FYI –

Re. Zhuk AE –

The definitive 1064 TRM version is as of now being evaluated on 9.61 – MiG-29K derivative. Check images in RuAF thread. Also, look for P. Butowski’s recent report.

Re. Zhuk M(E)1 – The on the IN MiG-29K

Detection range for 3-5msq targets has been reported between 120-150km. The figures quoted earlier by Prior (no pun intended) are a little old and for the basic ZHuk-M (seen on early MiG-29M and SMT models).

So, yes the naval fulcrum is coming along. However, still not on par with the Shornet and Rafale in all respects. At the same time, the latter are not on par with the K in some respects. STOBAR ops for example, lack of IRST (Shornet), HMS (Rafale), acceleration, speed, turn rates (shornet in p’cular). Another HUGE advantage that the fulcrum possesses is of course, price/cost.

IMHO, the K has plenty more potential than the shornet thanks to a more optimized airframe although the Rafale is the best here.

USS.

Hmmm, let’s see- superior radar, ATFLIR, JHMCS, wider variety of ordinance, longer range, better nose pointing authority, better short and long range AAMs.:eek:

F-14D, F-15E, F-18F, Rafale, F-22

I disagree with you. The FOV in those systems is much wider than that of a missile’s seeker, so its range should be impacted considerably. Even with the old Magic II, mirage pilots used the seeker to find tankers before they could make visual contact. So imagine what a 9X, or Mica could do.

Nic

They’re also much larger apertures though.

Radio waves are radio waves.

You need to do some more reading about both LPI techniques, and how RWRs work, if you think “radio waves are radio waves.” You also need to read up on what it is that filters actually do(i.e. look for things that don’t look like background RF, so that you’re not getting false alarms, and look for recognizable PRF waveforms, etc…). That’s the whole idea behind LPI- to look like background RF to an RWR. Low power is but one piece of the pie. Unrecognizable PRF waveforms, rapidly shifting frequencies(>1000 per second), are some of the other factors. It’s not just a matter of detecting the presence of RF energy.

The NIIP AESA will be far more advanced than the APG-77.

Granted, there’s a 20 year difference.

What’s far more advanced in the APG-79?

Again, until we have a NIIP AESA to compare, how about we just wait and see. Furthermore, the APG-77 in its original form vs. current form vs. future form, will have vastly different capabilities from one another, much like the difference between an F-15A and an F-15 upgraded to Golden Eagle appointments. Now as for what’s more advanced- the antenna T/R modules for one. The US modules are lighter and more efficient for one, being several generations more advanced. You have to get past this newer=more advanced thought process though. If you’re going to make an empirical statement, and attempt to convince others that you’re correct, then you need to provide something tangible. It’s a cop out to say, well prove that it’s not the case, as the requirement to disprove a negative is a serious logical fallacy.

thing is: it was.. like it or not, what was developed was a bombtruck that may manage to defend itself just in case… basically…

A F-105 in its time was more or less the same: a bombtruck that should have some self defense capabilities. While it could shoot down other aircraft if it ever got into position, it was definitely not its strong point. Was it a bad aircraft? no, it was just made to do something else…

The F-35 isn’t replaceing F-105s though. It’s replacing F-16 and F-18 bomb trucks.

Loke :
“”What about sending BW and JJ back to SP?””

That is not very nice 😮

Bloodshot :
“”I agree, I have never seen the Rafale demonstrate similar high AoA or loaded roll performance”

:confused: I think you are mistaking , if I may say .
The manoevers we ‘re talking about have NOTHING to do with high AoA or “loaded” (?) rolls . During displays , high AoA are counter productive because it is not “spectacular” to show , furthermore , loaded rolls are often used to slowdown the aircraft . It is very usefull during dogfights but not during public displays .
Then , I bet that the Rafale has a better AoA than Typhoon at most speed but supersonic (high supersonic AoA are useless since they stress highly the airframe and are of no use in BVR) .

Phaid :
“”The F-22 uses the AIM-9M currently with LOBL. The AIM-9 bay door opens and the rail extends the missile so that its seeker is exposed.””

Exposed ? Well , not quite so when I look at what the -9M seeker can actually “see” . To start with , there is no way for the seeker to get a “look-up” attitude because of the aircraft ‘s body and wings wich proves that the F-22 has not been made for dogfighting (we knew it) . In a hard turning dogfight with IR missiles , the Raptor will NOT be at ease and will get shot by any fighter with wingtip IR missiles and/or HMS .

I know that the Raptor has been made to shine BVR but BVR combats are still an unknown quantity and rely on so many factors that we can ‘t take it for granted yet . This is my opinion . Most Airforces are still buying far more close range IR missiles than EM long range missiles and that alone is telling much about actual air warfare 😉

Cheers .

You are aware that the -9M can be slaved to the APG-77 right? In 2013, the F-22 will have the -9X and -120D as well.

i think you should google the fa-18 sh and see what the aoa is

I was referring to the F-18A thru C. I haven’t read as much on the Super Hornet’s AoA.