there but not exactly WHERE you can't get it.

Two, to track it. Having some massive EWR that uses LF radar to find the plane is no help for SAMs. All you can do in that case is vector in fighters (which the F-22 would eat alive) or use AAA to put a lot of lead in the sky.

Three, to hit it. Faster a missile goes, the less maneuverable it is. Something flying at hypervelocity will break apart if it pulls too many g's (look at Columbia), so you're limited in your final course changes. Slower missiles have to worry about the plane not being there when it gets there unless they've got a good tracking lock.

 

Remember the F-22 isn't going to be overflying any SAM sites. It will know where they are and stay outside their range. Sure, one could sit there turned off and try to turn on and catch the F-22 real close, but...how will it know when the F-22 is close enough to turn on their radar? Normally to know that sort of thing you use...radar.

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

I guess those F-117 Nighthawks shot down over former Yugoslavia were also lucky shots then... Don't think the F-22 is invulnerable to bad luck... And it doesn't have to be AAA that fills the sky, MANPADs en masse can also be quite nasty...

[echoco 0]

way I see it is in 20 years time F-22 will still be competitive while even F-15E gonna have problems, new weapons new SAMs new radar, if they can hit an F-22, they can hit F-15s even better.

 

But then I don't like airforce aircraft anyway give me an A-4 skyhawk anyday.

[sparkomatic 7]

I guess those F-117 Nighthawks shot down over former Yugoslavia were also lucky shots then... Don't think the F-22 is invulnerable to bad luck... And it doesn't have to be AAA that fills the sky, MANPADs en masse can also be quite nasty...

 

 

man...that is another sore subject...but here goes...stealth does NOT mean invisible...in fact, in proper circles it is called "Low Observable" technology...so yes, even a B-2 can be shot down...and if you fly right into a steel curtain of AAA that was waiting for you because someone in NATO - OTAN leaked the route as a matter of national pride, well you tell me...

[JediMaster 451]

I guess those F-117 Nighthawks shot down over former Yugoslavia were also lucky shots then... Don't think the F-22 is invulnerable to bad luck... And it doesn't have to be AAA that fills the sky, MANPADs en masse can also be quite nasty...

 

That F-117 (one, not plural) shouldn't have been there, simple as that. It was a tactical mistake and they paid for it by losing the plane. They got overconfident. The difference is the F-22 has a comprehensive EW suite the F-117 does not. Other than its shape and material coating, the F-117 is a 1970's warplane. It's basically a radar-less Hornet as far the avionics goes. It has no jammer and whether it even has an RWR or not is classified! It has no visible antennas for them.

 

The F-117 must totally rely on pre-flight intelligence to tell it where it should or shouldn't go. The F-22 will know everything that is known plus be able to learn far more than that on its own and even change its plans based on what is discovered on ingress.

 

Just like the B-2 isn't the "stealth bomber", it's the "advanced technology bomber", there are things the F-22 is capable of we aren't allowed to know. The F-117 was first-generation and the shoot down only proved that simple shapes and materials were going to be enough in the 21st century. Don't think the loss of one plane means stealth is some sort of phantom that doesn't really matter.

As for MANPADs, the F-22 should never be in range of them unless it's taking off or landing.

[BUFF 8]

Something flying at hypervelocity will break apart if it pulls too many g's

the whole point of hypervelocity is that they are so fast that the target doesn't get the chance to take avoiding action e.g. iirc Starstreak has a range ~7Km but only takes about 1 second of flight time to cover that.

It's laser guided so ECM & flares don't affect it.

It certainly wasn't designed to shoot down F-22s but I'm sure that in the right circumstances it could.

[echoco 0]

haha I don't like hearing stuff like "under the right circumstance" or "with the right loadout" because under the right circumstance a fly or a man armed with bow and arrows can take down an F-22.

[sparkomatic 7]

My railgun can hit it...wait...that was classified...

 

 

you saw nothing...

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Eagles have been downed by SAMs because they can be seen. Can the F-22? We don't know.

 

I know it's being looked at with the Su-27/30 series, but are the US/Boeing looking at ways to reduce the RCS of the F-15? Granted, it'd be difficult with those massive intakes, but there's still many methods that can be employed to squeeze more out of the platform.

[BUFF 8]

haha I don't like hearing stuff like "under the right circumstance" or "with the right loadout" because under the right circumstance a fly or a man armed with bow and arrows can take down an F-22.

