irtuskBoss, I was referring to an obvious advantage that the flanker has in its endurance and flight regimes over the bug.
and my point was that those are irrelevant when it stands out like a glowing beacon saying ‘here i am! shoot me!’
And what do you know about how the irbis or even the Bars works (can you for a fact say that they have no LPI modes?).
i think you’re confusing me with someone else, i never said anything about lpi modes
As far as all other characteristics, the flanker runs circles around the shornet, period.
but it can’t run circles around the shornet’s missiles, which is what really matters
irtuskIf the jammers didnt work, why would the USN go to the expense of putting an IRST in a fuel tank to rush an IRST capability to the Hornets?
um, i don’t think you understand the point of IRST
it’s not because you’re afraid your radar will be jammed
it’s so you can detect without radiating at all (stealth mode)
it may also have uses when you don’t think your radar is capable of detecting a stealth plane at all
irtuskActually, jammers will do a great job to COMPROMISE your stealth. You’d use your jammer if you were already painted.
that’s why i said STANDOFF jammer
you run a powerful jammer from a long ways away (out of missile range) which clutters up the radar screen and allows the silent stealth plane to pass through undetected
the combination of standoff jamming + stealth is far more effective than either alone
No, it’s not dangerous, it’s the most effective way to counter the enemy’s sensors given a non-stealth platform, just like the barn door Super Hornet.
the f-18 is not stealth, but it has a significantly smaller signature than the flanker
The SH is a match for the Su-30MKI level aircraft.
The SH is hardly a match for the Su-35BM.
the Su-35BM doesn’t exist
and when (if) it does, the electronics on the F-18 will have progressed and maybe even the JDRADM will be out
but no matter what, it will still stick out like a sore thumb in any sort of hostile radar environment
besides australia will have the F-35 before anyone in the region has the Su-35BM
Interference can work on completely different levels
no, whatever ‘level’ it works on, it has to use the same frequency the radar does
and can potentially simply confuse the missile away even if it knows the signal to HOJ on to.
1. unlikely
2. ‘potentially’ – are you ready to risk everything on ‘potentially’?
in the future there will be stealth planes and there will be targets
No matter. The F-35 is paper as far as I’m concerned now.
it’s less paper than the Su-35BM . . .
When Australia gets the F-35, you can worry about the PAK-FA swatting it around and then whine about how they need the F-22 to counter the PAK-FA.
and speaking of paper planes :rolleyes:
Aussies better hope no Su-35BMs come around to their neighboorhood.
the aussie f-35s could always use some more target practice . . .
irtuskFirst of all, any country can order standoff jamming equipment, significantly more powerful than any Growler.
such as?
but that’s beside the point, jammers and stealth are complementary, they work well together
Secondly, Russian Flanker family aircraft have these amazing onboard ECM systems . . . A result of this could simply guide an AMRAAM away from its target, not to it, by providing a false jam position.
so, who’s the fanboi?
as we’ve gone over again and again, relying on ECM to overcome being a flying barn door is very dangerous
I don’t know where you keep getting this non-sense, this isn’t the only way of jamming, nor is it one I’ve heard of being used at all unless it has another more technical name to it.
it’s at a very basic level
a radar only responds to waves of the correct frequency
thus to impact (jam) the radar, you MUST be on the same frequency
this is a base-level requirement no matter what type of jammer, whether simple noise or something more sophisticated
If you had even 5% of the knowledge Kopp has, I’d be impressed.
i know enough to know he’s full of garbage
‘from pictures of the F-35 and my sooper-dooper radar simulator, i can accurately predict its RCS from all directions”
puh-lease
RCS relies on so many tiny details that simply aren’t available in the public domain that it’s not even remotely plausible
even boeing when talking about their F-15SE, when they have FAR MORE sophisticated analysis tools and FAR MORE detailed drawings than anything kopp has access too, admit that they can’t really tell its performance until they put it up on the pole
irtuskAlso, effectiveness against modern deception jammers (passive ECM) is questionable, since these techniques are based on re-transmission RF waveforms received from the threat – once the threat stops illuminating (for instance, by switching to HOJ mode) the jammer stops emitting.
