wrightwingI’m not arguing with any of that. But I think that we are at slight cross purposes here.
MY READING (which may be incorrect) was that Mig 31 has excellent speed-range combination at altitude. Better even than F22. Thus F22 SC does not provide a kinematic advantage. In fact the Mig 31 is able to impart more energy to its long range AAMs when shooting DOWN at F22 (or other)
And that Mig 31 loses ITS kinematic advantage when it has to lower its performance to that of its prey in order to make visual recognition and engage in this regime.
Thus Mig 31 as interceptor may well have a height-speed advantage. AND F22 may well have a kinematic advantage at WVR
In an ideal world you’d have Mig 31 analogues for very long range, look down shoot down BVR engagements. X31 analogues for WVR knife fights and F22 analogues sent out deliberately looking to engage enemy planes in their own territory. In our non-ideal world you may not have any or all of these planes or their analogues and have to develop tactics for the planes you do have in these situations.
FWIW IMMOO Raptor and equivalents (when they come online) are going to be the least worst ompromise in most situations. But their pilots and commanders will need to keep the performance of potential foes in mind.
Al
While the Mig-31 has good kinematic performance, it has major disadvantages against a VLO target(i.e. it won’t be able to take advantage of max range shots, mitigating its speed/altitude, as the VLO target will see it long before being spotted).
wrightwingSome thoughts, i guess MiG-31 would typically deploy 20.000 ft above others, that makes it immune to short range VWR missiles.
At the same time it would fly at M2.5 give or take some, giving it’s missiles some serious jump-start and vastly increasing their effectiveness, while at the same time giving any medium range missile aimed at it a hard time first to climb 20.000 ft, then to chase, and finally if the missile still have enough speed have any energy left to keep it in the FOV.It would be a complete mess if visual identification is required tho. :diablo:
-Mig-25s have been shot down, so it’s not an insurmountable task to engage high and fast flying aircraft.
-Can you provide an example where a Mig-31 would need to be visually identified prior to engaging? Just it’s altitude and speed alone would be a pretty good clue, not to mention its electronic and physical signature.
wrightwingEven when restricting this claim to frontal aspect RCS? And that still doesn’t explain where the word play was supposed to be.
From the Military Aviation News Around the World Thread.
Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a “dumbed down” version of the F-35 to international partners, Reuters reported June 16 from the Paris Air Show.
“I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today,” Reuters quoted Heinz as saying in an interview. He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but [that] the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
“So for Boeing to make statements about a ‘dumbed down’ variant … is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business” [for its F-15 Silent Eagle], Heinz added.
wrightwingAnd the world it’s not a perfect place, so there can be long-wave radar that can give basic info where that predator in the sky is.
That may be true, but the Raptor will see them before they get close enough to spot it on IR.
wrightwingMultipile beams are formed with high speed beamsteering and high frequencies agilty whitout the degneration of your antenna gain and resolution! Against this spliting your T/R in groups degrade antenna gain, resoultion, increase side lobes and widen your beam. A very dumb idea!;)
It depends on the task at hand. If all you need to do is one thing at a time, then PESA is just fine. AESA can do that, or it can do multiple simultaneous tasks.
wrightwingBut you have no clue about an AESA or PESA works!:D
I understand that the modules can work in conjunction with one another depending on what they’re being used for, or that in the even of module failures, there is redundancy, or that in interleaved modes you can have multiple simultaneous A/A, A/G, comms/datalink, EA, etc.. occurring.
wrightwingWell whatever, is British Aerospace – USA, of course if they are in the US they must have a completelly different knowledge…anyway it was just a comment
What I’m getting at is that the systems BAE USA come up with, aren’t necessarily ubiquitous to BAE in general, which means YES, they might very well have a completely different knowledge.
BAE Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that has mitigated our foreign ownership through a Special Security Agreement between the U.S. Government, BAE Systems, Inc. and BAE Systems plc. That agreement calls for the appointment of outside directors who, in conjunction with other U.S. based board members, comprise a Government Security Committee. The Government Security Committee has the responsibility for overseeing the company’s compliance with U.S. Government Security and Export regulations, and meets regularly with U.S. Government oversight agencies to provide feedback on that compliance. Our long history of successful compliance with the SSA allows BAE Systems to supply products and services to the Department of Defense, Intelligence Community and Homeland Security on some of the Nations most sensitive programs.
wrightwingBAE USA, England, Africa, Mars are the same..