Very true but with regard to Starstreak & equivalent in the right circumstances basically means coming within engagement range on a clear day (I know that there is a thermal sight for Starstreak but I'm not sure just how visible an F-22 will be at night on thermal) which isn't necessarily that far-fetched a possibility imo.

[echoco 0]

Also under the right circumstance an AMRAAM can hit a straight and level 747, but thats just me being silly.

 

Thailand also consider buyng 6 Gripens, for supposedly training -_-' anyone care to comment of the usefulness of 6 gripens? they're supposed to be for training their imaginary Gripen squadrons, which I doubt they'll buy. (its totally political/corumption motivated buy)

 

The imaginary Gripen squadrons are to replace F-5s in their airforce. Seems to me once their pilots are qualified to fly Gripens they wouldn't have a Gripen to fly, except the ones for training.

[+hgbn 91]

This is a very interesting discusion, but the main question must be: What are those new birds for???? They are to replace our F-16's which is the only combat aircrafts in Denmark, they are going to be used in every single role which the Royal Danish Air Force are using the F-16's air defence, recon, fighterbomber role etc. I dont see the F-35 as an great fighterbomber in CAS and why go for very expensive stealht when good tactics can overcome much on the battlefield, they are mainly to be used in our own backyard anyway. It will be a vaste of good money to buy the F-35 IMO, better to use the money on good modifications on the Gripen and make it a good Fighterbomber and have some more birds, I honestly dont think that we will replace the F-16 on a one for one basis with the F-35, they might look stronger on paper, But to replace few aircrafts with fewer, that does not sound good in my ears.

[JediMaster 451]

That's what the USAF is doing, replacing F-16s with F-35As. There's no way it won't be able to do what the F-16 can do. The F-16 after all was designed to have 2 Sidewinders and a gun and a tiny radar to help lock those on and that's it. The C model introduced capabilities (later retrofitted to the A models) that turned it into a fighter bomber, but just look at an F-16 with no armament or pylons...it doesn't LOOK like it should be a multirole plane at all.

Now the A-10 replacement is a bit of a joke, and that's why they're being upgraded to A-10Cs as we speak despite the planned replacement by F-35As.

 

I don't know much about the Gripen's air-to-ground abilities, but I'm guessing it has to be at least as good as the Viggen it's replacing.

 

As for replacing a fleet with fewer planes, that has been happening since WWII. Everyone had massive fleets then because of low effectiveness. You needed a fleet of bombers to take down a target that today can be done by one plane with LGBs or JDAMs on its way to another target!

Just look at our silly 21-strong B-2 fleet. You'd think that few wouldn't be able to do anything, but they've been using them for years now to great effectiveness.

However, 6 Gripens does sound like a bit of a joke. You'd need a whole logistics chain setup for it anyway, sounds like more trouble and cost than it's worth.

[+hgbn 91]

That's what the USAF is doing, replacing F-16s with F-35As. There's no way it won't be able to do what the F-16 can do. The F-16 after all was designed to have 2 Sidewinders and a gun and a tiny radar to help lock those on and that's it. The C model introduced capabilities (later retrofitted to the A models) that turned it into a fighter bomber, but just look at an F-16 with no armament or pylons...it doesn't LOOK like it should be a multirole plane at all.

Now the A-10 replacement is a bit of a joke, and that's why they're being upgraded to A-10Cs as we speak despite the planned replacement by F-35As.

 

I don't know much about the Gripen's air-to-ground abilities, but I'm guessing it has to be at least as good as the Viggen it's replacing.

 

As for replacing a fleet with fewer planes, that has been happening since WWII. Everyone had massive fleets then because of low effectiveness. You needed a fleet of bombers to take down a target that today can be done by one plane with LGBs or JDAMs on its way to another target!

Just look at our silly 21-strong B-2 fleet. You'd think that few wouldn't be able to do anything, but they've been using them for years now to great effectiveness.

However, 6 Gripens does sound like a bit of a joke. You'd need a whole logistics chain setup for it anyway, sounds like more trouble and cost than it's worth.

 

You maybe right, but we dont have much to cut fewer, we are well below 100 here, 48 to be exsactly and why go for super high tech, when lower High tech is still good, I know the next planes we are going to get, are going to fly for many years so long term planning is good. I have a feeling that the Danish government choose Gripen, thats why they are asking for so many changes in the airframe. Just like we did when we choosed Draken.... But thats again just a feeling I got....