Methods, criteria, and figures for assessing the operational effectiveness of a combat aircraft, from sensors to support, in a contested environment.
In summary
The combat value of a fighter jet cannot be summed up by its speed or weapon load. Military staff combine technical measurements, exercise data, and ownership costs to estimate operational effectiveness in real missions. The assessment covers the entire spectrum: sensors, stealth, data links, weapons, survivability, as well as technical availability, sortie generation, and lifecycle cost. It is structured around concrete metrics: probability of interception, range, sensor-to-shooter latency, availability rate, MTBF/MTTR, cost per flight hour, and software integration rate. Tests range from live firing to data fusion in complex networks, with scenarios saturated with electronic warfare. For manufacturers, these criteria determine the key points of the specifications, the modernization roadmap, and contractual penalties. Ultimately, combat value is the sum of measurable performance and proven tactical agility, within budgetary constraints.
The purpose and scope of a credible assessment
Combat value aims to provide a simple answer to a complex question: in a given air campaign, what does a combat aircraft actually deliver for each sortie generated and each dollar invested? The evaluation is broken down by mission: air superiority, point air defense, precision strike, suppression/destruction of enemy defenses (SEAD/DEAD), ISR, maritime action, deterrence. It aggregates technical data (performance, sensors, weapons), operational metrics (range, payload, time on target), and support indicators (availability, cost, logistics). The goal is to provide a robust comparison between competing options, independent of marketing. This requires common protocols, repeated scenarios, and thresholds to be met (Key Performance Parameters). The measurement is not just a “top speed” or “Mach max”: it incorporates how the aircraft sees, decides, fires, and returns in imperfect conditions: weather, interference, jamming, ground-to-air threats.
Missions and employment profiles, the basis for measurement
Each mission has its own metrics. In air superiority, we look at initial detection (AESA radar, IRST), stealth (radar cross section, IR signature management), BVR capability (missile range, link reliability), and close combat performance (instantaneous/sustained turn rate, thrust-to-weight ratio). In strike missions, we measure the range with two external tanks (often 800 to 1,300 km depending on profiles), payload (5,000 to 10,000 kg), accuracy (CEP of guided munitions), and survivability against surface-to-air systems (exposure time, effectiveness of countermeasures). In ISR, the effective range of EO/IR and SAR/MTI radar sensors, the quality of the data stream and its latency are evaluated. At sea, anti-ship payload, low-altitude navigation and resistance to salt and humidity are assessed. These usage profiles define the “sets of figures” that feed into the calculation of combat value.
Measurable technical criteria: sensors, effect, and survivability
The sensor and fusion
A fighter AESA radar typically detects a fighter target at 150–200 km head-on (depending on signature), with multi-target tracking and air-to-ground modes. An IRST identifies a hot target at 50–90 km in favorable conditions. Data fusion combines these sources with ESM/ELINT, reducing correlation time to a few seconds and decreasing false leads. Sensor→shooter latency, via data links, is observed: < 1 s on board, 2–10 s in a tactical network.
Armament and firing
The probability of hit for an air-to-air missile (Pk) depends on kinematics and guidance. Evaluations compare BVR envelopes (60–160 km depending on ammunition) and Pk under realistic conditions (maneuvering targets, countermeasures). In air-to-ground, a CEP < 3 m is expected for a GPS/INS-guided bomb, < 1 m with laser/EO terminal guidance.
Survivability
It combines signature (radar/IR), warning (RWR/MAWS), jamming (EA), decoy (chaff/flares), maneuverability, and structural robustness. We measure “time under threat” in an SAM corridor, jamming capability in dB, spectral coverage, and thermal load. A modern self-protection system aims for a measurable reduction in adverse lethality (e.g., halving the attrition rate in a replicable scenario).
