Why the B-2 is Still a Hanger Queen

The B-70 was an elegant eircraft but the radar, sonic and thermal signature was massive. It could never have survived in a high treat enviroment. The fuel was very expensive - a fluro-boron mixuture if I recal.

Speaking about Vietnam - Another side bar conversation/meaningless babble :)

Just a few weeks ago I was in a museum here in Dallas and they had some interesting artifacts. Of course I took pictures! They had the actual radar of a the F111 there. That was pretty neat since the F111 had the first terrain following radar and employed this over Vietnam. One of my father’s friends who today is still in Germany as well was a F111 pilot. The F111 was an interesting plane to say the least. This plane was a marvel of engineering for its time: First Swing Wing, first terrain following radar, rearward looking IR camera, first ejection capsule (can eject at any speed and have high probability of survival in water where hypothermia tends to be a danger), first after burning turbo fan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_TF30 ), laser tracking (in Vietnam already!). The F111 was truly a marvel of engineering seeing how all this was done using sandwich boards and mechanical means. There was no “digitization”. A lot of the stuff that plane did had to be accomplished through mechanical means; which is flat out astonishing, and also explains why this plane was a maintenance nightmare.

Because the F111 had an internal payload and incorporated a laser designator, it could truly fly at ridiculous speeds, unlike even it’s successors like the Tornado which could neither sustain nor even achieve the speeds due to the need to externally mount it’s payload which most often is not certified for supersonic operations and was able to precision bomb targets already in the late 60s. Designed to be carrier capable (But the Navy didn’t buy this plane so it never really was used). The side by side seating arrangement allowed for good visibility during a “pop up” and this plane actually has more range than a Tornado or F15E today, but it can still pull turns as good as a Tornado. Just a remarkable machine considering its age!

I know why we retired this airframe: cost, reduction in forces after 1989, Operational Readiness rates were bad, the F117 took over the role of strategic attack, the EA6 Prowler was a cheaper solution as a jammer, and the F111 was left as an expensive plane with no real job within the USAF. Furthermore, since the advent of low level terrain following radar the threat had tried to counter it and already by the 90s it was safer to operate out of this area thanks to the SA9/11 and other nasty systems specifically designed for low flying platforms. But there is no doubt that this plane was far ahead of its time. Planes that were 13 years junior to the F111, such as the Tornado, didn’t even have the ability to laze until the mid/late 90s! They didn’t have the range, the payload, speed or the loitering time and while even a smaller platform, the Tornado can’t even turn better.

To this day Australia uses this platform for the simple reason that nothing in its class can go as far, as fast, and carry as much as a F111. In fact they are debating about upgrading and maintaining their F111 fleet until 2020 and recently bought a new long range anti-ship missile for it to carry. In the capacity the Australians use the F111 it’s still a great plane. Go out far and fast, and sink ships.

F111 Trivia – The F111 was one of the only planes to ever bomb Hanoi with the lights still on. They never saw it coming. At the time, enemy radar and other systems had a hard time dealing with a low level night flying bomber like a F111.

Personal opinion – Two of the aesthetically most significant aspects of the F111 are its howling sound and the fuel dump feature that makes it into a flying torch.

http://www.f-111.net/f-111.mpeg
http://www.f-111.net/f-111-clip.mpg
http://www.f-111.net/82wg.mpg

What’s your opinion on that?

You're way ahead of me. All that sounds reasonable.

I knew Australia was still flying the F-111, but didn't realize it was in the role of a maritime attack aircraft. I'd think they'd make one heckuva Backfire.

Aussie's ought to buy our old F111's then.

They do.

The B-2 was a success before the first craft ever rolled off the line. This plane played a major role in bringing down the Soviet Union because the Russians were so afraid of its capabilities, they spent a huge amount of resources for a new over-the-terrain RADAR system. The threat of the B-2 made the old system obsolete.

http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/technology/aircraft/f111.htm (official site)

Better yet. Arm these F111's with the most advanced Harpoon there is. Bad stuff if you're a bad guy in a ship.

I'm thinking that if I paid $2 billion for a single aircraft

The often quoted $2 billion price per plane is a lie. Develpment was $38 billion. Originally, 132 copies were to be purchased at $400 million each. But when the buy was scaled back to 21 planes, the incremental cost was $4 billion. That made a total of $42 billion for 21 planes or $2 billion per. But $38 billion spread over 132 planes plus their per copy cost was only supposed to total $91 billion, or $600 million per plane. But the main point is that development fixed cost was $38 billion for one plane or 132 planes and then $400 million per plane thereafter. So it is a $400 million plane and the MSM $2 billion figure is anti-military propaganda.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/amd/html/chapt10.html (Another official Aussie site)

quote “Integral to Australian concepts of maritime warfare are the P3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, the F-111 strike reconnaissance aircraft and the F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft.”

Let me add more to this. The Aussies plan to update the F111 so it can even carry the JASSM ( AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile – a cruise missile ). They have no plans on retiring the F111 soon. Even though they are part of the JSF project and plan on buying them, they will retain the F111 in their inventory simply because it’s their primary punch when it comes to maritime strike and believe it or not, the F111 beats out even a JSF, EF, Rafale, Tornado, Grippen, F15E, F16s, F18….. when it comes to payload/speed/range. For what they need (Fly far and fast carrying big/heavy anti ship missiles), the F111 is a good choice.

Can you inform people without showing what went wrong with your upbringing ? Fine - then try again please.

My point was that it's probably an idea with the one or the other trap door to go for very low observable fighter planes or bombers with an all-out commitment - limiting the aerodynamics, limiting the payload capabilities and limiting the availablity of military budget (i.e. taxpayers money).

