wrightwingTo do so every ordinary fighter will do. 😎
The point being that he was including external carriage in the total number, when clearly that’s not the case being made in the brief.
wrightwingYou have to realise that six internal missiles require not only room for them, but most importantly an ejection system to launch them. The demands for that is quite substantial. It would have to be able to eject single missiles at high G maneuvers and different speeds including supersonic. That means the ejection system would have to be capable of whitstanding both lateral and high dynamic forces. It also have to be mounted to a structure within the bay that can take these forces which is quite different from carrying a bomb.
But the real issue is the matter of flexibility on weapons carriage as it would hardly be possible to carry 2000 lb bombs with such an ejection system in the bay. Either individual aircraft has to be rebuilt in a way that prevents carriage of larger ordinance, or the mechanism would have to be removable. To make such delicat mechanism removable is not the easiest and would hardly be maintenance friendly.
Even if such a feat is possible, it needs funding and as long as there is no requirement there will be no money. Consider that if it was cheap and simple to create such a mechanism that works in a usefull way, the requirement would probably also exist.
For an Air Superiority load out, you wouldn’t be carrying any A/G weapons in the bays. The brief to Norway clearly says Blk 5- 6 AIM-120D, LM/USAF have on multiple occasions brought this up, so to assume that it means external carriage is just being disengenuous. It can already carry 10 externally.
wrightwingI don’t see any real LO feature on the radar mounts, check , for example the apf77/81, no zigzag shape on the mount, not “smooth” curves..lol..probably RAM, but i bet is to get better reception and probably to avoid undesired return/interference…rather than to decrease the RCS
Why would you question what the manufacturers have said is the reason for the design? When it comes to RCS reduction everything is purpose driven, rather than after thoughts.
wrightwingAre you seriously saying that JSF would be able to track enemy aircraft at missile launch range with its optical sensors? That would be quite bad news for the stealthy features of JSF because then enemy aircaft might be able to get similar sensors.
-it depends on the level of IR reduction the enemy target has vs. the F-35’s, so once the PAK FA comes into service, we can have a better comparison.
Which is a bit vague and not how I would express it, but I cant see that as some “Flanker strong” message, instead it acknowledges that JSF has some good features. You on the other hand responded that it would be capable of taking out the Flankers without being detected and they would not even know until the missiles became active. That on the other hand was just outright silly fanboy talk. I dont know why you lashed out that way, perhaps because he claimed that F-35 will have shortcomings and you cant accept that. But if you cant accept critisism you shouldnt go to forums.
-the F-35 should be able to engage Flankers without being detected. If the Flanker has been emitting, then the ESM systems on the F-35 will have known its location from hundreds of miles away. The F-35’s FCR should detect the Flanker at 100+nm to confirm precise info, based upon ESM cueing. The Flanker on the other hand will likely not detect the F-35(on radar) till it’s within 20-25nm. The AIM-120D would’ve been launched far before this range.
Perhaps, but what are its chances if it gets detected, does it have a better chance to survive and shoot down the enemy? The overall capability, also when thing do not go according to plan. Remember, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
-there are a few things to consider here. What is the remaining weapons load of the F-35? What is the weapons load of his wing man that may not have been detected? If the F-35 gets detected, it doesn’t have to fly very far to get back outside the detection range of the Flanker’s sensors. You have to remember, the F-35 pilot is going to be well aware of when he’s entering hostile target detection ranges, and will likely take measures to avoid such eventualities. In the event that’s not possible(and the F-35’s not out of weapons), it has a very good chance of surviving(between superior situational awareness, HOBS weapons, and very respectable agility).
wrightwingSucks to be you, eh ;). You could consider the possibility that that the problem is that they do not live up to the hype or that some people are just to touchy.
Well that’s certainly a possibility, but it has yet to be determined. It’s certainly not a foregone conclusion though.
Its quite clear that the AESA technology has many advantages against an MSA, but a fixed AESA also has limitations in field of view. If you are not able to understand how that limits the efficiency of the aircraft, especially how it makes it dependant on the missile seeker in A2A combat, it is you problem. IIRCC the F-22 does not have an inclined array, and there might be a reason for that.