Flight performance and tactical agility
The airframe and propulsion govern payload, endurance, and tactical agility. Simple figures matter: thrust-to-weight ratio (> 1 at full load), wing loading (350–450 kg/m² for a multi-role fighter), sustained turn rate (≥ 18–22°/s depending on altitude), service ceiling (16,000–18,000 m), economical subsonic speed (Mach 0.8–0.9), point supersonic speed (Mach 1.6–2.0 depending on configuration). The range is measured on standardized profiles: high-low-high, lo-lo-lo, with two fuel tanks (1,100–1,500 L each), return reserve. Internal fuel (5,000–11,000 L) and specific engine consumption dictate time on target (e.g., 20–45 min at 300 m altitude and 900 km/h depending on payload). These parameters are not “theoretical”: they determine the success of an escort, the window for a SEAD, or the number of penetration routes available.
Employment and support metrics, the core of real value
Beyond the technical specifications, it is the “workshop” figures that make the difference. The average availability rate (proportion of mission-capable aircraft) targets 70–85% in peacetime, often lower during intense operations. Mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair (MTTR) determine the rate of sortie generation. A high-performance squadron aims for 1.0–1.5 sorties per aircraft per day at a sustained rate, and more at peak times. The cost per flight hour includes fuel, parts, maintenance, and depreciation; the difference between platforms can range from one to three. The life cycle cost over 30–40 years (acquisition, MCO, upgrades) weighs most heavily and can triple the initial purchase price. The logistical footprint is just as important: number of teams required per aircraft, volume of spare parts (m³/tons), ground energy, special tools. An excellent but demanding aircraft can lose its combat value due to lack of availability and cadence.
Tests, exercises, and war data
Evaluations draw on three sources. 1) Instrumented tests: live firing, penetration of representative radars, EW campaigns, payload/drag and vibration measurements. 2) Complex exercises (such as Red Flag, Formidable Shield, Arctic Challenge): detection statistics, simulated firing, BVR/WVR kills, and survival under stress. Depending on the scenario, kill ratios vary from 3:1 to >10:1 for platforms with well-integrated sensors, links, and weapons, the important factors being sensor-shooter consistency and spectrum management. 3) Operational data: actual consumption, typical failures, self-protection effectiveness, average strike accuracy (BDA), logistical deviations. The armed forces weigh this data, isolate biases (crew quality, weather), and retain conservative ranges.
Risks and blind spots to consider
All quantification involves pitfalls. “Techno bias” sometimes overestimates the isolated device and underestimates the ecosystem (refuelers, AEW\&C, accompanying electronic warfare). Network dependency can become a weakness: loss of GPS, link jamming, and satellite latency degrade the detect-decide-act chain. Cybersecurity is critical: a connected aircraft requires signed updates, compartmentalization, and real-time supervision. Stealth measurement (radar/IR) remains contextual: frequency, appearance, weather. On the human side, crew training and interface design directly affect combat value: a poorly presented alert costs seconds and a missed shot. Finally, industrial sustainability (availability of parts, supplier resilience) can degrade value over several years, regardless of the intrinsic qualities of the airframe.
The consequences for manufacturers: specifications and strategies
For the industry, these measures dictate design and roadmap. Specifications include contractual thresholds (availability, range, payload, reliability), accompanied by penalties. Open architectures facilitate the integration of national weapons and sensors, increasing perceived combat value for export. Software cadence is becoming a key criterion: number of versions per year, bug fixes, insertion of new EW threats. Synthetic environment testing, digital twins, and predictive analytics reduce risks and lead times. Commercially, proving a low cost per flight hour and rapid ramp-up is as valuable as a marginal improvement in pure performance. Manufacturers who demonstrate a credible path to 70–80% availability and weapons integration in 12–24 months gain a decisive advantage.
A pragmatic framework for decision-making
A purchase or modernization decision can be assessed using five quantified questions: 1) How much can it see, at what distance, and with what reliability? 2) How quickly can it transform information into firepower, alone and in a network? 3) How many aircraft will actually be ready each day, and with what payload and persistence? 4) How much does one sortie and one year of operation cost, today and in 15 years? 5) What is the proven margin for evolution, in terms of software and hardware? Answering with measured data, not promises, determines true combat value.
Live a unique fighter jet experience