The EF is a poor mans fighter in comparison to the F-22 (what isn't ?)- something to compare to the B-2 is not planned in europe - we neither see the need for it nor have we got the budget.

But it will fill it's role in the next 20 years wich is to haul the mmunition to the targets - if there are any. Low - or high threat wouldn't be an issue because even a SA-10 can be SEADed or jammed.

You made a big fuzz about mentioning Meteor and comparing it to the AIM 120 because AIM is here and Meteor wasn't and I should finaly accept that US equals great country and europe equals trashy Luftwaffe.

Well if it helps then here we go - your flyers are bigger then ours ! There - now you can climb down from that tree throwing with cocoanuts and listen again for what I wanted to express with that Meteor - AIM 120 comparison:

AIM 120 C was made for the limited space inside the weapons bay of stealthy aircraft - latere versions where tweaked
to use GPS in pre-active phase, be more precise by improving sensors for the active phase and so to use less explosives usingthe safed space and weight for fuel and to go a bit further. That's it.

Why should anyone, who doesn't have stealthy aircraft buy the C or D block (which isn't fielded yet as far as I know) if he can have a meteor ? Ok you got to wait 3 years longer but the AIM 120 B will do the job perfectly until then plus you wouldn't run into trouble with export regulations and customer priorities of the US state/industry.

Meteor for what everyone can read is giving the pilot (e.g. of an EF ) the unique opportunity to send the missile into the high threat scenario rather then the plane. And the same ideas are followed by having storm shadow or taurus (if it's not too cross eyed - there where problems with the IR camera)under the wings - avoid high thread scenarios.

Read up on EuroDASS if your dull recentiments against anything european allow to. Now it's not better then anything US made - that's not the point but it's suitable and it will be able to grow with the threads.

As far as I understood it -if you have a loose bolt on an F-22 the whole idea of the plane will be trashed because it will light up in a modern in-flight radar like a Mig 21.

The RCS of the F-35 will be not so stealthy at all - like a water-ball they say.... hmmm is that a concept that is supposed to be fit for the future ? Don't think so.

LCD panels and look through the floor options are cool - EF doesn't have it.

But what are you bragging about ?:

" EF will never have the radar capabilities even of a JSF because he is INCAPABLE of the sensor fusion and integration as on a JSF. On a JSF you basically have the radar integrated into the ECM system and and and. Imagine it’s a plane that is a flying network. A plane like a Viper OR EF is not setup the same. It’s not designed to work that way. "

That will disapoint the brits because that's what they ordered with the EF. A flying network - using the fusion of all anboard sensors findings and external sources via encrypted protocols to provide the pilot with an advanced situation awareness.

BTW did you see the news about the barracuda ? That would be a hell of a sensor platform for the EF don't you think ?

The EF is designed to act together with the JSF and US F-22 in missions sharing sensors and sharing tactical informations via encrypted data links of the same protocolls. How's that supposed to work - if the EF is not made for it ? The brits ordererd sensor fusion and that's what the germans ordered, too and that's what they got.

Your statement: " Imagine it’s a plane that is a flying network. A plane like a Viper OR EF is not setup the same. It’s not designed to work that way. "

Sorry but that's not what I know. Could it be that only this time - and I swear I don't mean it in an offensive way - you're just a bit under-informed. Nahhhh probably not. Your a hero. Have another beer.

you said:

The EF “probably” won’t even have the budget like the Viper over the next decade for R&D.

R&D will be independent from the EF project. For example BAE is providing the display sections and HUD for the EF -
they sell a modification of that and it's build into the F-22. I think your stuck with that beast for quite a long time to go so voila there we have R&D.

Also I heard that the F-35 project will be quite international - so your spreading know-how around the planet - EF will take advantage if that. I just hope that Sukhoi will not.

" The EF is loosing contracts to the F16, 18 and Grippen."

Yes it does. EF is politicaly weak. The F-35 project is just spinning out work packages like mad in order to keep the plane spread and to close the market for the EF. F-16 is not an alternative for nations that can afford EF. Certainly - if you go to the lobby with billions worth of work packages you're the man. But wasn't that you complaining about the states owned and corrupt economic structures in europe ?

Let's see where f-35 goes - i will show greates respect if it works out in the end that everyone is happy. The brits want the software - the turks may want contracts...

But do be serious the F-16 is not a match to the EF not in any role maybe cost wise - I am not expert enough but I think it's not possible to pimp up an F-18 to such a degree that it's a better air superiority or swing role jet. Mainly because of what you don't believe - that is the information technology inside the EF - or granting that one to you - what I read about.

The captor is as good as the AESA on F-18 and F-16 - only the 77 has superior features - thats what I derive from the tech data I see in the net.

So chear up a bit - sun is shining - birds are singing -no need to troll through the internet offending people. Don't behave like a drunkard.

Your's GH

(Ph.D. in chemistry - 3 years of IT consulting for a company that does electronic image analysis, been to the states a lot these days - 7 years of experience in industry robotics - 1 year managing a department for a company with 7000 employees - could earn more in the states but what the heck - home is where the girl is)

The Jaeger 90 was supposed to have been operational in mid 1990s. Had they even remotely accomplished that date, the Jaeger 90 would have competed against it’s peers and

(In Europe)

Portugal: F18
Spain: F18
Finland: F18
Switzerland: F18

Norway: F16
Denmark: F16
Netherlands: F16
Italy: F16 (lease)
Poland: F16
Greece: F16
Turkey: F16

That is where the Jaeger 90 could have made sales! The Jaeger 90 would have given especially those interested in the F18 a close competitor. But 12 years behind schedule is a bad thing. Let me introduce you to an important business and military concept: Timing.

