Israel approves F-35 fighters deal

[gambit]

This source

I can reproduce much like these

Furthermore if you know about about computer simulation (as you had bickered) I tell you that one can't produce effective results & of coarse not effective conclusions if you have dont possess a thorough technical know-how of concerned equipment.
And I doubt that Israeil has got adequate knowledge of S-300 or any current Russian system to create any viable simulation!!!Unless & until it had smuggled or captured S-300

Actually, when it comes to radar detection, simulations often comes initially in favor of the defense. But when we factor in uncontrollable elements like weather, terrain and the human operator, then the simulations usually shifts in favor of the offense.

 

[SBD-3]

Why The F-35 Is A Hard Sell
August 17, 2010: Israel has agreed to buy 20 American F-35 fighters, for $137.5 million each. That includes spares, tech support, training and maintenance equipment, but not additional Israeli made gear that will be added. The first Israeli F-35 will be delivered in five years. Israel had originally wanted to buy 75 F-35s, but things changed (costs went up, way up) as the aircraft got closer to production. The Israeli F-35s are actually paid for by the United States, out of the nearly a billion dollars a year in military aid Israel receives. Israel may still buy more F-35s, after they have had some experience with them.

Two years ago, Israel was having second thoughts about buying the new American F-35 stealth fighter-bomber at all. When Israel first bought into the program back in 2002, the quoted "flyaway" costs per the aircraft alone was $47 million. When delivered, in 2014, the price was expected to rise to an inflation adjusted $80 million. It is now about $96 million. After Israeli add-ons (mostly electronics), support and training costs have all been added, the per-aircraft cost has gone past $200 million. This has caused a big case of sticker shock among senior Israeli defense and political officials. In response, the F-35s manufacturer went into full damage-control mode. The main argument being made was that the special equipment Israeli firms were designing and manufacturing would keep nearly half the aircraft work in Israel, and will create enormous potential sales of that gear to other F-35 users.

Development costs for the new U.S. F-35 fighter-bomber has grown by a third, to $60 billion, over the last few years. That means the average development cost of the estimated 5,000 F-35s to be built, will be about $12 million each. This overhead share will increase as the number of F-35s bought declines, and that is what is happening. The air force wants to buy 1,763, to mainly replace aging F-16s and F-15s. But now air force generals are talking about just buying "more than 1,500" F-35As. The total purchases may be less than 3,000 aircraft.

The additional development costs are accompanied by additional delays before the aircraft enters service. Production costs will average close to $100 million, or more. Then you have a share of development costs, meaning that $130 million per aircraft, or more (probably more) is likely.

Like the F-22 fighter, the F-35 is stealthy, and is stuffed with lots of new technology. Most (about 60 percent) of the F-35s built will be used by foreign nations. The rising cost of the F-35 brings with it reluctance to buy as many aircraft currently planned. The success of smart bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan has also made it clear that fewer aircraft will be needed in the future.

U.S. Air Force simulations and studies have shown the F-35 to be four times as effective against any current fighter (the best of them known as "fourth generation" aircraft.) The major advantages of the F-35 are engine power (it's one engine generates more power than the two engines used in the Eurofighter or F-18), stealth and the fact that it can fight "clean" (without any pods or missiles hung from its wings, and interfering with maximum maneuverability).

The 27 ton F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs). Plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally, and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. The aircraft is very stealthy when just carrying internal weapons. The first F-35s will enter service in four years.

 

[Thomas]

The additional development costs are accompanied by additional delays before the aircraft enters service. Production costs will average close to $100 million, or more. Then you have a share of development costs, meaning that $130 million per aircraft, or more (probably more) is likely.

This has been covered many times already. The production line cost of an F-35 is 89-92 million according to the Department of Defense. Lockheed Martin has stated that they are in line to bring that price down by 20%.

Initially Israel's cost per plane was going to be more then normal because they wanted to make modifications. Including installing some of their own avionics. It seems from the thread article that they may be buying the stock F-35 and not making the modifications.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4676517

UPDATE 2-Lockheed F-35 cost now projected at $382 bln | Reuters

 

[Jigs]

Also a quick calculation of Turkeys order and price for 116 F-35A variants puts each plane currently at a little over 100 million. This price will obviously go down once production ramps up.

Unlike Israel Turkey will be paying for them instead of American Tax Payers.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

And I doubt that Israeil has got adequate knowledge of S-300 or any current Russian system to create any viable simulation!!!Unless & until it had smuggled or captured S-300

Uh S-300 been around since the 70's?

And what makes you think the Russians aren't selling heavily nerfed garbage like they always do? Israel will not be fighting Russia.

 

[d14gtc]

Just take it

 

[Thomas]

Uh S-300 been around since the 70's?

And what makes you think the Russians aren't selling heavily nerfed garbage like they always do? Israel will not be fighting Russia.

the fact he doesn't know it has been around since the 70's tells a lot about his knowledge on the subject.

 

[nightcrawler]

Who's logic, yours? As I stated before I base my confidence in the technology the F-35 uses. As well as the RCS value testing the F-35 went through during it's design and subsequent flight. Which by the way computer simulations played an integral part. Any aeronautical engineer will tell you how much of a part computer simulations play in design, and threat assessment.

