Which has what to do with the TVC PST manoeuvers of the F-22?

It performs maneuvers that one would think could only be done with TVC.

Why Airshow aerobatics aside? I fail to see how the less aerodynamically F-35 without TVC should be able to do similar stunts as the more aerodynamic F-22 with TVC. Another thing of logic, you won’t see because you just consume but don’t think about it.

The Super Hornet puts on a pretty good airshow demo without TVC FWIW.

Maximum flight speed, km/h: at high altitude 2,500 (=M2.35 with 2 x AL31FM engines) http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-35.htm
It has later been upgraded to the AL-35F, which provides more thrust while at the same time being lighter. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35.htm
Also:
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35/su-35.htm
Perhaps i went ahead with my conclusion but not much

Well I respect you acknowledging that. I’ve yet to see anything with regard to the Su-35 having a higher top speed than earlier models. I have seen claims that it has better acceleration, some amount of supercruise, and higher engine reliability.

And what if i am supercruising at M1.2 and need to get more speed quick to gain advantage kinetically to get optimal performance from my missiles ?

again, why is acceleration from M0.9->M1.2 more important then M1.2->M1.5 ?

I never made that distinction. Even supercruisers are going to spend most of there time subsonic to get the most range. The more important stat is how fast can you go from subsonic to M1.5.

You got it plain wrong. I cannot speak for all types but I was introduced in detail to a MiG-29’s N019EA radar (totally disassembled) where the radar repair guy has shown me inserted replaceable modules each containing data about radar returns of a specific type. I was told that the exact max. number of these modules carried at one stroke is still classified but let us assume it would be around a dozen. That means a vanilla MiG-29 would be able to recognize around 12 types of specific aerial targets and it is up to mission planner IQ to insert those containing the most likely encountered targets. That being said, you most probably won’t insert a module recognizing Mirage 2000 returns when you fly a mission over Japan, logically.

I am sure that more up-to-date radars are able to carry around a much larger sets of data but the principle is the same – your radar recognizes and adresses only those types of targets which were ‘told’ by the software. I am sure that it can also detect and track general type targets simply be recognizing large radar returns well above the clutter. The signature of F-22 probably stays only slightly above the clutter due to stealth and you need a good resolution to read the target (equals less range) but it could be greatly aided by recording known F-22’s radar returns.

The situation you describe seems to me like F-15s being able to pick up the Raptor but not able to recognize it because the radar was not ‘taught’ by system software that this ‘large clutter’ actually was a target. A rather simple software tweak could make much difference.

I understand this concept too. The point though is that you’re still going to have to get close before your system will detect and identify the VLO target.
If the VLO target sees you first which will almost always be the case, you’re still at a huge disadvantage tactically speaking.

Military are much more carefull about claims. The better sensor does not mean that you will detect something earlier. That claim is limited to a better chance to do so. The other way around, it is useless to claim the minimum RCS, which is limited to special circumstances and will be considerably less in others. A clever EW-suit will change the rules further.
The claim of the F-15 pilots has something to do with the related software. As long as a target like the F-22 is not integrated into that, it will be filtered out and ignored by the own system. By the way, why the USA does keep control of the software for its exports. When Austria did demand a free adjustable radar for the F-16s offered for a special price, the F-16 was out and the Typhoon was in, despite being much more expensive.

There are obviously scenarios where certain advantages would be offset/mitigated. I was talking strictly about a head on engagement, which is where the RCS advantage would be most noticeable. Of course if the foe is emitting, then the F-35/F-22 would most likely position themself to maximize their low observability.

I’d rather take my chances on the sensor array that has the better chance of early detection. I realize certain conditions might arise that creates more favorable odds, so nothing is an absolute certainty. It’s certainly better than 50/50 odds though.

Who cares? There is no guarantee the firing aircraft will get close enough to fire or that it will get through short range SAM cover.

What scenario are you using? An attack on Moscow? You’re using a 1 vs 1 analysis -plane vs. SAM. Any attack on a sophisticated air defense is going to be a major effort and involving F-22/F-35/EA-18G/F-18E/F(and if a coalition force is involved- Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens,etc..), EW aircraft, ESM aircraft, cruise missiles/AGM-130/AGM-84/AGM-88D/E/ALARM/GBU-39/40/stealthy stand off weapons(i.e. JSOW-ER/JASSM-ER, decoys), to say the least. To say that a lot of confusion will be going on for the SAM operators is an understatement.

If an EWLRS picks up the F-35/22, they are as good as dead. A few calls or radio transmissions are you are going to have SAMs pointing at them, interceptors heading their way, etc.

Just like with SAMs and Fighters, EWLRS is going to be detectable before it can detect. Assuming it does detect, it can’t provide precise information about the F-22/F-35, just that they’re in the area. In any event these sites will be high priority targets, as will cell networks.

As any formidable defense will.

An IADS with overlapping coverage for legacy fighters is far less problematic than when having to deal with targets where you have perhaps a 1/10- 1/100th the detection range. You need A LOT more radars, and A LOT more missiles/launchers, to achieve the same coverage. Not even Russia can afford to have overlapping coverage of the entire country, much less every possible target.

Haha, you ok expert – it won’t just cause you say so right?

Any signal can be detected. Even if it isn’t consistent on the RWR of the Flanker, it will still alert the pilot.

It’s not a matter of the signal being detected. It’s a matter of the signal being recognized. The way LPI works is by not looking like a search radar to a foe’s RWR/ESM systems. This doesn’t mean that it’s invincible or undetectable. It does mean that it’s not a certainty that a foe will be alerted in time to implement defensive tactics. Remember- F-22s have flown against aircraft with very good ESM/RWR systems in training, and been very successful.

means.[/B]

Since mostly you two can’t comprehend what LPI realy means we can understand why…

Au contraire mon fraire, it is you that seems to have difficulty with the concept of how LPI works. Please cite one source showing how ill informed I am about the concept.:rolleyes:

Just to put things in a relative: I’m just trying to make you guys understand that LPI is no magic and that an LPI radars transmissions can still be detected! Not more not less.

I’d agree with this, as it’s a very fair assessment. I was just taking issue with some of the other posters who felt LPI was of no utility, and that threat aircraft would detect it at great stand off ranges.