In typical German fashion you crawl into your cave of eternal victim hood. “Our fighter is not selling because it’s all political, political, “Der Jude, ich meine - Ami ist dran schuld! Wir sind opfer, wir sind Opfer!” When all else fails, just blame it on politics and use that as an excuse why the Jaeger 90 does not sell. This is in reality a typical German “world on its head” point of view. The JSF is not part of EADS which is tied into the EU. You didn’t have the JSF flying over Poland and being shown off at every opportunity within the EU as part of a huge advertising campaign which included a more or less “buy European” aspect. EADS also offered potential buyers the ability to manufacture essential components of the Jaeger 90 if they bought this plane. Germany, Italy, Great Britain and Spain (The Jaeger 90 partners) form a substantial economic might within Europe and their political, economic influence by far exceeds that of any US government official or Lockheed in this region. The US is not part of the KSZE, is not within the EU internal political bodies, and has a lesser part of the internal trade within these states. No, Jaeger 90’s flop in sales has nothing to do with “politics” (The lame German excuse), and everything to do with what this plane is.

Lockheed awards contracts within it’s partner states, but as the cancellation of the GE/Rolls Royce engine and consequent tension with Great Britain showed, it’s not at all just about awarding contracts so that people buy the JSF. The second engine would have added cost and was not needed, so they trashed this plan.

Why the Jaeger 90 didn’t sell is based on:

1. Timing (TOOOOOOO late)
2. Cost (The Jaeger 90 is to expensive for what you get)
3. Lack of compatibility
4. Logistical constraints
5. Technological risk and no developed doctrine/unproven platform (Well lump this all together)

Clueless as you are, I’ll best explain this in the form of examples. Let me use Poland to begin.

Poland needs a plane. They need a plane today. Not in 10 years, not in 4 years. They need a fully functional fighter “today”. They have the choice between a F16 that is operation, combat proven, cheap, logistically easy to sustain, the most NATO compatible fighter there is, something you can easily piggy back off of the US with, and this plane is in performance and capabilities a near equivalent to a Jaeger 90. Both are the same generation and built to similar (Defense of Central Europe/Cold War scenario) specifications and are 4th Gen planes. Interview with a Norwegian Colonel/fighter pilot ( http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464964.html ).

The F16 is even to Boeing’s dismay the absolute budget fighter, but still brings a decent performance although the airframe will not be viable for as long nor has the survivability and range as the follow on 5th gen platforms.

Built with lean production in mind, in a lower cost to produce nation, where a near 1,400 fighter surplus was available after the Cold War ended (Some near new Vipers were even mothballed), a simple design that was intended to be cheaper, mass produced like no other Western fighter in operation anywhere, NO ONE, can beat the cost benefit of a Viper. No one. Near all comparisons are bogus anyway. The USAF typically looks at cost of a plane in terms of a cost over it’s “Lifespan” since often a plane that is cheap new costs more if you look at it over 20 years and maintenance etc is considered. You have people throwing around numbers and comparing them that paint some picture they like, but in truth, even the F22 is not that expensive. The Jaeger 90 has a “point purchase” cost that is greater than near all comparable systems. The JSF will cost “LESS” than a Jaeger 90! He will even cost “LESS” to sustain. The costs the DoD like to use include the purchase of specialized equipment required in sustainment, training, retrofits, lifespan predicted costs in maintenance etc. This is done, because some planes have a lower cost at purchase but cost more to maintain. Some planes cost more, but have a longer usable life……….

Example F16: It’s design intentionally is simple: No complex wing mechanisms, no variable geometry air intake, not a lot of use of special alloys or composites. The plane is then mass produced but many components like the engines that are even shared on other systems such as the F15, B1, etc make this platforms basic subsystems even more mass produced. There is lots of commonality in components and some is near “off the shelf”. Produced in Ft Worth TX (Lower cost to manufacture location) in one place with lean manufacturing, it is in stark contrast to the Jaeger 90 which is piecemealed out to all consortium members in accordance to who participated what percentage on the project (In typical EADS fashion just like the Airbus). How logistically easy and cheap is it to build a plane the way the Jaeger 90 is being built? It isn’t. How cheap is it to manufacture in Germany? It isn’t. How lean is the over head of EADS? It isn’t.

The Viper is in “Preis Leistungs verhaeltniss” unbeatable. Even the MIG 29 which the Russians practically will give away is in shear cost a more expensive plane in the long run. Just the engines alone kill the cost of the MIG. Two engines, each with half the engine life of the Viper = 4 times the overhauls. Compute that over 20 years!

You simply can NOT compete with a Viper, even Boeing can’t. Example: The S. Koreas bought the F15K because it can carry certain payloads that a Viper can not carry. Simple reality – you can not put a 5000 pound bunker buster on a Viper or Tornado for that matter, although the latter was intended as a fighter-bomber. One of the few planes that can carry this is a F15. Japan looked at other aspects but again it was specific capabilities that sold the F15. If you need a plane that can plink off some of the 4,000 bunkers in North Korea, you might want something that can carry a 5000 pound bunker buster don’t you think? It’s specific capabilities that sell the F18 and why we need a F22. If you want a carrier capable fighter your options shrink, as India has figured out. If you operate continuously over the ocean as Australia, Portugal and other do, a twin engine may be favored such as in a F18. But nothing can beat the cost of a Viper. If you’re Poland, you can’t pass up on this deal. Poland does not need a fighter that operates continuously over the ocean nor is carrier capable. For them, the Viper/F16 offers everything they need but at a rock bottom cost.

Italy, one of the prime partners in the Jaeger 90 project today must lease F16’s since this plane is 12 years behind schedule, won’t be operational until 2008 and even the production schedule has slipped significantly.

