wrightwing– So the radar of the SH comprises about 100-200 more modules, but besides that are they the same generation? Do they have the same capabilities?
– Has the SH got a lower RCS than the Block 60? Or did the block 60 rcs get reduced too?
With more AESA modules and smaller RCS the SH would most likely win the BVR battle. Unless the block 60 has got comprehensive RCS reduction measures and could offset the bigger radar by lower RCS? Then again, wouldn’t the fact that both planes would fly with external stores make the RCS point pretty moot? For instance Blk 60 with conformals would have lower RCS than SH with extrenal tanks for the same range?
besides radar power and RCS, hat are the technologies that are available on the SH that aren’t on the block 60?
Nic
The F-16 Blk 60+ would need a lower RCS(combat loaded vs. SH) to compensate for the radar advantage in the SH.
wrightwingI think the APG-79 may be newer, despite the numbering. Wasn’t the APG-80 originally called APG-68(v)something?
The APG-80 is an all new design.
wrightwingtoan wrote in diffrent threat:
“The CAP capability of Typhoon:
A. Eight AAMs and internal fuel only, flying to the area of 463 km away in 20 minutes, intercepting the enemy and then flying back.”
and how many minutes a F-35 will need, with 4 AAM and full internal fuel, to reach an interception point 463km far away and in 40000feet altiude?
The F-35 can carry more than 4AAMs, and can reach much higher altitudes than 40,000 feet. The sustained speed of the Typhoon with 8 AAMs isn’t going to be significantly higher than an F-35, and the F-35 has more fuel. You also have to take into account that the Typhoon will be far more visible while enroute to intercept than the F-35.
wrightwingIn cold war doctirne interceptors were quite important, because of high flying, high speed bombers; but todays world the threat is just another fighter aircraft and HALE UAVs. F-35 might be good fighter but good fighter doesn’t always mean good interceptor, for example F-5 was good fighter but it has lack speed and max. altitude to inercept cold war threat. So the question is cold war paradigms about interceptors -fast, high flying, good acceleration- vaild or not for the F-35?
I think for good interceptors agility is not so important but speed, acceleration and max altitude is still required for future conflict. Target like Su-35 can climb as much as 59000 feet, in near future PAK-FA may be fly as much as 60000+ feet while keeping high speed; also there will be lots of problems to intercept UAVs that flies more then 65000 feet..
As has been said before- the F-35 isn’t limited to 35,000(or even 45,000) feet.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Swords_and_Shields_F-35_beats_Russians_999.html
None of the targets you’ve mentioned are going to be outside the AIM-120Ds envelope, and there’ll be negligible altitude capability differences between the planes. What’ll make the F-35 a good interceptor is that the foe won’t know it’s being intercepted until it’s within the AIM-120’s NEZ.
wrightwingI’m not sure about the avionics capabilities of the Blk 60(and 60+) F-16s vs. the Superhornet, but the Blk 52 would be inferior. The payload on the F-16 is going to be smaller, but its high speed maneuvering should be better.
wrightwingThere was this, that i provided allready see underline which i made my assumption on after reading, so it is my source. A source by definition is to provide the reason why you make an assumption.
1. Optimal speed is probably at >35.000 ft, due to cold air, that made a significant difference on Gripen C.
(Gripen C can supercruise but only on a cold day remember ?)
2. Less drag.
3. Since Scooter can’t provide anything to support his claim, i’ll use common sense that a two-seater is heavier
4. And the canopy and changes to airframe made the two-seater more draggy.
5. Speed of sound is lower at higher altitude.Thats five factors that will improve Mach, if they combined provide 8%, its Mach 1.3.
The speed may improve. My point was that you weren’t likely to see both an improvement in speed, and an A2A load out simultaneously.
wrightwingEveryone calm down, the F-35 will be able to do the intercept just fine in wartime, as someone pointed out, a aircraft headed at mach 1.5 or whatever in a certain direction is gona bring up some questions, let alone some itchy trigger fingers if the geopolitical situation is ripe for a confrontation.
The F-35, in my humble opinion, will be a much better interceptor than the F-16 ever was or ever could have dreamed of being, but then again, thats not saying much since the F-16 wasn’t designed to be a real interceptor in the first place.
And let’s not forget F-16s have shot down Mig-25s, which are moving at considerably more than M1.1, so an F-35 should do just fine.
wrightwingI don’t know how those a/c would resolve such a situation — but that’s besides the point. Norway will buy F-35 not Gripen or Rafale. Therefore the questions was, how can F-35 resolve it?
Most likely all intercepts will be peace-time intercepts also in the future, just like they have been in the past. AFAIK, Norwegian F-16 were scrambled 32 times in 2008.
