dark light

wrightwing

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,716 through 2,730 (of 3,666 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2450933
    wrightwing
    Participant

    I think no one suggests that the ECDs will match the F-35s BVR performance, though not everyone apart of the JSF fanboys/supporters would bet his a$$ on the F-35 being able to safely penetrate well into an enemies NEZ envelope. It remains yet to be seen how stealthy the F-35 will be in reality and how well sensors will perform in the future. ECM is another factor which has to be considered and in certain circumstances the F-35 might find itself quicker into a WVR engagment than some here aren’t even willed to think off.
    The assertion is that the F-35 with F-16 like performance is not going to outperform a high performance fighter like the Eurofighter or Rafale. The F-35s requirement was for at least matching the performance of its predecessors the Typhoon’s or Rafale’s (and the F-22’s BTW) requirements were to exceed the performance of their predecessors by a fair margin!

    http://www.spacewar.com/reports/F-35_Jet_Designed_To_Take_Out_The_S-300_Battery_999.html

    -I suspect that LM/USAF has a pretty good handle on how low the RCS is, and how close it should be able to get to a foe, without being detected. The F-35 pilot will have a pretty good understanding too, as its onboard systems will give it the threat radii of emitting systems. I guarantee, the F-35 has a higher likelihood of getting well within its weapons NEZ vs. another fighter, before detection, than anything else(in the next 10-20yrs) aside from the F-22.

    -The F-35 exceeds the F-16s performance in a number of kinematic areas, and has vastly superior sensor capabilities/situational awareness. When you combine this with HOBS/LOAL, it should do just fine in WVR, especially if the wingman hasn’t been detected.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2450944
    wrightwing
    Participant

    I’d say that with the rise of stealth designs the BVR would become less important (technically unfeasible) and WVR would slowly regain its lost position. That is why being only as good as an F-16 (read F-35) might soon be not good enough.

    Once there’s a large scale proliferation of stealthy fighters of comparable RCS, I’d agree with that. Where I would differ is in saying that the F-35 is only as good as an F-16. While I don’t have any figures on the instantaneous/sustained turn rates of the F-35, we do know that the F-35 has much better acceleration and high angle of attack capabilities. Based upon the anecdotes of the pilots, it would seem to out turn a Viper too. It certainly has far superior SA to a Viper, along with HOBS/LOAL capabilities.

    Sure, this argument has a point. But you seem to assume a one-on-one engagement here. A group of IRST equipped datalinked fighters would pretty likely detect your fighter from any direction (tactics plays a great role here, of course)

    I won’t argue with this. Tactics play a huge role in the success of any mission.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451150
    wrightwing
    Participant

    Except it probably won’t get undetected. Even if radars should fail (BTW, on WVR I doubt this, too), there are passive IRST sensors to be tricked out.

    The Raptor doesn’t necessarily have to approach directly from the front. Until every foe has a DAS equivalent, then it’s not guaranteed that detection would occur from other angles.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451152
    wrightwing
    Participant

    If a missile doesn’t need TVC, then you can outright cancel those on AIM-9X…

    It allows a missile to be agile, without suffering the drag penalty of fins. The Python 5 uses fins, and no one is complaining about its lack of maneuverability.

    BTW, if your engineers recognized early enough that BVR was what is important and HMS was not really necessary, then whats the sudden fuzz with JHMCSs nowadays?

    Because WVR still occurs, and if your foe has HMS w/ HOBS and you don’t, you’re at a disadvantage.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451205
    wrightwing
    Participant

    The great question is if the Raptor gets WVR without being detected and the closer it comes the higher the risk!

    If it got WVR undetected, there’s a very high likelihood that the Raptor has the element of surprise, which means it’ll get the first shot off.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451226
    wrightwing
    Participant

    Your right because both of these types are operated by allies…

    But seriously I don’t suppose you can qualify such a sweeping statement. How exactly does TVC counter HMS systems.

    If you want to talk scenarios the Eurocanards with HMS and agile counter measure resistant high off boresight missiles would be a deadly opponent for the F22 if they entered the merge within visual range.

