MAWS seems not to have arrived your guys minds…
What’s the detection range of a MAWS system? That’s a last ditch warning system, so the pilot can jam/deploy chaff/attempt to maneuver.
Yes but the Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA are and these are the real best Flankers currently in service!
@wrightwing
Interestingly the sources all say those aircraft are equal, but that is nonsense. Some of them might well be more effective in A2A than the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 (legacy and maybe even the SH). So it’s funny that LM considers all those non VLO fighter being equal, just because the lack of stealth. Funnily the F-22 is claimed to be 10 times as effective as the F-35, one might wonder why… Just stealth? Certainly not!
LM is trying to sell more F-22s. This means that for certain target audiences the F-35 will be downplayed, and in for other audiences the F-35’s capabilities will be defended. The F-22’s advantages are better stealth, and superior kinematics, which are force multipliers.
My point was, what happens when the opponent has an a/c with RCS equal to or lower than the F-35 — PAK FA is supposed to be able to match the F-22.
In such a scenario I would think that both a/c will have difficulties detecting eachother, until they are VWR. Now, if F-35 is “weak” in VWR then that’s not a good thing at all.
Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) while conceding that the aircraft’s performance in combat within visual range (WVR) will only be marginally superior to that of its fourth-generation and advanced fourth-generation counterparts.
Unless you’re considering all of the 4th and 4.5 Gen fighters to be weak in WVR, I don’t think it’s going to be a problem.
The PAK FA will most likely be an excellent aircraft, but it’s strongest points will probably be that it’s more affordable, while offering much of the capabilities of the F-22/35.
I would just like to point out once again that the AMRAAM is not a magical weapon, as far as I remember they had 3 or 4 of them fired against MiG-29s in Serbia in order to bring down one airplane. And this happened given the fact that the opponent had no ECM whatsoever, no radar, almost no GCI support, and RWR that was not always functioning => no chaff. All that against an attack from multiple directions (the attackers having the advantage of high altitude and thus more energy for the missiles) with AWACS support. I can’t imagine an easier target.
In any large-scale engagement between F-35 and Su-35BM/Rafale/Typhoon on relatively equal terms, I would not rely on 4 AMRAAMs only. Given that you will probably have to fire 2 missiles per target or go for single missile/single target, the success rate won’t be high. You should consider the fact that once you are left with 1 missile or no missiles at all, you need to get out of the situation fast. This means that the BVR engagement (we assume that the F-35s will have the first shot, given better stealth) will not start at close ranges, as the F-35s would have to risk running into a dogfight with the surviving enemy planes without having anything to shoot at them. One should mind the fact that once detected, the F-35 will be chased by the enemy, and supercruising won’t help that much at short dashes when the enemy uses their afterburners and his radar is scanning the back of your aircraft (no stealth). This means that the AMRAAMs will have to fly further, which increases time for detection/reaction/countermeasures. The opponent’s airplanes will have time to try and outmanuever/bleed the energy out of the missiles. Also, complex ECM could be employed easily within a formation of aircraft. I know how great “home on JAM” sounds like, but the opposing aircaft could use a relatively loose formation while constantly changing the number and position of aircraft that are activating their ECM (could be done on automatically). For example, if you are effectively jamming the incoming AMRAAMs from the left of your formation, the missiles will turn towards it. Then you switch to employing ECM from the right of the formation, forcing the missiles to make a turn and so on. Here I do not even count the possibility that some of the enemy fighters have dedicated ECM pods or that there are dedicated aircraft trailing the fighter formation and providing additional ECM support.
Thus, I can’t see how an F-35 with 4 AMRAAMs could score more than one kill against a relatively sophisticated enemy, and this is done given the fact that the enemy airplanes are twice or four times cheaper than yours. Also, they carry more missiles, so even a few survivors with R-73/4 or ASRAAMs could mangle your F-35s when they have ran out of missiles.
-Were these 3 or 4 AIM-120As fired one at a time or rippled?
-Did only 1 of the 3 or 4 come within lethal range?
-AIM-120C5/6/7/D are considerably more effective
-The F-35 can carry more than 4 missiles internally(at least 6 and possibly 8 according to some sources)
-The F-35 is still stealthy from the rear, just not as stealthy as from the front
-Being that the F-35 will have the element of surprise, its targets most likely won’t be aggressively maneuvering or employing ECM
-The F-35 has LOAL, so a pursuing aircraft could still be targetted
In another life…
1. No IFF capability, so targets had to be identified before a launch to prevent fratricide.
2. AIM-7 was always a highly overrated missile. Even in the last operational variants it was an unreliable missile. In any-case it was barely BVR capable by today’s standards.
3. Because of the AIM-7’s poor operational performance, a IR guided WVR missile was the more reliable option. When you had to confirm a target visually anyway, it makes a tad more sense…
The statistics about AMRAAM’s “performance” in particular over the years are very interesting.