Well the current AESAs have a 120 deg field of view, which can be scanned in ~2secs which no MSA can hope to compete with. Considering that a single F-35 won’t be operating by itself, the sensor data from the entire flight will be fused, giving even greater situational awareness. Additionally third party sensor data will also be available.
When has AMRAAM or any other similar BVR missiles been tested in real combat against an enemy with contemporary weapons, sensors and countemeasures?
When has any competitor system been tested under these conditions either?
The point is that they are rigorously tested in harsh ECM environments against non-cooperative targets under a wide variety of conditions.
Also in a real combat against a competetive enemy, will the pilot be able to wait for the perfect launch opportunity and risk being shot down himself or lose track? Or will he shoot even if the firing solution isnt perfect.
That’s kind of the whole point of the F-22 and F-35- due to limited detection ranges of their foes, they WILL be able to take optimal shots, at the time of their choosing(or choose not to engage at all).
wrightwingWell, in pub it is. In the actual air it isn’t. This is why you’re “pub expert”…;)
40k feet is much closer to 36k, than to 50k or higher.:rolleyes:
wrightwing2) Public domain knowledge sets F22’s dry thrust at 55k ft and 65k ft for AB. Now, I’m not sure how well you are acquainted with aerodynamics and flight operations, but a height at which a plane can’t fly on dry thrust and can pull ~1.5g, can’t be called “Typical operational altitude”, can it?
You’re making a lot of assumptions here based upon public domain knowledge. I’d rather take a compilation of anecdotal remarks from pilots, to give me some insight into the capabilities.
wrightwingAs for the data I’m using, it’s all public domain knowledge
This is the key phrase to bear in mind.
wrightwingTo be precise, F22 can go to 55k ft on dry thrust.
But, let me show, how term “Typical operating altitude of 60k ft” is absurd.
At 60k ft, F22 must fly, at least M1.3 and at full AB! So, how is that “Typical operating altitude”?? How long can F22 sustain full AB? How can this be called “Typical operating altitude”, when F22 can pull mere 1.2g? Etc, etc,…To conclude. 60k ft, for obvious reasons, isn’t F22’s “Typical operating altitude”, but lower and more than just marginally lower. This is just a PR construction and rather stupid one, since it’s easily verifiable by even elementary data.
Just out of curiosity, where are you deriving these stats from?
wrightwing+1
Never good news to hear.:(
wrightwingDepending on target, sales range numbers are universally quoted vs head on non maneuvering targets at optimal everything.
Naturally. If the missile is fired at a target flying in the opposite direction(especially at high speed), or the launch aircraft is flying at low speed/low altitude, etc.. it can lower the range considerably(less than 1/4). The max range figures are rarely helpful in real world scenarios. The NEZ/WEZs are far more telling numbers(though these aren’t published in open source sites).
wrightwingIncorrect. The largest deal ever for missile delivery was signed at MAKS 2009.
The RVV-SD is a 110KM range missile, equivalent to AIM-120C5-7 variants.
The AIM-120C5 is a 110km class missile. The C7 has a longer range.
wrightwingReaction time and PK are different.
It increases mission success, slightly, for the JASSM/JSOW, since they reduce the time they are “fired” at by the S-300, if that even makes a difference, as during the time given against even stealthy targets, an S-300 battery might run out of missiles. That’s a calculation you clearly have not done.
If you don’t have time to react, then you’re going to have a pretty low probability of a kill.
wrightwingYou’ll need a lot more than two. One S-300PM battery can engage six targets at once, so you’ll need at least seven missiles to saturate it. That is assuming that missile 7 hits the site before any of missiles 1-6 are shot down, allowing missile 7 to be engaged.
Except that none of those radars are used by the S-300V (SA-12)…it uses BILL BOARD for TA, GRILL PAN for TT, and HIGH SCREEN for TBM sector scanning.
The S-300 may be able to engage 6 targets simultaneously, but the thing to take into consideration is that the JASSM/JSOW have low RCS, which means the amount of reaction time will be limited, lowering the PK.
wrightwingGive me one name. One country that Russia can be at war and will not be able to win with conventional weapons. But please don’t bring fiction and fantasies.
Afghanistan? Chechnya?
Sign In