As I have said numerous times. The F18C and Jaeger 90 share a lot in design concept, in capabilities and even some major components are basically the same. Had Jaeger 90 been on the market by the mid 90s and could they have “demonstrated” this plane in the early 90s, the Jaeger 90 would have sold. This “platform” has slightly more capabilities for air to ground (payload and stores available) than a Viper, it has slightly better kinetics than a F18C. The Jaeger 90 would have been a solid competitor and taken more market share. As it stands, it’s a new old plane that is really really expensive for what you’re getting. You can compare it to a F22 to try to show that it’s cheap. But in truth the F22 is quite literally “twice” the plane (75% more thrust, 50% more radar, far greater stealth, thrust vectoring……). When you put Jaeger 90 in it’s class of competitors:

1. It came to late and the market is saturated. Portugal already bought their fighter as did, Poland, Switzerland and Finland. You missed the train.

2. The plane has in comparison to the Viper or Hornet an enormous cost and few capabilities that set it apart. There is no capability that sets it apart where it has a niche and still could make sales. Example: Being a carrier capable platform, vertical take off and landing or being able to tote along 5000 pound bunker busters.

SEAD is a joint, combined, effort that even incorporates national level assets. ATACM’s/MLRS, SOF, Apache, EA6, Tomahawk, drones, F117, weasels…… all have a part in the effort to bring down an IADS. SEAD itself is dependent upon the capabilities of specific platforms. A CJ going after a SA10 site is not something that pilot would look forward to. A CJ with HARMs runs a high probability of getting his own rear handed to him if a SA10 is in the area. There is no debating this issue. To fill the role of the weasel, a F16 is hard pressed in today’s emerging threat environment. Just like the F4 was showing its age years ago in this role. The Jaeger 90 is no better off. The JSF with a much more capable electronics package, a significantly lower RCS, “Does” have capabilities that allow him to take on missions which the older conceptual designs have a hard time dealing with. It’s a simple fact.

“Capabilities” enable a platform to effectively conduct certain mission.

Let’s go back to the differences between a 5th and 4th gen airframe. You what to talk around or down play the significance, but those are just rhetorical defenses.

1. Electronics. The JSF was built around a newer and more capable concept of electronics. Concepts like “net centric”, are near foreign for a Jaeger 90. Like a F16, he has some data links and shares information, but the system does NOT have the fusion of sensors and the net centric concept imbedded into it’s design. This lack of “capabilities” on older 4th gen platforms inherently gives them less “potential” when it comes to Situational Awareness of the pilot, a lower grade of self defense against high threat systems.

Let me give concrete examples that are indisputable:

a. Take a look at the Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems. http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/cockpit/vsi/

Jaeger 90, like F16 will have a HMCS that is comparable. Both do the same things the same way and have about the same capabilities and limitations in what they can do for the pilot. However, when you look at the JSF Helmet Mounted Cueing System you do NOT see a system of equal capabilities. You are looking at a system that “By far” exceeds anything out there. Why? Because the HMCS can do things that are not possible on older 4th gen airframes. Since the JSF was built with digitization, net centric, sensor fusion and all the other buzz words in mind, that JSF can literally “See through the plane”. This is ONLY possible since the entire outer skin of the JSF is nothing but antennas and sensors. You must have the sensors mounted and the electronics in place to assemble a 360 degree world view outside the plane in order to make what is reality on a JSF come true. A Jaeger 90, like the F16 does not have this and it will NEVER have it since you would have to completely rebuild the plane to make it work. The architecture of the electronics on the Jaeger 90 is an older concept. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_JSF_HMDS_Day-Night_lg.jpg The pilot of a JSF can look down between his legs and see the ground. He can look behind him and see the sky where his own plane should be blocking his view. You can not do this with a Jaeger 90. It’s not a matter of bolting on some sensor like you state. The plane has to have the sensors and the design has to be able to support the sensors to make this happen.

In the realm of ECM it’s no different. Example: The Jaeger 90 has 360 degrees detection but just like all other older 4th gen platforms has blind spots and limited jamming capabilities in certain directions.

2. Like “Stealth”, a design itself has to be able to support it. Bolting some RAM onto a Tornado does little. At best it will suck away needed performance since the air intakes where never conceived for such a “capability”. However, a JSF and F22 are designed with stealth in mind and the JSF is in shear kinetics an equal to the Jaeger 90 despite having a far superior RCS. Why? Because the design is newer and took this feature into account. Again the Jaeger 90 has a reduced RCS (thanks to some design features and special plastics), but the Jaeger 90 is from its RCS not much better off than a F16 and in fact inferior even to a F18 Super Hornet. A plane has a front, rear, top, left side, right side and bottom RCS. In frontal RCS’s the F16 is quite good. The Jaeger 90 even a bit better. But where platforms like the JSF and F22 just embarrass the older platforms is in the side, bottom, top and with the F22 even rear RCS’s.

Let me give you an example of where some significant RCS reductions were incorporated into a design and what this looks like: The F18 if you look at its “V” tail, if you look at it’s horizontal stabilizer, the way it carries it’s payload, these are –ALL- RCS reducing aspects. FACT- the addition of an AIM9 on a F16 alone increases the RCS significantly! The payload on the bottom of a Jaeger 90 will reflect more than the plane itself. All this RCS reduction talk on the Jaeger 90 is a bunch of crap. More BS for the masses to swallow. It has a larger RCS from the top (The way an AMRAAM will be coming) and from the sides (The way an AMRAAMSKI will be coming).

Some good examples of design differences:

Air intake- http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/imagelib/s ... et=tlx_new

Tail (horizontal)- http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/imagelib/s ... et=tlx_new

Tail (Vertical) - http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/imagelib/s ... et=tlx_new This actually creates drag and makes the flight controls MUCH more complex since you have the vertical stabilizer working in two axis in effect; but it greatly reduces the side RCS.