I am just curious as to how to deal with those intercepts in the future — presumably it has absolutely no significance, other than the possible loss of face if it turns out the new super planes are left far behind when they try to keep up with the Russian machines ?
L
The Flanker won’t be at M2+ for very long, and unless there’s a tanker nearby, it’s gonna be in a bad fuel state pretty soon.
wrightwingOk, but while shooting up SU-35, AIM-120 should climb like 20000feet but why the missle don’t loose its range performance? I mean is 100nm range viable in situation where both aircraft in same altitude or is it viable in every condition?
Another question, lets assume that Su-35 detect F-35 about 40nm somehow where F-35 is in 35000feet and it has 0.9mach speed; then they turned suddenly and started to use afterburners to reach 2 mach. Can F-35 has chance to shot down escaping Su-35?
You do realize that the F-35 can climb higher than 35,000 feet, and fly faster than M.9? The Su-35 might detect the F-35 on its IRST at 40nm, but I suspect it’d have to be closer to see it on radar. The AIM-120D could’ve been enroute long before 40nm(especially in a head on shot), before the Flanker turns and accelerates too.
wrightwingF-35 is a strike aircraft that’s sure, so what about it’s interception capability? It look quite important since most F-35 buyers will never heve F-22?
Let’s check that scenario:A group of Su-35Bm is advancing Norweigan airspace flying at 52000 feet with cruise speed 1.1Mach. Norweigans detects Su-35s 350km faraway from the F-35 base. F-35 equiped with 4 x AIM-120D and SU-35s carrying 6 long range 2 short range missile. And F-35s are scrambled to intercept them…
Question is can F-35 intercept Su-35s in that altitude and while it has 1.1 Mach?
Absolutely. In A2A configuration, the F-35 shouldn’t have any issues getting near those heights and speeds, and the AIM-120D certainly wouldn’t have any trouble either.
wrightwingSource ?
Well to play Devil’s advocate, there was no source stating a higher speed and w/ A2A loadout either.
wrightwingLet me summarise all this lift/drag internal/external fuel stuff.
Carrying more fuel internally increases drag, both because of the extra weight of the fuel needing more lift & the extra drag of the larger fueselage needed to carry the fuel. There will also be some extra structural weight, increasing drag a little more.
Carrying fuel externally also increases drag. The weight-induced extra drag is about the same, but the drag of external tanks is even more than the fatter fuselage needed to carry it internally. It is therefore less efficient than carrying all fuel internally, for the same fuel load.
However, once external tanks are empty, they can be dropped. If this is done, then the drag of the aircraft carrying external tanks drops considerably. An aircraft carrying all its fuel internally still has the extra structural weight & fat fuselage, so is now at a disadvantage in fuel efficiency.
In real combat operations, external tanks will be dropped when empty.
Therefore, one can not assume that internal fuel carriage is more efficient overall than external. One has to perform careful calculations to discover whether it is or not, for any given mission profile.
Similar considerations apply to the fuel efficiency of internal & external carriage of weapons. An internal weapons bay has aerodynamic & structure weight penalties to offset against the drag of externally carried weapons.
The only indisputable advantage of internal carriage is in radar cross section.
Is that a reasonable summation?
The plane with the internal weapons/fuel fights in a clean configuration though, and you have to take into account that the F-35 will be considerably lighter once it has reached it’s objective(i.e the extra drag from high internal fuel capacity will be reduced). Additionally, if the F-35 has to engage in A2A(or dodge incoming SAMs), it won’t have to jettison its external fuel, in order to maneuver. This’ll put the other aircraft in much less advantageous fuel state.
wrightwingI just saw this post in another thread, and think Mach 1.3 is a reasonable assumption with a six-pack (A2A) loadout.
There was no mention of the configuration of the aircraft(clean or w/ A2A load out), so I’d be a little more hesitant to assert an even higher speed and payload.
wrightwingCome on, I have given numbers for fuel related to weight which you clearly cant. A real pity you cant grasp that or admit it. :confused:
If you want to brag about the range of F-15 that was designed to carry drop tanks against the one of Mig-21, be my guest. But you cant drag me into that just because you have no data to support your claim!!!!!!!!!!
Half of the external fuel weight will be used getting the aircraft airborne, and in overcoming the extra drag. You can’t do an apples to apples comparison when discussing fuel amounts internal vs. external.
wrightwingYou hit the point. 😀
It is not the raw flying performances, where a 5th Generation Fighter does differ from such a classic.
But it is an excellent example to show the price to pay for a stealth design.
So it is intresting to learn, what solution the Russians and the Chinese will find for their designs. They will have to pay a price too. 😉It does remember me about the need in RAM for my Windows Vista compared to XP still kept on my other PC.
Being more fuel efficient, yet getting shot down due to not being stealthy is a pretty high price to pay too.
Sign In