HOJ is always a secondary guidance system
if the jammer stops emitting, the missile will activate its radar seeker which will either
a) find the flying barn door
b) trigger the jammer and we’re back in business
not to “prove” that advanced ECM will assuredly prevail.
which is my point too
relying on ECM to mask your ginormous signature is a very risky strategy
getting back to the point of the thread, which is flanker vs sooperbug in the australian context, the important thing to remember is that the sooperbug is only an INTERIM STOPGAP MEASURE until the arrival of the F-35
so really the question is: are any of australia’s neighbors going to get the sooperflanker before australia gets the F-35?
my crystal ball says: not a chance in hell
irtuskI don’t know about you, but personally I don’t believe a frontal RCS of ~4-6m^2 for the Su-30MK2 is exactly ‘ginormous’.
it is
The Super Hornet probably does still have the look-in, but only from the frontal aspect. From any other aspect I doubt it has much RCS advantage at all.
you would be wrong
see those big VERTICAL tails?
irtuskHahaha, yeah right, this would make jammers worthless.
on board? pretty much against new threats
they still may have value against older, un-updated systems
hence the US emphasis on a combination of stealth and STANDOFF jammers (like the growler)
There are various ways, in case you didn’t know, of “jamming” a radar.
amazingly enough, they all require working on the same frequency as the radar
I’d imagine the Super Hornet could detect a Flanker at 130NM or so, while a Su-35BM Flanker could detect the Super Hornet from about 150NM, using the popular graphs.
if you mean the ausairpower garbage, they aren’t worth the electrons they’re printed on
irtuskThere is no guarantee those HOJ weapons will even work against a new Russian jammer. Or do the Russians send their latest ones via FedEx down to Raytheon so they can make their AIM-120s futureproof? LOL! 😀
it’s simple, to jam the radar, it has to operate on the same frequency as the radar
so yes, it is guaranteed to work against any jammer the russians come up with in the future because that jammer would have to work in certain ways to be effective
also there is this thing called ‘intelligence’
and even if they can’t steal the info before hand, they only have to see it in operation once to capture it’s signature, and game over man, game over
as you can see, relying on hypothetical advances in russian jammers to hide your ginmormous ass is IDIOTIC
And its “ginormous” radar signature won’t make a different if the Flanker picks up the SH first with its radar.
maybe you don’t understand the implication of GINORMOUS radar signature
it is precisely that which will cause anything else (especially the sooperbug) to pick up the flanker first
its radar is no slouch as you may have noticed. you can argue that the flanker’s is ‘bigger’ and ‘more powerful’, but if you’ve seen those charts of radar power vs rcs, it doesn’t matter
it could be 4x as powerful (which its not) and the sooper bug would STILL see it first
irtuskThat will depend entirely on the radar and ECM system present on the Flanker. Anything Su-27SM / Su-30MKI standard and up, and the Super Hornet is in for some trouble.
no, it’s radar signature is and always will be ginormous
if it tries to turn on jammers, well the opponent will simply thank them for precisely guiding their HOJ weapons
irtuskDon’t forget the massive advantage the flanker gets with its incredible endurance, turning, burning and lockbreaking requires plenty of gas. Further, it can dictate when to pursue of exit the fight at will, not so for the bug. the avionics might offer the bug some marginal advantages at present, but the flanker continues to get updates as well. An Irbis or AESA equipped flanker with TVC, higher thrust engines etc, will make it seriously difficult if not impossible for all other gen 4, 4.5 birds. Only the 5th gen types have clear advantages over the super flankers and at that only the F-22. JMT
USS.
or the flanker’s ginormous radar signature that will allow the sooper hornet to ‘exit the fight’ by blowing the flanker out of the air before it even knows anything is there
irtuskI wonder how long it will take for the Israelis to transfer the technology to China. :diablo:
china has already stolen everything anyways . . .
irtuskmissed this news from way back
Boeing may re-wing 777 to snare jet, tanker orders from Airbus
irtuskand from a couple days ago:
http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123157902
“Would we like to have additional F-22s, of course,” said General Schwartz. “We have said 243 is the ideal fleet size given the things we see in front of us. Can we afford 60 more F-22s? The conclusion we came to is we can’t, given the other demands we have, including production of the F-35 (Lightning II) and supporting the current fight.”
“So the decision was to discontinue F-22 production at 187 and discontinue C-17 (Globemaster III) production at 205,” he said.
When the general opened up the floor for questions, the F-22 continued to be the topic of discussion.
“How is stopping the production of the F-22 going to affect our ability to fight the current war?” asked one Airman.
“I am personally convinced that 187 is enough for a single major campaign,” said General Schwartz. “I have no doubt that we can prevail.”
irtuskThey ought to carry it further:
1. Recycle the C-1 designation for a new C-5 version to distinguish it from the C-5 family.
2. Move to a larger wing; boost the area to 900 m^2 or more.
3. Move to larger engines than the C-5, something in the 75-80,000 lbf range.
4. Spec for adequate capacity for 3x M1A2 Abrams and an unrefueled range of 3,000 nm.
5. Spec for adequate volume for 50 pallets.
sounds like a good start for EAGL
irtuskRather shut down the C-130J line and go ahead with C-27J in decent numbers – under Army control of course 😉
brilliant!
PS: Your calculations above seem a little on the expensive side for the C-17. The last MYP contracts/proposals had fly-away costs of 160 to 200 million USD per.
dunno, just going by what the gao said in their report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0950.pdf – page 13 of the report / page 17 of the pdf)
Sign In