Ordinance carried on bottom- http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/imagelib/s ... et=tlx_new By changing the angle you effectively reduce the RCS by deflecting the return back at an angle vs. straight to the radar. What you carry on the airframe is a “MAJOR” factor in RCS and often the crap hanging on bottom reflects more than the platform itself.

The Super Hornet is a RDC reduced platform but is no true stealth plane like a JSF or F22.

You need to have ¼ the RCS to ½ the detectable range. From the front aspect many late 4th gem platforms like the F18 and F16 have a decent RCS. Some later 4th gen platforms like the F18 even have a somewhat decent side RCS that’s do to the vertical stabilizer design and the way they hang the ordinance on the bottom… etc. But in no way does this 4th gen fighter have the over all stealth characteristics of these newer 5th gen platforms. Near all comparisons are Bullshit since they intentionally only use the RCS from the front where even a F16 does very well and you only see a small difference between the Jaeger 90 and a JSF. The issue is when you begin comparing side, or top RCS, that’s when a platform like a Jaeger 90 is blown away by a system like a JSF that has less than 1/6 the RCS in some aspects.

The Australian point of view: http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/chapter05.html

Take a look at how the Aussies see the Jaeger 90: http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/chapter06.html

The Aussies own the F18. They use them! And the fact is the Jaeger 90 was thrown their way as well. But it’s the fact that Jaeger 90 is essentially in capabilities a F18 that killed this plane. Why should Austria buy a brand new plane that costs more and in the end can do “nothing” their present day F18 can’t do?

No one in their right mind, except for the experts in Austria :-) think that a Jaeger 90 has the capabilities of a JSF BVR, that he has the survivability in a high threat environment (Say as part of the SEAD package that you mention). The JSF is in shear kinetics on par with platforms like a F16/18 or Jaeger 90 (But has no spectacular attributes), what sets these new generations apart is the electronics and stealth. The problem with a platform like the Jaeger 90 is that this plane is all “hot air”. EADS knows this plane is a still birth. They try to talk the talk. They are “marketing” the plane as some new revolutionary design, which it isn’t. Truth is, a lot of the advertising is focused on their own population. The sales pitch for a long time was aimed at the people within Germany, not prospective buyers since this plane was on very thin ice for a long time. The Jaeger 90 was almost dead in the mid 90s. There was a real threat of this plane being cancelled all together. Today, they use all the “buzzwords” when selling this plane, but the truth is, there is no substance there. In the end, Jaeger 90 is a glorified F18. A newer version of an older concept.

Why did the Jaeger 90 get built? The Jaeger 90, then Eurofighter 2000, then Typhoon, now just Eurofighter (The name kept changing as they were targeting different markets and as the timeline kept slipping away from them. EADS surly does not want to call this plane a Hunter 90 today!), was an exercise in German/Italian/British industrial capacity in R&D, test and evaluation. The Jaeger 90 is all about having the capability as a nation to sovereignly develop a military platform. It’s about maintaining/preserving a war industrial base. It’s about keeping the core competencies in industry and design centers alive within ones nation. There is nothing wrong with this. I don’t want to see the US loose this capability either. However, to state that the Jaeger 90 is today some spectacular fighter with a bright future and can compete against newer 5th gen platforms is complete non-sense.

EADS is trying to leverage manufacturing in other nations as a sales pitch, just like Lockheed is. EADS has within the EU much more clout than any US firm or politician. Most of the EADS heads “ARE” former EU statesmen or former heads of state run conglomerates. Trying to blame the lack of sales of the Jaeger 90 on some “political” behind the scene pressure of the US is more nonsense. When Australia buys the Tiger helicopter it must be because it’s a good helicopter. But when all say “no thank you” to the Jaeger 90, it of course becomes a conspiracy of the hegemony imperialistic USA. The bottom line is, Jaeger 90 came late, and a newer more capable generation of platforms is already on its way. Jaeger 90 came late and comparable platforms like the F18 have had years of sales and were gobbling up the market. The Jaeger 90 is built in a manner that is not cost effective and in low rate where even when compared today to its peers this plane is expensive. I can buy a F18 SH that does everything a Jaeger 90 can do and in fact some more, and pay a lot less! The only way you will get any kind of sales for the Jaeger 90 is if you resort to bottom feeding like the Russians or French. If you’re willing to sell to Iran, Libya, North Korea or China you’d probably get sales. Otherwise accept the fact that the Jaeger 90 is a “stillgeburt”.

Realize, if I were a potential buyer of a Jaeger 90 this is what I'm looking at.

1. More expensive than all comparable platforms (Grippen, F18, F16, Rafale).
2. Not logistically compatible with the US and this plane will not be compatible with the JSF (The F16 replacement). So you can’t piggy back off of the US easily.
3. Probable ordinance issues in the future. A plane has to be able to aerodynamically and in weights and balances support certain payloads. The US (Worlds largest arsenal) will not develop stuff just too specifically meet the needs of the Jaeger 90. The Tornado for example can not carry some of the weapons available. The airflow gets squirrelly.
4. High risk. The plane is technologically not fully tested nor even developed. There is real potential of technological failure even today. The AESA is still far away and a dream. Raytheon has already functional AESA’s in F16, F18 and some F15s. Raytheon can make it work in a JSF as well. There is zero risk of failure in this system in a Viper.
5. This machine will not really be operational until about 2008.
6. The Jaeger 90 is built to Cold War specs and lacks the legs. The plane is no better off than say a F16 with CFT as Israel, UAE and others are buying.
7. As far as capabilities are concerned, the Jaeger 90 brings nothing to the table that is really spectacular or new. A F18E can do everything a Jaeger 90 can do. Whether it’s putting steel on a target or defending your airspace or suppressing enemy air defenses. The Jaeger 90 is in “characteristics” an F18.

