wrightwingThe Irbis is clearly far more powerful than the APG-79. The ESM system alone isnt good enough for a firing fix either, and it can only tell about a radiating Sukhoi, not the datalinked ones.
When you have several SH working together, then the ESM alone will be able provide firing information.:eek::cool:
Furthermore, the Irbis’ power isn’t high enough to offset the RCS advantage.
wrightwingNothing special about the APG-79 and AIM-120 D to be honest. The baseline radar is clearly not infallible versus jamming hence the need for a fuel tank mounted IRST.
The APG-77 and the AIM-120 D are a different deal. There are capabilities in the work to detect even the former (digital receivers versus LPI systems) but at least jamming it will be hard, allowing for usage of the AIM-120 D at range.
APG-79 has LPI too, which is a huge advantage against an opponent that doesn’t also have LPI. I guess the Russian radars aren’t infallible either, since the Flanker/Fulcrum have IRSTs.:cool:
As for there being nothing special about the AIM-120D, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
wrightwingActually, jammers will do a great job to COMPROMISE your stealth. You’d use your jammer if you were already painted.
Stand off jamming raises the noise floor, which is a force multiplier for VLO aircraft, allowing them to be even more effective.
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 SH is a match for the Su-30MKI level aircraft.
The SH is hardly a match for the Su-35BM.
A- The Super Hornet is not a barn door, RCS wise, especially when compared to any model Flanker.
B- The only in service fighter with superior A/A avionics is the F-22.
C- The Flanker(MKI or BM) isn’t going to win a fight with a SH by outradiating it, because ESM is > Radar in this situation.
Interference can work on completely different levels, and can potentially simply confuse the missile away even if it knows the signal to HOJ on to.
No matter. The F-35 is paper as far as I’m concerned now. 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.
The SH, is no low RCS plane with its payload, and no more than an equal of the Su-30MKI.
Aussies better hope no Su-35BMs come around to their neighboorhood.[/QUOTE]
wrightwingA Super Hornet with a loadout isn’t going to have low enough RCS to evade an Su-35BM radar’s tracking. 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.
It would be fair game with BARS equipped Flanker vs Super Hornet in a most basic scenario.
A Flanker isn’t going to see a SH at 150nm though, so that kind of screws this theory up. The Flanker pilot would be an idiot for radiating like that, when the ESM sytems will detect the source from far greater distances.
wrightwingThere 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! 😀
And its “ginormous” radar signature won’t make a different if the Flanker picks up the SH first with its radar. And that’s what’s likely going to happen considering a BARS equipped Flanker, not even going to go to a newer variant like the Su-35BM.
You do understand that you’ll need a huge advantage in radar detection range to offset a huge disadvantage in RCS, so the Flanker picking the SH up first isn’t a certainty(and most likely not a probability either). Additionally, if a BARS/IRBIS system is radiating out hundreds of km, the ESM systems on the SH, will detect the Flanker long before the Flanker is aware of the SH.
wrightwingThat’s what I mean.
Even combat radius is one important flight regime biased in favor of the Flanker family.
TVC enhances the O/A maneuverability of the aircraft, enabling the pilot to pull tighter high-G turns without bleeding off airspeed. The NPO Saturn AL-31 family of turbofans (equivalent to PW F100 / GE F110) has more O/A thrust than the GE F414.
TVC DOES NOT allow you to pull higher G turns without bleeding airspeed! It gives your aircraft control authority, when the aerodynamic controls surfaces no longer have enough lift. In non-post stall flight, there’s no advantage in WVR.
wrightwingDon’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.
You’re taking for granted that the Russian systems will be superior/work as advertised, while simultaneously downplaying the APG-79/AIM-120D combination(along with the EW/towed decoys, etc..), and lower RCS of the SH.
wrightwingFirst shot, you survive.
But TVC helps in dodging such high-G WVR AAMs so you could live to fire off another one.
No dogfighting missile has 100% PK.
TVC isn’t going to allow a plane to pull higher Gs, than a missile can counter. The last thing you want to do is lose airspeed/stall your plane in WVR, and TVC isn’t going to allow air show maneuvers at 600 knots, even if they were effective.
wrightwingMake it $120+ million. All these then year dollar, FRP and other figures are only aimed at confusing the potential buyers so that the aircraft appear affordable until they (buyers) get the REAL check to pay. 😎
Well, if you don’t use then year dollars, then it’s hard to compare. If we use FY2035 dollars, then they’ll cost $3billion each.:cool:
wrightwingThe Superbug may be useful for air-to ground and close EW support (Growler), but how will it fare against the vaunted Flanker family of air superiority fighters in the Asia-Pacific region, especially when it draws down to a WVR dogfight?
I doubt it, due to a number of factors, including:
Lack of TVC
Flanker’s outperformance of Superbug in all flight regimes
The lack of TVC is of little concern. The Superhornet has excellent nose pointing ability without TVC, as well as better avionics. With both aircraft having helmet sights and HOBS missiles, a WVR scenario would likely be a mutual kill scenario.
wrightwingAre all the aircraft delivered going to be F versions? Is that a little odd i know there are some advantages to having 2 seater’ but surely there are advantages to having the E model. I would think it would have a bit longer legs than the F model and other advantages.
Well as a strike aircraft, it certainly helps having the weapon system operator, to cut down on the work load. Additionally you’ve got a second set of eyes, which can come in handy in a number of situations.
[quote]
The only other modern aircraft i can think of that has 2 seats is Su-30 and family. [quote]
-F-15E?
-Rafale B?
-Typhoon?
-F-16I?
wrightwingSemi-active radar homing for initial acquisition and mid-course updates, inertial navigation to reach the target at extreme range.
The problem of having to continue the merge until missile impact is obvious, but it wasn’t so bad due to scanning sector +/-70 degrees in azimuth and almost the same figure in elevation (with beam positioning at around 1.2 msec).
This is true, but it’d still be pretty hairy till your missiles hit the target. That takes some nerves of steel, when there may be inbound missiles headed your way.
wrightwingEssentially yes.
The AWG-9 was limited severely in its ability to fire multiple Phoenixes when targets were at varying altitudes due to the fact that it was a mechanical array. The 6 Phoenix load was really marketing more than anything, Tomcats never operationally could carry more than 4. AFAIK, they couldn’t even land on the carrier with 6 Phoenixes.
The N007, being a PESA, and having a ton of raw power could focus at targets at fairly varying altitudes.
– The AWG-9/AIM-54 demonstrated the ability to fire at widely spaced targets in testing.
– The 4 Phoenix load out was a peacetime restriction, not a limitation of capability. The F-14 wouldn’t be landing with 6 Phoenix missiles in wartime, so that wasn’t an issue.
-The AWG-9/APG-71 had quite a lot of raw power too. The limiting factor was aperture size, not power, as it had the potential for nearly a 500nm range(and when 2 F-14s were operating together, datalinked, the aperture issue was mitigated).
wrightwingHow did MiG-31 manage to track four semi-active guided AAMs at the same time, then? I’d say it was probably one of the specific PESA features – it could probably do with SARH missiles what slotted radars only could do with ARH types. :confused:
Did the missiles the Mig fired have any sort of mid-course update/datalink? That’s the only way I can figure that multiple SARH missiles could be fired.
You’d still have the same problem of having to continue the merge until missile impact though.
wrightwingAnd probably no AIM-7+TWS either.
Perhaps not at the time of launch, but the point of the TWS up until that time was to not let the foe know they were being tracked.
Sign In