    The F22 is amazing but it can’t beat physics and tvc only changes the direction the nose points not the direction of travel. It would certainly bleed off speed and thats not good news in respect of IR missiles like ASRAAM and MICA which in visual combat would be well within their no escape zone. These missiles are also highly counter measure resistant and paired up with a helmet mounted site are no joke.

    That is all true, but……if the Raptor gets within WVR undetected, it won’t matter if you have a HMS/HOBS advantage. Even without the HMS on the Raptor, the AIM-9M/X are still dangerous weapons.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451230
    wrightwing
    Participant

    They copied WHAT from WHOM?!!!!!

    Now could you explain how in the sweet name of jesus the Russians copied an Israeli system before the IDF/AF had actually received the darned hardware?

    And could you explain why the technological solutions in the Russian/Israeli HMS and AAM´s are so diferent?
    Yep, the Python thrust vectoring, oh wait, it doesnt have one…

    And yes, that magnificent BVR AAM, the AIM-7 Sparrow…

    Where did I say the Python had TVC? It doesn’t need it. The AIM-7M wasn’t a bad missile at all, but being semi-active homing definitely put the pilot at risk, having to wait until impact to maneuver. The USN had HMS before Israel or Russia, on the F-4s. More emphasis was placed in the BVR realm, which led to the AMRAAM.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451376
    wrightwing
    Participant

    The combo R-73/HMS…

    Which they copied from the Israelis and the Python. Of course if they were unable to force the US/Western aircraft into a WVR fight, they were at a BVR disadvantage.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451378
    wrightwing
    Participant

    Logic would suggest alot more money then the F-35 took or at least equal if we consider the finances spent on the lift fan versions of the 35 too. Reason being is that Russia, apart from having a few scraps of a 117 had to do all the R&D work themselves for the stealth aspect, the sensor fusion again same thing as they ddn’t have anything to work from as Lockheed did from previous aircraft. It would be interesting to see what the expenditure is for the PAK-FA but theres fat chance of that ever happening.

    Look at how much trouble the RAAF is having with the Wedgetail’s sensor fusion, and they(nor the contractors) are technologically backwards(or strapped for cash).

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451382
    wrightwing
    Participant

    1. No one said they didn’t like it..
    2. USAF and LM have a common goal – USAF wants to procure as many aircraft as it can get and LM wants to get orders for as many aircraft as it can get. That makes them allies with a common adversary – US congress. Internally they may act as opponents and bicker about requirements and test results but on the outside they go hand-in-hand. If USAF claims that the planned numbers are not high enough, LM will gladly back them up. If LM claims a hype about F-35’s capabilities, USAF will gladly return the backing – it is in their common interest to make the F-35 look highly needed and superior over anything else.

    It’s also in the USAF’s interest to get a product that works as advertised. If the F-35 sucks, then the USAF is going to be pretty disappointed with LM.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451385
    wrightwing
    Participant

    I for one would be interested in how much intel the PAK-FA people were able to gather regarding F-22, F-35, B-2A and eventually J-XX. I’d say that they know more than we do but it’s just a guess.

    I would imagine this to be the case, but there’s no way of knowing at our level, what compromises have occurred(or not).

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451393
    wrightwing
    Participant

    All of which happened after 1990.

    And which avionics package on the Fulcrum/Flanker before 1990 was superior to the F-15C/F-16C/F-18C/F-14D?

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451398
    wrightwing
    Participant

    Who says it doesn’t meet its expectations or that something is not performing well? I think you don’t get the point or at least you don’t want to.

    If it is meeting/exceeding expectations, then is “hype” the correct word though?

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451432
    wrightwing
    Participant

    Supporting LM and trying to ensure that they will receive a sufficient number. No one says they don’t like it, yet hype can easily be used to ensure no one threatens the program or cuts the numbers. Though that doesn’t work on all occassions as the F-22 shows.

    But if the product isn’t meeting their expectations, why would they want to keep buying it? If anything, they’d be making a fuss about why something’s not performing well.

    in reply to: LM about the F-35s A2A performance #2451435
    wrightwing
    Participant

    Highly debatable.

    APG-63- AESA versions
    APG-79- AESA
    AIM-9X
    AIM-120C7/D

    among other subsystems.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,716 through 2,730 (of 3,666 total)