Part of that threat assessment information comes from gathered intelligence and hands on experience (including combat experience) with Russian SAM systems (and yes the U.S. has examined S300 systems from the 70's and 80's). No country has more experience in successfully countering them then the U.S., And Israel has a ton of experience in countering SAM's as well.

Actually, when it comes to radar detection, simulations often comes initially in favor of the defense. But when we factor in uncontrollable elements like weather, terrain and the human operator, then the simulations usually shifts in favor of the offense.

you are senior members & you must have read my post carefully!!
Nowhere I am stating that simulations are rubbish what I am saying if USA is doing simulation for predicting F-15/16/22 performance thts OK why because thy own them & know every minute detail about them.
Simulation needs extensive amounts of mathematical models which I think US/Israeil will not have for present S-300 systems (or in general any Russian air defence systems). If they had done simulations (as you acknowledge) then these simulations must have been based upon (as you pointed out) 70s/80s systems.
But common sense do require that you dont take Russians as blind people & not upgrading (drastically) a thirty year old designs & technology.

No country has more experience in successfully countering them then the U.S., And Israel has a ton of experience in countering SAM's as well.

You must be pointing out (its US habit)to what you did to the poor people like SADDAM;MULLAH UMAR;SYRIANS...............

 

[gambit]

you are senior members & you must have read my post carefully!!

I have.

Nowhere I am stating that simulations are rubbish...

Never said you did.

...what I am saying if USA is doing simulation for predicting F-15/16/22 performance thts OK why because thy own them & know every minute detail about them.

We do.

Simulation needs extensive amounts of mathematical models which I think US/Israeil will not have for present S-300 systems (or in general any Russian air defence systems). If they had done simulations (as you acknowledge) then these simulations must have been based upon (as you pointed out) 70s/80s systems.
But common sense do require that you dont take Russians as blind people & not upgrading (drastically) a thirty year old designs & technology.

One of the many things about an air defense radar system that everyone has an erection over is how many targets can the radar track and actively engage. The 'track' quantity is usually higher than the 'engage' quantity. For the S-300PMU with its phased array radar, its 'engage' quantity is 6. Some people would jump to the conclusion that the 6 'engage' quantity is because there are only 6 missiles per battery. It is a reasonable assumption but it is valid only up to a point. It could mean that there are hardware and software related limitations to 6 targets. Anyway...The 6 'engage' quantity does not mean there are 6 different radar beams but that there is only ONE beam moving from one target to another. Of course, a phased array antenna would be moving its beam faster than a mechanical antenna, which is limited by structural inertia, including motor capability.

Now we come to a very important point in simulation: That there is no need for us to simulate all 6 targets.

Think about it for a moment...If the radar is crap on target resolutions -- speed, altitude and aspect angle -- for one target. It will be crap for all 6 'engage' targets. And those same resolutions will be even worse for the higher quantity 'track' targets.

The need to have physical possession of the opposition's hardware is far less today than before, at least for US anyway because of our superior technological lead over the Russians. Our data analysis, meaning our ability to break down an intercepted radar signal, aka SIGINT, is all that we need to recreate the same signal characteristics using our own hardware. It does not matter if the recreated signal is transmitted by a mechanical antenna or a phased array. Given our superior lead in semiconductor technology, our data processing for one target will be superior to the Russians'. That mean our simulations will be of a lower tolerance than the actual Russian hardware and that mean our response will be more precise. It is easier for the superior to simulate the inferior than the opposite.

 

[Markus]

Keeping H/W response times aside, is there a need to account for human response time? If yes, then how?

Regardless of H/W response times and data processing speeds, ultimately it is the pilot who will take the call. F-35 is one pilot plane.

 

[nightcrawler]

One of the many things about an air defense radar system that everyone has an erection over is how many targets can the radar track and actively engage. The 'track' quantity is usually higher than the 'engage' quantity. For the S-300PMU with its phased array radar, its 'engage' quantity is 6. Some people would jump to the conclusion that the 6 'engage' quantity is because there are only 6 missiles per battery. It is a reasonable assumption but it is valid only up to a point. It could mean that there are hardware and software related limitations to 6 targets. Anyway...The 6 'engage' quantity does not mean there are 6 different radar beams but that there is only ONE beam moving from one target to another. Of course, a phased array antenna would be moving its beam faster than a mechanical antenna, which is limited by structural inertia, including motor capability.

Know that already

Now we come to a very important point in simulation: That there is no need for us to simulate all 6 targets.

Think about it for a moment...If the radar is crap on target resolutions -- speed, altitude and aspect angle -- for one target. It will be crap for all 6 'engage' targets. And those same resolutions will be even worse for the higher quantity 'track' targets.

Meaning Russia produce CRAPPY radars??