Looks don’t sell the plane. That’s about the only thing the Jaeger 90 has.

Now I am feeling informed - not pissed at. Thanks for the time you invested.

My initial point was: What if the advantage of shape induced stealthyness to short wave radar was erodet by near future technology ?

I got many answers on that and I understood that near future scenarios are mastered by the ability to react appropriatly on short term on a flood of informations comming.

The second part is about mutiple sensors on and much more off the plane as well as the ability to take decissions of the pilot and feed him with the info in a way he can digest them fast allowing him to react fast - netcentric.

The EF is build for that. It's not featuring the radar today an F-35 will have tomorrow (which is btw not 360° in both planes) but it has a 360° sensor suite in the pods on the wingtips - look up EuroDass - no blind spots here). And certainly it has the most important piece of equipment - enough silicon and code lines to fit into the UK's mixed fleat of F-35 and EF2000 - these planes are meant to interoperate.

There is even training going on to work out the interoperation with your F-22 and the F-35 linking their sensors via encrypted protocols.

Even the Aussies in the article you linked for me (thanks - its' a good read) say that the F-35 MIGHT challenge the role of the EF as an Air superiority fighter BVR and certainly will not challange it's role WVR.

Certainly - to hunt drones, UCAVS, anti ship cruise missiles etc- the F-35 comming radar will be a finer piece of equipment - but only if your right and euroradar will FU with the AMSAR - which is what I wouldn't count on.

Then you said:

"The Jaeger 90 would have given especially those interested in the F18 a close competitor. But 12 years behind schedule is a bad thing. Let me introduce you to an important business and military concept: Timing. "

Now what I don't like is you telling me something about 'timing'. I am no fan of the Jäger 90 timing but the EF is a scond attempt - it's not fair calling this beauty a jäger90.

The plane flying today isn't a jäger 90. A jäger 90 would have twin vertical stabilizers, thrust vectoring, no delta wings etc... it was scrapped.

The EF is a newer desing - trust me or look it up.

The RCS reduction measures on a EF will limit it's front signature - but more important will cover the fan to prevent the classification of the plane - no big deal but still not implemented in Rafale and F-16 as far as I know.

Then you asked:

How logistically easy and cheap is it to build a plane the way the Jaeger 90 is being built? It isn’t. How cheap is it to manufacture in Germany? It isn’t. How lean is the over head of EADS? It isn’t.

Manufacturing in germany is cheap. You will pay more for the man-hour but you will get it from a highly automatized process, you will get what you want and at the time you want it.

You will deeply regret having bragged about the efficiency of that texas plant once the F-35 project started. Wewill see what happens to the projects turkish work package and how the demands of all these chefs will influence the taste of the meal that's cooking there.
As I said - if this works these guys have my highest respect - but i've seen the projects of Ford with turkey and believe me you don't want this happening to the F-35.

I am impressed by the F-16 and the F-22 but F-35 must be fielded before I believe in it's success.

There are many rumors about it's not so VLO attributes anyhow.

So you stated that the EF2000 excells the Viper 'slightly' in it's capabilites as a mud digger.

I'd say since it can deliver much more and more precise and as some smart ass recently stated it was damm important thing to get to the targets in the first place before you make a bombing run... I would say the EF is twice the F-16 literaly.

As a ground fighter I do not know the capabilites of an F-22 probably it's quite limited if you want to keep the stealth card - reach and speed are a plus - radar is a big plus but load is a big minus. I'd say ground attack is off-role for the F-22 - why jeopardize twice the money of an EF in that role ?

in the end your right about that the EF in comparison to the F-22 has a hard time because of the big challenges with developments of sensors and weapons that have to be realized during it's lifetime and in the very near future (taurus debacle - you didn't even use that one to taunt me). But the countries involved are damned to succeed - first of all the Brits so I am positive on the Eurofighter project.

I think even more germans are aware today that this plane will actually be used in the future - and I don't think of flight shows.

But as I said in the beginning - I appreachiate your informations - I followed all of the links.

Is the B-1B still part of the inventory and operational?

In 1993 I led the technical component of the rewrite of the US Army's Readiness and Sustainability System.

I always believed that the military was at cross-purposes in using the same system to determine unit readiness as evaluating the proficiency of commanders.

There is a built-in incentive for commanders to fudge the numbers.

Yes, one was damaged during a landing last week. No one was injured.

seeing that chart you quoted - are they ordering a tanker with every F-35 they like to purchase ? Obviously not - I just read they only found budget for 5 flying gasstations.

What(tf) are they doing replacing their F-111 fleet with a short legged plane like the F-18 or F-35 ? Can a pro comment on that ?

True, silent, appear and disappear in the blink of an eye.

My actual background is as a Falschirmjaeger 3 years, Jaeger in Korea 1 year, Jaeger 3 years in Alaska and then Panzer Grenadier in Germany 3 years from where I spent 15 months in Iraq.

I don't consider myself a pro, but I know a little about planes. I’m an IFR pilot and grew up on USAF bases and have gone through various schools for CAS use etc. By the time I was 14 I had flown on nearly everything we had in the USAF as transport aircraft within MAC. In fact later in the Army I have jumped out of nearly all transport machines we have in the USAF (C141, C17, C130). I know a little about IT and work in this area today. I understand a little about the defense industry/certain technology in general since the firm I’m with is involved with the JSF and USN. I understand some of the basic principals of a phased array and this is basically the same concept whether it’s a Patriot or an AESA in the nose of a fighter. Some of the same RCS/IR reducing concepts are found in Army systems as they are on the Navy ships or USAF planes. The standard cammo net as used by the USA has radar scattering and radar absorbing properties (No shit), it’s just not as extreme as say what you find on systems like a F117 or F22. Yet the basic “principals” (Reflect back in wrong direction and absorb) are the same. In the Army we have FBCB2/BFT (I was a digital master trainer on this whole system – I trained those who teach how to use it) and the concept of a networked battlefield is the same whether we are talking tanks or fighters. So while I do not consider myself the authority on the JSF, I do have enough understanding of the basic principals at work and how this works to know what is BS and what is not.

