wrightwingReally, then why did LM get 2 seperate contracts, the airframe will be shaped for purpose in the same way, but that’s all we know right now
Because LM has said that there won’t be any difference, when refuting marketing claims like these.
wrightwingBecause the U.S. still want war with Rus.
What Radar does the SE have if it’s the 63v3 it’s no match for the N035?
BTW How much does a Su-35BM-1/2 cost.
And this is based upon what exactly,on all points? Who in the US wants a war with Russia? The v3 is in what way inferior? Su-35s cost more than $50million.
wrightwingIMHO, it’s not so much of a physical limitation, as to an operational limitation. If the plane supercruises for any significant amount of time, the airframe is heated up by air friction to a point where it starts radiating substantial amount of infrared radiation. Such that it loses its stealth, and become vulnerable to infrared seeking missiles.
That’s assuming it’s in range though. It’s speed will decrease engagement envelopes in any event. Additionally, the question is how much different will its IR signature be vs. some other type of aircraft, rather than a cooler Raptor.
wrightwingTrue, but the current situation is far improved over what it was during the 1990s when a lot of the former programs would have borne fruit. You can’t assume that current projects will falter because previous projects failed, because the situation isn’t the same.
The problem with the Russian economy though is that it’s not nearly as diversified, so if oil/arms export revenues aren’t doing well, then that’ll definitely limit the budget. They may in fact have plenty of cash in 2020, but it’s not guaranteed, and I was just trying to be realistic, given the previous history.
wrightwingThey certainly would’ve been. The Su-27M, MiG-29M, and even MiG-31M programs didn’t take that long to get going after initial service variant development concluded. Remember that back then the more likely solution in the USSR was a new variant rather than a retrofitted large-scale upgrade. Of course, the Russians learned first-hand that Communism was an inefficient system, and then the money evaporated, a situation that has been progressively improving recently allowing various upgrade programs to now bear fruit (Su-27SM and MiG-31BM). Claiming that the Soviets/Russians were never going to upgrade or evolve the FLANKER or FULCRUM is demonstrating ignorance or misunderstanding of the entire scenario. Expecting the next generation fighter to have the same service experience as the FLANKER or FULCRUM is equally ignorant, illustrating an inability to understand that the situation in Russia is very different today than it was when the FLANKER and FULCRUM were entering service.
My point wasn’t that the Russians didn’t want to upgrade, so much as they didn’t have the money to. None of us has any idea what the Russian economy in 2020 will look like, and that being the case it’s not a foregone conclusion that the money will be there for continual upgrades on the PAK FA either. Even the USAF can’t get everything it wants due to budget constraints, and funding priorities.
wrightwingWOW even the MiG-31 with full weapons load can do mach 2.35 for 420-500 MILES, anyways here the link:
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
According to AW&ST, June 12, 2006:
For the anti-cruise missile mission, F-22A can cruise 41 minutes with the speed of around 1.5 Mach, while the traditional fighters like F-15 and F-16 can just cruise 7 minutes with that speed.
There are a number of other remarks that have been made by pilots that would lend credence to this. You need to look a little deeper before making matter of fact statements.
wrightwingTested against Western ECM – great. That does about nothing to prove anything about the capabilities of the ALR-94. Like I said, if you could figure this out, chances are, the people making Russian ECM systems have figured this out long before you, and they sure know a lot more about the systems than you do.
Physics isn’t a Western vs. Eastern situation. Additionally, you’re using circular reasoning to try to present something as a fact/certainty. The fact that someone was able to design something is not proof that others have also thought of something(and improved upon it).
Even if the ALR-94 can “lock on” to the jamming, there’s no guarantee that an AMRAAM in that case would be able to do anything.
The ALR-94 doesn’t lock onto the jamming per se. It just provides accurate information as to the location of the emitter(s). This is why if you don’t want to announce your presence, you want to practice EMCOM to the greatest extent possible. The notion of flying around with your radar emitting in HPI high power searches for 300-400km, or keeping your jammers on at all times is simply ludicrous, if your opponent has sophisticated ESM systems. They’ll know about you, long before you know about them, and they can either choose not to engage, or engage from an advantageous position.
And in 2020, the PAK-FA-M2 will be coming around too.
You mean like how the Fulcrums and Flankers have been continuously updated since they entered service?:rolleyes:
wrightwingNot trying to start a flame bait but, the 22 can do mach 1.6/7 for 100 Naut-Miles.
Try 30-40+ minutes.
wrightwingI’d prefer the Silent Eagle over the Lightning II.
Reasons why:
4. RCS – It is approximately the same as that of an export model F-35.
The RCS is nowhere near as low as any F-35 variant, and export F-35s will have the same RCS as US models.
wrightwingAs people have said, you are assuming the 117S is the same as the new 5th gen engine. Bad assumption. You’d think Salyut knows they need to reduce IR signature.
Why doesn’t the Su-35 have these improvements, if A- they’re important and B- they’re in anywhere near production status?
