That’s why it has to use its radar intelligently?! Which is kind of a given. . . :rolleyes:

Well if by intelligently, you mean not emitting at max power, then the advantage of having all that detection range is put into perspective, and the odds are much more even.

Your last two sentences contradict each other. So once again.. Are you going to say that APG-77 scores a range hit in LPI mode compared to APG-77 not in LPI mode or compared to APG-63 not in LPI mode?

He’s saying that the range of the APG-77 in LPI mode is less than an APG-77 not in LPI mode, but greater than an APG-63 not in LPI mode.

I realized that, but my point is a “T-50” is not in need of similar development time for the A2A mission in general. The “design” of the F-35 is just “frozen” and will see real service from it in the second half of the decade. The Russians had skipped the X-phase already and did start with the YF-phase in earnest.

The final avionic and engine package is still not nearly as close to maturity either though.

considering “sustained 60°+”… that would mean the aircraft is flying really really slow. You can’t pull such AoA and keep it there at normal flying speeds. At such angles, the aircraft basically acts like a giant air-brake… you lumber around wasting gas and not doing much else..

much more important than the AoA you reach are your corner speed, your turn rate and the agility of your aircraft (ability to change manouvers rapidly)

Another point is, how good a fighter is in producing lift? When your aerodynamic shape is made to give you the ability to go supercruise, that means you have a low drag (which means also “low lift”) profile. Both go together. High lift required for hard manouvering at lower speeds will be harder to produce, which will limit your capacity to pull G’s as the speed decreases. Being lighter and more optimised for carrying loads and manouvering, the rafale may very well have an edge in manouverability even if its engines don’t produce as much thrust as the F-22’s ones when the speeds gets down.

Thing is, most numbers that would be necessary to really be able to compare the two are classified, for both of them… so, where the truth is: probably simply in the fact that both aircraft are excellent fighters, and on this board we won’t be able to go much further…

Low drag is not = Low lift.

I’ve seen posts (not by you) couched in terms which seem to assume that merely because a radar is AESA, it is automatically superior to every non-AESA radar, in every way. This prompts an almost reflexive response, reminding the forum that AESA is not, in itself, the answer to everything.

Damn good, though.

While other types of radars may have some advantages in very specific areas, I think it’s the cumulative advantages of the AESA systems that make them superior overall though, even if not superior in every way.

Just because a radar is AESA it can not be assumed to have all the features of the biggest, most expensive, fighter AESA radar out there. I doubt, for example, that the PicoSAR mini AESA radar for UAVs has many of the capabilities of the APG-77. It is, however, very small & light & has an SAR mode . . . To be less extreme, the Vixen 500E is a fighter AESA radar, but I think it is unlikely to function exactly like a scaled-down APG-77. It is, however, reckoned to be a pretty small fraction of the cost. The RACR & RANGR radars are sold partly on affordability, for existing F-16 users. Will they have everything the APG-77 has? I doubt it very much.

And so on . . .

I’m not making the claim that every AESA radar automatically has LPI modes. I’m merely stating that an AESA radar lends itself to this capability due to its operating characteristics, in ways other systems either can’t do at all, or as well.

Agree and disagree at the same time.
Yes, the LPI mode might enable you to detect an MKM without alerting the Avitronics thing. At the same time, the LPI range of the APG-79 must be greatly reduced compared to the non-LPI figure. That means the SH must come pretty close and since it is by no means a stealth aircraft, it stays exposed to enemy radars. Once detected, the LPI advantage might quickly turn into a trap.

BTW, MKM has the IRST thing which enables similar silent attacks and since it also has suitable missiles for that (unlike the SH), it certainly has some edge here, as well.

I’d say that in the end it comes down to proper tactics and force multipliers. Separate types don’t win battles, entire forces do. I’d take a SH backed by Wedgetail against solitary MKMs any day of the week, just like I’d take an MKM backed by Erieye against solitary Superbugs. 🙂

The Super Hornet can use the ATFLIR IRST though, and if the RAAF is using AIM-120Ds(especially), could conduct passive attacks, if the Flankers are emitting. I’m not sure if the ATFLIR is integrated with the datalink to take advantage of passive launches, but wouldn’t be surprised if it were.

I’m not sure what the LPI range is on the APG-79, but on the APG-77, it’s over 100nm, so it’s not necessarily shorter ranged than the Flanker’s OLS, etc…in terms of discreet detection.

I agree that at the end of the day, it’s going to be tactics and systems that win the day rather than individual platforms.