What is even more interesting is the way some of those statistics are used. Air Power Australia and their ilk often discard the success AMRAAM has had in the WVR range of kills and other BVR scenarios have seen 2x AMRAAM missiles fired at a target hit the aircraft.
One kill with 2x missile fired works out to be a 50% kill rate. In actuality, BOTH weapons hit the aircraft and would most likely have killed it, even had they been fired individually. This is a good example of statistical anomalies and why it’s dangerous to “analyse” success or otherwise based on statistics alone…
That’s also true of the AIM-7M performance too though. If launched within it’s envelope, it was a fairly effective weapon. One shouldn’t discount soft kills either(i.e. if the intent is to protect a strike package, and your missile causes a would be interceptor to disengage, that’s a mission success whether you achieve a kill or not). The same thing happens when folks try to say how ineffective HARMs were at SEAD. If you suppress a SAM, that’s a mission success.
Very well, I accept the point. My apologies for the mistake.
Multi-role of course. Multi-role =/= swing role as I have already stated. It can do either a strike role very well or an air-to-air role well enough, but it can’t switch from one to the other in-mission and expect to perform both said duties with the same effectiveness. As I (and the US leadership) has said 2 AMRAAMs is not an acceptable loadout if you’re expecting to meet aerial resistance.
The whole point of stealth, if you’re on a strike mission is to avoid aerial confrontation all together, and use those 2 AMRAAMS for self defense. I suspect you’d also have a mix of F-35s loaded in the A/A configuration(i.e. 6+ AMRAAMS).
Frankly, with everything they want to get out of it, if the F-35 is pulling down 3-1 against the latest F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 versions, that’s really not that bad for a jet people assumed to be a pretty worthless air defense type platform.
And Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Flanker, Fulcrum for that matter.
just a thought that came up.
with the US Navy no longer operating F-14D’s and S-3’s, doesnt that make the ship kinda vunrable to enemy attacks :confused:
i mean, since the demise of the tomcat, the navy has lost its sole long-range intercepter and the use of the AIM-54 phoenix AAM. and lets be honnest, the F/A-18E/F super hornet can never close that gap unless its gets some sort of long range AAM.
second, with the demise of the S-3 Viking, the carrier airwing no longer has a maretime patrol plane/Sub hunter in its airwing, and equiping the Superbug with MAD and torpedo’s is a bit absurd. dont you think that there should be some sort of ASW version of the E-2, just to have a small anti-submarine aircraft. i think aircraft like these are needed, especially when operating in the east-japanese region, where chinese subs pop up from time to time.
are there any plans to ad more aircraft (besides the F-35 and Super hornets) to the aircraft carrier’s airwing.
im sure everyone is agreeing when i say that you cant replace everything with Super hornets.
or are they developing some sort of F/A/E/S/C-18 überhornet :rolleyes:
(like this model i found :rolleyes:)
I agree that the loss of the S-3s was a big mistake. The Super Hornets are quite capable with AIM-120C7/D though, and the AESA radars(especially in the EA modes that will be available).
It is a remarkable drop from F-22 to F-35A, but much less so from F-35A to F-16.
DAS seem to have little to no effect in A2A if we are to believe stealth and a 20 year never design including latest AESA has any impact.
I wonder what the wast superiority by F-22 can be attributed to:
1) All aspect stealth ?
2) Superior kinematics ?
My guess is that the F-35’s A/A performance is being downplayed in order to keep the F-22 production line going.
Well, it was practical……:(
Perhaps folks from AMC and Pontiac teamed up on the X-32.:eek:
You need to be drinking to agree with that 😀
I’ll drink to that. The X-32 was to airplanes as this was to automobiles-

Still wonder what your point is…
If I may be so bold, I think his point was that it was funny that Iran was making a big deal about its AA shells having proximity fuses, as if that were newsworthy.
Here is someone mixing data for obvious reasons. All data posted are numbers from a corner-envelope. They could not be reached at the same time.
For all data related to the F-22 the critical height value is missing always. 😀
The article gives a supercruise leg of ~600 nm in total.
My point though was that the initial supercruise info released about the F-22 was a pretty vanilla figure of Mach 1.5+. Now the question is whether or not this is the speed that the Raptor typically supercruises at, or is it the Mach 1.7 to 1.82 that have been reported? Also if it is the higher number, is the figure given for the supercruise duration in minutes referring to the vanilla number or the higher number? Obviously there’s no way to prove this one way or another, but if….by chance it does happen to be the case, that would certainly represent quite a capability. In any event ~600nm is still a pretty impressive capability.
The MiG-31 as announced are able to walk 740km with M2.35, much greater than the Raptor.
I’ll ask you the same question as OPIT. What is the max range/speed of the Raptor while supercruising?
This is as good as anything else I’ve seen.:cool:
![]()
and here’s the cockpit:cool:
![]()