We also don’t know how good LPI is against a new RWR. Moot point.
Also, how great is LPI at locking on to new ECM equipped fighters?
While we don’t know how good LPI is against future systems, it has been used to good effect against current advanced systems. As for ECM- the ALR-94 will detect a fighter that’s emitting any type of jamming, regardless of how the APG-77 works against it.
Some document is scrapping all world aviation AWACS, bombers, tankers? I don’t believe so.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
That is some nice, biased thinking there. So the PAK-FA is 2x as slow, 20k feet less ceiling? I don’t think so. . . where’s this coming from?
Where did I say PAK FA? It’s not flying right now, so all I can compare is current threat aircraft, which will spend most of their time at M .8 or .9, and most likely in the 35-45k feet range.
Right, so is the R-37, R-77PD and R-74. These are comparable to late 4+ gen US weapons. These weapons have been seen.
The AIM-120D/D+ and AIM-9X Block II will be in service prior to those weapons, and the JDRADM will be in service within the decade.
The newer weapons are in development. I’m sure in 5-6 years they will be publicly shown.
We can discuss them when they actually exist, as it’s a waste of time to argue over vaporware capabilities.
wrightwingActually, the Raptor can only supercruise for five minutes before it has to return to subsonic speed.
Max. supercruise speed = Mach 1.82 (~1960 km/h)
Max. supercruise duration = 5 minutes (300 seconds)
therefore
Max. supercruise distance @ M 1.82
1960 / 12 (5 minutes is 1/12 of an hour)
~~163.34 kilometers
BTW, the PAK FA’s TVC will be 3D, at the expense of increased passive IR detection with an IRST, enabling a shot up the tailpipe with any 5th Gen heatseeker missile.
Try more like 30-40+ minutes of supercruise, and then you’d be more in the realms of reality.
wrightwingAs every interceptor when releasing his AAMs at Mach 1,7 high up since the late 50s f.e.
The difference being that they don’t have very much persistence at that speed/altitude, and they have to accelerate up to that speed from their cruising speed. The F-22 can stay at those speeds/altitudes for long periods of time, which gives its weapons kinematic advantages while reducing the envelopes of opponent’s weapons.
wrightwingYou know that by all accounts, the next gen of TVC on PAKFA will be using Fluid Dynamics, right?
I’m not aware of any public info re: the nozzle currently planned for PAK-FA/ Al-41, assuming that design decision has even been finalized. It’s hardly like 3-D TVC is only compatable with the specific nozzle seen in the Su-30 series…
It’s also highly unlikely the PAKFA program WOULDN’T make use of materials to band-shift/ optimize IR emissions (“shielding” probably isn’t the best term for this particular application) into the bands whose atmospheric attenuation give the least detection range.
It’s true that the PAK FA may have an entirely different nozzle design, BUT you’d think that you might see a similar design being validated on the Su-35. Call me skeptical.
wrightwingThanks for the link.
This is not an USAF presentation though. AFA, in their own words, are “an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization”. Sadly this document cites no sources, so I’d be reluctant to use the 48k figure rather than the current 41k figure from testing or 43k figure typically given for the F135 by PW.
That’s why I gave a range, rather than saying matter of factly that X was fact.
wrightwingAnd by what non-sense logic MUST 3D TVC mean more IR signature WHEN IT COUNTS?
Because the nozzle design has less IR shielding than the Raptor’s 2D one does, not to mention a higher RCS.
Well where would you get APG-77 date at all then? There’s nothing official really that’s of any use.
Well the open source numbers that I’ve seen show it having a 125-150nm detection range in LPI mode against a 1m^2 target. If LPI isn’t of concern then those figures would go up.
This depends. Against a 5th gen fighter? Maybe. Against 4+ gen, it’s great. Against bombers, it’s great. Again, PAK-FA wins versatility here.
This is true, however the USAF/USN/USMC will be operating primarily 5th Gen fighters in the future.
Ahh jesus, 9 kills against completely outgunned airforces? Get outta here man. That proves little. This is the same logic I’m using with the R-77PD, which will be what, 5-10KM less range than the AIM-120D launched at same airspeed? :rolleyes:
Well it may not have gone up against real world high ECM environment targets, but it has gone up against manuevering Mig 29s, and high speed/high altitude Mig 25s, and acquitted itself well, even in the early variants. The new versions have greater ECM resistance, HOBS, significantly longer NEZs, more modes, etc… combined with a combat proven system.
As for the ballistic range differences, that doesn’t tell you what the terminal performance comparisons will be though. How does the R-77 compare in HOBS shots, NEZ, etc…, or when the -120D is fired from the Raptor at 10-20k feet higher, and at 2x the speed?
AIM-120D might as well not exist then too.
The AIM-120D exists right now, as it’s been undergoing operational testing. It’s going to reach IOC very soon. Weapons that have yet to be seen are a little less definite with regard to their status.
Sign In