Sensor fusion is a old concept, and the 22 was not the first one using it, but guess was the first one doing all the marketing, anyway nice exposition..
No. BAE USA isn’t the same as BAE UK. As for sensor fusion, you use the term somewhat generically. It’s not all created equal, and that’s why there’s a price difference for the additional capability.
wrightwingTo my understanding AESA antennas are tilted upwards to reflect incoming energy away from emitting direction and thus lower frontal RC.
If you have any proof of what you are saying, pls post it.
Everything I’ve ever seen or read coincides with what you’re saying. I’ve never read anywhere that it’s designed so that a fighter has to turn to look at anything. I’m raising the bovine scatology flag on that one.
wrightwingWrong, one AESA-modul make no beam steering and make no antenna gain.
Only the cooperation of some modules make beam steering posible and this is strict phase and frequency-dependent. Or your AESA squints and illuminated all and nothing. :dev2:
I think we’re arguing semantics-
The primary advantage of a AESA over a PESA is that the different modules can operate on different frequencies. Unlike the PESA, where the signal was generated at single frequencies by a small number of transmitters, in the AESA each module broadcasts its own independent signal. This allows the AESA to produce numerous “sub-beams” and actively “paint” a much larger number of targets. Additionally, the solid-state transmitters are able to broadcast effectively at a much wider range of frequencies, giving AESAs the ability to change their operating frequency with every pulse sent out. AESAs can also produce beams that consist of many different frequencies at once, using post-processing of the combined signal from a number of TRMs to re-create a display as if there was a single powerful beam being sent.
wrightwingThe ALR-94 is a bae product, don’t get me wrong but tales is more advanced on electronic systems, the ALR-94 probably was nice 20 years ago, but i doubt is more advanced than spectra, but then both are electronic stuff, hard to say their real capabilities, and as flex said, well, there is always the “classified” thingy to speculate
BAE USA more specifically, and there are many other companies involved too.
One of the reasons the F-22 costs as much as it does, is the ALR-94, as there aren’t any analogous systems out there. Each F-22 is a flying antenna farm so to speak, and the sensor fusion between the ALR-94 and APG-77 wasn’t a cheap endeavor, but definitely worthwhile.
wrightwingPESA can do exacly the same, and nobody is claiming they are using such technic,you are talking as it is an intented feature, as if the whole AESA plate is covered with antennas (which , is not)
For that you should need other more exotic techniques, as plasma, BTW the AESA radomes are not tilted back because “RCS requirements”…
Each module on an AESA array is an antenna though, and can operate independantly from the rest, in terms of modes, freqs, power settings, etc..
wrightwing“
And that does not include optical tracking system right?
I haven’t seen any mention of optical(or other) systems use against the Raptor(or the performance). The problem with optical/IR systems is they work best if they’re cued by other information, as their search volumes are very limited compared to radar. There’s a lot of sky to search if you don’t know where to look.
wrightwingExcept that they haven’t had much intention to actually beat the ALR-94.
And again, where are these results and tests?
If the intent wasn’t to see how the ALR-94 performed, then what was it exactly? Remember, this was the USAF(i.e. the customer) testing the gear, and it’s in their interest to make sure it works. The fact that they’re happy with it, should give some indication to what the results were. Remember, this is a completely passive system, so it isn’t as if it has to burn through ECM. In fact the stronger the emitter(be it ECM, radar, datalink, voice comm, or any other emissions), the further away, it’ll detect the source, allowing the Raptor to use the best tactics to engage.
Russia also doesn’t waste as much money as the US does. They CAN best the F-22, maybe not in every aspect, but enough to make it as good if not better.
If the systems and technology work as planned, then it wasn’t really a waste of money. It’s when they don’t that money has been wasted.
They CAN best the F-22, maybe not in every aspect, but enough to make it as good if not better.
Could you explain this. It sounds somewhat convoluted. How can something be even as good, if all aspects aren’t at parity, much less better?
My guess is that the PAK FA will beat the Raptor in price, while offering very good capability.
wrightwingOh, that was a mission concept to be demo, so you have any evidence to prove the actual performance will be greater than the concept? maybe less not greater.
Plus, even 100NM×2, sitll shorter than MiG-31:dev2:
Articles in trade magazines, and pilot remarks support a much longer range, which coincides with LM making such a big fuss over the supercruise capability vs. a short supersonic dash.
Sign In