I have been in a stunt plane here in Dallas before, I have pulled 7gs. A healthy trained and experienced pilot in a fighter is lucky if he can pull 9g’s WITH a g suit. In fact, no one will admit it, but occasional blackouts do occur and have even been the cause of more than one accident (If a pilot were to publicly state what is the truth, that most do at times have short black out, he might just never fly again). When some “expert” in www.Waffebhq.de trys to tell me about how the Jaeger 90 can pull 11 g’s, after all, in his mind it must beat a F16, all I realize is that I am wasting my time by trying to explain to him that in reality this is not the fact. It “reality” none of these planes operates over 50K feet. Doing so would only be possible with enormous risk. Over 50K and you can kiss you ass goodbye if you loose pressurization. But, since the Jaeger 90 must beat a F16 the clueless moron in these forums will state a number bigger than what is quoted for a Viper. In must after all outperform the Viper in his mind. When they fly and test these planes at these enormous altitudes. When planes like the SR71, U2 take off the pilot is not wearing a G suit. No, he’s wearing a full pressure suit like an astronaut! But according to the “experts” in these web sites the Jaeger 90 can go to 55K feet. Hint, 50 K is about the limit for “ALL” platforms, may it be F15 (Which theoretically can break 64K) or a Viper or a Jaeger 90. It’s a safety issue.

A lot of the “sales pitch” of the Jaeger 90 is targeting the audience in Germany where this plane itself had growing skepticism some years ago. If you look at the date of first deliver 2002 and the actual IOC date which will be 2008 you realize that this is highly unusual. When you look at the concept of the Tranche, you realize that this is highly unusual. They basically threw a half baked product out there to show they have something. “Look look, it fly’s!” What is a Tranche? Basically it’s a partially capable plane. It’s a “euphemism” for “limited mission capability”. A plane that after 12 years delay can not drop a bomb and expect to hit a target! Basically a few years ago you had a crunch time. It was either produce something NOW, or sink. So, with a more or less spin off of a F18 radar (Which both Germany and Great Britain had access to – and it is a very capable radar BTW), with no air to ground capabilities, no ECM that worked this plane was built and today sits on some pads in great Britain and Germany. Hurray!

There is a reason why this quote on quote IOC 2002 plane did NOT fly over Iraq in 2003! There is a reason why ZERO of them are there today (2006)! How about Afghanistan? Nope. How about S. Korea when N. Korea acted up again in 2003 (They are an opportunistic disease that always acts up when they see the US stressed). Nope. The Jaeger 90 is not mission capable, AT ALL. It’s a plane that is sitting on a pad, waiting to be finished, hopefully, someday, before the plane is obsolete all together.

The outlook for Jaeger 90 is grim and even grimmer in the future. Jaeger 90 will not sell outside of the Eurozone at all. Even within the Eurozone where EADS and the producers have some political and economic clout and can play leveraging and offset games, the Jaeger 90 will have a hard time competing. Why is the Jaeger 90’s future so grim?

As I tried pointing out this whole discussion, the plane is essentially an older concept. But some of the nations purchasing the Jaeger 90 (i.e. Great Britain and Italy) are also buying JSF. The Jaeger 90 is being procured by these nations as their primary air defense platform but the JSF will outperform the Jaeger 90 in the BVR fight (Net centric, stealth and AESA)! He will have better range/loitering time as well. Now what? What would you do? Long term it is very likely that the Jaeger 90 will get pinched out of needed funding since the JSF is a more capable platform even in the role which Jaeger 90 was suppose to fill! It is very “probable” in fact, that JSF just pretty much becomes the primary platform for everything in the long run. While you try to tell us about the great capabilities of the Jaeger 90, this plane is in reality fighting just for it’s purpose. The whole project Jaeger 90 is on thin ice. Today, he will get built, but he still might die at a real young age (example: F104 in USAF was a similar situation). Also a plane that didn’t have the “capabilities” to play out the missions it was to support.

As to the JSF and this project. Realize that the manufacturer of this plane is one of the worlds leaders in military platforms, that the infrastructure is near all in place, that firms like Raytheon already have built “numerous” functional AESA’s (i.e. F16, 15, 18) that are in operation. P&W is one of the world’s premier turbine builders in the defense sector…… The probability of failure especially at this point is near nil. The JSF is already developed! It’s a done plane. What you have happening right now is the final validation and refining of the “assembly line” to produce this fighter. In 2006 the first “assembly line” built JSF will be produced. But the technology, the concept, the design behind the JSF is all already there. The engines work, the radar works, the HMCS is there, the sensors are there. Hell, they logged over 5,000 hours of flight tests last year! A lot of the JSF technology can be found on the F22. Direct technology transfers. What is the probability of that engine failing? Low. It’s the same engine as in a F22 essentially. Only the F22 has two of them. The JSF today is from what it will be a done product. What you have now is the setting up of the assembly lines.

If I were a betting man, I would not bet money on JSF failing to meet its timeline or costs.

http://www.f-16.net/news_topic151.html (Take a look at the press releases)

Near every negative report you hear in some forum, such as the JSF being over weight is 3 years old and already a moot point because they solved the issue 2 years ago. Near every milestone in the project has been met at or “ahead” of schedule and at or “under” expected cost. The JSF project will most likely end up with over 5,000 copies being built. It will be mass produced like the F16 in a high volume. It will be manufactured with a lean production in mind. The cost of production in Fort Worth TX is lower than near anywhere in Europe! You have direct technology transfers from other developments via Lockheed, P&W, Raytheon and others. The JSF will be the new F16. High performance at a low cost.