The need to have physical possession of the opposition's hardware is far less today than before, at least for US anyway because of our superior technological lead over the Russians. Our data analysis, meaning our ability to break down an intercepted radar signal, aka SIGINT, is all that we need to recreate the same signal characteristics using our own hardware. It does not matter if the recreated signal is transmitted by a mechanical antenna or a phased array. Given our superior lead in semiconductor technology, our data processing for one target will be superior to the Russians'. That mean our simulations will be of a lower tolerance than the actual Russian hardware and that mean our response will be more precise. It is easier for the superior to simulate the inferior than the opposite.

thnx that was new thing to a Chemical Engg
Regarding your thoughts of USA superiority that I think is something you must rethink. I can recall back in U2 era when you definitely had the SILICON edge over Russians; still Mr.Johnson himself said that Russian radar technology is progressing far rapid than we can counter it!!

So you must acknowledge that it isn't proper to just say that we are this & that. Simple is the case Russian radars are stateofart no doubt about it that US/Israeil pleaded to stop Russian S-300 delivery to Iran

 

[gambit]

Meaning Russia produce CRAPPY radars??

Nope...That was just an example. Transmitting is one thing, processing the echo is a different beast. We really do not need to know how the system process the echo data. We only need to know how our aircrafts produce those echoes from certain signal characteristics. We will assume the worst, meaning that the opposition is just as capable as we are, and create responses accordingly. Of course, the prudent thing to do is also create gradations of estimated opposition capabilities.

 

[nightcrawler]

Nope...That was just an example. Transmitting is one thing, processing the echo is a different beast. We really do not need to know how the system process the echo data. We only need to know how our aircrafts produce those echoes from certain signal characteristics. We will assume the worst, meaning that the opposition is just as capable as we are, and create responses accordingly. Of course, the prudent thing to do is also create gradations of estimated opposition capabilities.

Atlast..........

ok now I focus my attention to another point you described.

is all that we need to recreate the same signal characteristics using our own hardware

Can you elaborate plz.
I am stranger in this technical aspect.
Do tell me if my understanding is wrong:
I have seen an animation of Swedish ARTHUR system in which first the opposition throw a kind-off cannon ball & then you reiterate the source position (~~parabola flight) & take them down. All calculations done in ARTHUR computer system.....

ARTHUR - Artillery Hunting Radar.flv


Are you referring to this sort of signal processing. Do correct me I am wrong

 

[Thomas]

you are senior members & you must have read my post carefully!!
Nowhere I am stating that simulations are rubbish what I am saying if USA is doing simulation for predicting F-15/16/22 performance thts OK why because thy own them & know every minute detail about them.
Simulation needs extensive amounts of mathematical models which I think US/Israeil will not have for present S-300 systems (or in general any Russian air defence systems). If they had done simulations (as you acknowledge) then these simulations must have been based upon (as you pointed out) 70s/80s systems.
But common sense do require that you dont take Russians as blind people & not upgrading (drastically) a thirty year old designs & technology.



You must be pointing out (its US habit)to what you did to the poor people like SADDAM;MULLAH UMAR;SYRIANS...............

You left out Serbia, and Vietnam on your list. That aside I was merely pointing out that your being upset about my agreeing with the thread article. because in your words it "isn't based on logic" is nonsense. The U.S. (and Israel) has vast experience in electronic warfare and countering SAM's, and that is a fact.

The F-35 was specifically designed to take out SAM systems. It's electronics capability is actually better then what the F-22 has. And we know from experience that pilots up close are having trouble getting radar locks even when they can clearly see the F-22. This is not due to the F-22 stealth alone, but also because of the electronic warfare suite that stops other radars from keeping a lock.

Couple it's capabilities with tactics such as using drones to lite up the SAM radars like the Israeli's did against the Syrians in 1982 (17 SAM sites destroyed in 2 days), and you have a recipe for success. And that success will continue with the "next generation jammer" already being developed.

Now let me ask you this Nightcrawler.......how do you think they are able to design an effective next generation jammer, if as you say they don't have access to the technical information of the SAM system?

 

[nightcrawler]

@Thomas
I think you have serious indigestion problem

What you are pointing at :-
USA==

Russia==

You left out Serbia, and Vietnam on your list. That aside I was merely pointing out that your being upset about my agreeing with the thread article. because in your words it "isn't based on logic" is nonsense. The U.S. (and Israel) has vast experience in electronic warfare and countering SAM's, and that is a fact.

The F-35 was specifically designed to take out SAM systems. It's electronics capability is actually better then what the F-22 has. And we know from experience that pilots up close are having trouble getting radar locks even when they can clearly see the F-22. This is not due to the F-22 stealth alone, but also because of the electronic warfare suite that stops other radars from keeping a lock.

Couple it's capabilities with tactics such as using drones to lite up the SAM radars like the Israeli's did against the Syrians in 1982 (17 SAM sites destroyed in 2 days), and you have a recipe for success. And that success will continue with the "next generation jammer" already being developed.

So.................

Now let me ask you this Nightcrawler.......how do you think they are able to design an effective next generation jammer, if as you say they don't have access to the technical information of the SAM system?

I think you must read Gambit reply; having access to technology information is something different from assuming it!!

And of-coarse USA analysts will not be constituted by persons like you who make some lethargic & lame assumptions

effective next generation jammer

I will not comment until some more recent data is acquired.

I think you stop your blind patriotism & you being senior may like to answer my previous post