Jaeger 90 will be a solid platform. He is very similar to a F18 in capabilities. Literally some of design features of the F18 are found on the Jaeger 90. The radar itself “Captor” is closely related to what is in a F18 (Which also has evolved further). The F18SH is a fantastic plane as the Jaeger 90 will be. Only the USN has different plans in the long run. The Jaeger 90 will be Germany’s primary air to air platform even in 10-15 years from now. SH will only fill this role until about 2012 when the USN (The last one to receive the JSF) will begin getting the JSF to fill the A2A mission. SH has in fact a more powerful radar, more range, 10% more thrust and a lower RCS than a Jaeger 90, but he will eventually transform into the USN’s primary carrier based tanker (S3), jammer (replace the EA6) and bomber (A6). The SH will be the big payload truck in the sky while JSF will be the stealth fighter. “Today” SH is the USN’s carrier based fighter, in fact he was already no BS operational in 2002 and dropped bombs on Iraq. By the time Jaeger 90 goes hot, he will have already been in use for 6 years (20-25% of the platforms lifespan). The mission of the SH will transition after 2012! Over time he will be relegated to being a bomber, tanker and jammer. Why? Because for those missions the SH will be a great carrier based platform even in 2015 with his massive payload, range and large internal volume available. The problem with the Jaeger 90 is that he will, like the German LW today with their F4, still have to fill roles that he can’t truly handle anymore. Both these planes are very very similar, both of these planes distinguish themselves from a F16 in that they have more payload and stores available. That they have excellent low speed handling capabilities. Their real strength compared to a Viper is for Air to ground (Seen as a platform).

The next major question will be: Do Germany/Italy/Great Britain have the defense budgets to really sustain this platform and upgrade it? What will Great Britain and Italy do since they also have the JSF and this platform is probably “more” apt even in the air to air role? If they do pour their resources into the JSF (Something that is even likely to happen) the Jaeger 90 will starve even more for funds. How will future developments in USN/USAF/USMC ordinance affect the Jaeger 90? A platform is only as good as what it can load out. The largest and most capable arsenal on this planet is in the US. This too will have an impact on what types of planes survive and take certain roles. Germany today can NOT logistically sustain themselves in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how they support a complex machine that requires a large logistical footprint in the future. Can you imagine the Dutch trying to sustain their Jaeger 90 in that region? Basically they ride on the back of the US logistical backbone. When the Netherlands needs parts, the US has them. Why? The Netherlands uses the Viper. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I can see the obvious here. Nothing I wrote is really that new. It’s just that some don’t want to see it.

An option for the Aussies would be to go the route of the USN.

The F18 Super Hornet has 40% more range than a F18C. The SH also has an enormous payload capacity which if strictly land based could probably even be more (Carrier take off and landings place large restrictions on aircraft). 17,700 pounds “payload” (Jaeger 90 ca 14,300 and that’s land based!) is what he can carry away from a carrier. I think he has to be lighter to land though. I’m fairly sure SH can’t return “to a carrier” with a full load.

http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/International/4202_Wallace.ppt#344,16,Range and Endurance (Very good presentation)

Go to slide 16. The SH “has” range. He’s got the legs! He has near 40% more range than a Jaeger 90 which is roughly on par with F18C. Plus he can still do air to air refueling AND is carrier capable and is obviously capable of short take offs and landings (STOL). Lot’s of options here.

1. One tanker such as a KC10 can fuel many planes, many times over and loiter a long time. One KC10 can carry 356,000 pounds of fuel to pump into planes. One Super Hornet needs ca. 14,000 to top off (internal). How many tankers do they need?

2. Taking off in Australia does not mean he has to fly all the way back. The strategic version of the F111 carrying nukes would have landed at alternate bases since the range would have been insufficient to fly to the Soviet Union and back to the US. Land at some alternate base where a prepositioned stockpile of fuel is available.

3. The plane is carrier capable and if US carriers are part of the operation, this can be an option.

4. A SH has unrefuled with external tanks an enormous range when compared to most other platforms. In many, possibly even most, scenarios his own range may suffice. Over 1135 NM (ca. 2090 KM “Radius” nicht ein weg) range is no chump change.

SH would offer interoperability with the US and many others. It would give the Aussies an air to air refuelable and carrier capable platform. The plane is already in service and operational since 2002. The AESA began fielding in 2005. There is no question that SH will remain in the US inventory and continue to have large funding for upgrades and improvements. Compatibility with US ordinance is moot. The answer is obviously yes. There is little technological risk. The future USN development trend is exactly in line with what the Aussies would require; a bomb truck. Like Jaeger 90 this platform is a late 4th gen development. He has some stealth, some net-centric capabilities. He’s no JSF, but then again, he also has the potential range and payload a JSF does not have. Twin engine, easy to maintain and not to overly expensive, this would be a viable option in my opinion.

At least something to explore.

http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/International/4202_Milliken.ppt#276,1,United States Navy TACAIR Plan

Many of the components and systems on their existing F18 fleet they have would be interchangeable. A F18E is to a large degree based on the older F18 and many of the components are the same.

The F18E already today has ATFLIR, AESA, is data linked etc. Like the Jaeger 90, he too is quote on quote “net centric” and has some “stealth”, but his capabilities are not the same as a F22 or even JSF in those latter aspects. For the role of a F111 replacement he would be one of the more “capable” platforms.

If Australia adopted the SH their Naval Air would be an exact mirror image of the USN. JSF is the fighter and SH the bomb truck.