wrightwingDon’t be shocked if LordAssap trys to tell you they can.
I’ve given up on being shocked.:D
wrightwingAs someone else stated before LPI (Low Probability of Interception) is not NPI (No Probability of Interception). Any signal transmitted can be detected! Transmission power has to be sufficient enough so that the transmitted signal bridge the distance to the target, make it back to the source of its origin and it must then still be strong enough to get any useful information out of it. At the time the wave hits the target, hence its RWR, the transmission is much stronger than when it is received by the radar which transmitted it. Against an old insensitive RWR this techniques (including frequency hopping which is BTW used since many years even by MSA radars) might work the way you insist, but against an advanced RWR/ESM I wouldn’t bet for it to do so. LPI is still a huge advantage for RF control, as you don’t radiate where you don’t need to. This lowers the probability of interception, because fewer or no transmissions in areas out of interest mean threats there won’t detect you. IF LPI would work the way you imagine there would be no need for EMCON!
I’ve stated previously that I agree that LPI isn’t NPI. The point of LPI is that RWR/ESM systems have to recognize the LPI signal as that of a fire control radar, before they will be of use defensively. How effective have the RWR/ESM systems of the F-15/16/18 been at detecting the F-22? Would you suspect that they have pretty up to date digital signal processing/filtering? The Super Hornet’s avionics/sensors are every bit as up to date as any threat aircraft, and the Raptor has still managed to perform as advertised. Granted you’re still going to want to limit emissions, but LPI is not going to be the huge torch in the dark sky, that conventional modes are.
wrightwingWho needs to fly at that speed sustained? You accelerate there to launch your missile with as much kinetic energy as possible. It is a short dash to increase your missiles range by a fair margin. Add a higher ceiling and you easily outrange an enemy on weapons range which uses a similar missile but flying lower and slower.
If you have to use A/B to get to that speed, your IR signature goes way up.
wrightwingSo what if the high RCS legacy fighter gets an RWR ping from an ultra long range radar? At this point, the Flanker then knows your position, and with ECM and a more powerful radar is going to shoot first no matter what you do, unless you run away. That is fine for the Flanker’s mission.
No- the RWR will detect a fire control radar before the fire control radar detects the target, so the Flanker won’t necessarily know your position. The radar energy travels further than its ability to detect targets, which is why the RWR/ESM will have the first detection advantage.
If the Flanker happened to fly within it’s detection range before turning its radar on, then it’d get your position before you could react. Of course the Flanker’s RCS might betray its position prior to it emitting anyhow, as AWACS or the Super Hornet’s AESA in LPI mode would have no difficulty spotting a Flanker.
If this is a low RCS aircraft, and it gets a ping, there is no guarantee it will get a lock on the T-50 either, due to ECM and stealth. Now with a more powerful radar, and equivalent ECM systems – no matter what the F-35/F-22 do, there is a likely to be a 50-50 chance of shoot-down since firing ranges are going to be similar for each fighter (assuming*** that the PAK-FA sensors are more powerful, but the say F-22 is a bit stealthier). There is no real point comparing an F-35 or F-22 to the Su-35BM, since they are half a generation apart – at least on an individual basis.
-I’m not assuming that the T-50’s radar is more capable than the APG-77(especially considering it will have been upgraded several times prior to the T-50 becoming operational)
-More power isn’t necessarily a good thing(the F-22 can operate in non-LPI mode and see targets much further away than in LPI mode, but in doing so, it alerts them to its presence).
-if the T-50’s RCS is higher, it will be detected first
Where are these sources?
I can point you to interviews in Russian that claim an 8 ton payload. If it’s smaller than a Flanker, that’s a hell of an airframe.
It may have an 8 ton payload, but that’s gonna be internal and external stores. It won’t carry 8 tons internally.
No one said Irbis is LPI. Irbis is a raw power radar meant to ensure first lock and first shot with high ECM resistance.
The point is that the more energy that you’re radiating, the easier it is for ESM/RWR to detect you, prior to you detecting them. If a Flanker flies around with an IRBIS on max power, anyone within 600+km will most likely be aware of it, and change heading to stay out of it’s search volume.
At longer ranges, LPI is going to be pretty useless – correct me if I’m wrong – since you won’t be able to track due to lower power setting?, if you can even see something like the Su-35BM at around 150 – 180KM with an APG-77/81. Assuming you can see it, tracking will also be affected greatly by the heavy ECM on the Flanker. Don’t be surprised if even the Su-35BM’s RWR has already compensated for LPI qualities of radars.
The Raptor’s LPI mode has a 125-150nm range
The Lightning’s LPI mode is 100+nm.
The Flanker on the other hand won’t detect them most likely until it’s within 10-30nm. The Flanker’s ECM won’t be on if it doesn’t know that it needs to be. AMRAAMs can be fired passively were the Flanker to be emitting radar or ECM. The Flanker’s best hope is using datalinks from another platform to vector it within IRST range, and conducting a passive attack.
wrightwingEvidence?
The latest HARMS have GPS guidance, and will continue heading to the last location the emission originated from.
ermmm… AWACS, EWLRS, Interceptors, ELINT ?
ermmm….AWACS and Interceptors are going to have difficulty finding the F-35/22 as well. If EMCON is being used, there won’t be any ELINT to pick up. EWLRS may detect the F-35/22, but won’t be able to track or guide weapons.
Additionally, the F-35/22 will also be able to detect the EWLRS, and use tactics to avoid them(or attack them).
Other SAM sites working together? One might be on, others off, etc.
If a SAM site is emitting, the F-35/22 will avoid it, or attack it from stand off.
You’re gonna need a lot of sites to have overlapping coverage.
You don’t say? Yet, the APG-77, if it’s going to detect anything remotely stealthy, or even not, is going to be emitting, which means it will light up a good RWR.
The APG-77 will be operating in LPI mode, which won’t light up a RWR. That’s kind of the point of that mode, and the big advantage of using AESA vs. PESA/MSA radars.
wrightwingSo all the flag wavers for the F-35 on here dont get the same leture from yourself?
The Rafale and Typhoon have a lot of very good qualities and capabilities, but they are Gen 4.5 aircraft. They don’t have the combination of capabilities that the F-35 has in terms of sensor capabilities/situational awareness/enhanced survivability.
wrightwingI don’t know about that, from my own observations playing flight sims, yes public flight sims that its a fantastic ability. Heres my example: Playing Falcon 4 ‘open Falcon’ version (my favourite not AF version) I have headed back from over North Korea after expending my ordnance and dropping my tanks while flying a clean F-16 block 52, i hit the burners with a full load and move up to about M 1.5 and wow the difference is fantastic!
Migs on your tail, are little threat as thier missiles have not the energy to catch you and you’d need to be very close for that to happen, threats can simply be avoided for as long as you have the fuel left in the jet. Now of course that internal fuel on a f-16 at full burner does not last long at all, even at high alt so you don’t get to do it often but yes if you have a jet that supercruises at M1.6 or 1.7 without being on burner it would be a truely awesome advantage i think. I hope you understand where I am coming from and i know my example is based on a publicly available flight sim but the principle is the same.
(and yes i realise flight sim flight models are a bit basic to say the least)
What that means is that anybody pursuing you would have to use A/B to catch you, putting them in a disadvantage with regard to their fuel state. It also shrinks NEZs for incoming weapons.
wrightwingAnd USAF was ONLY the second customer in terms of requierements which were already well defined by the Joint British and USN customers around Harrier II/II+ flight envelop including Operational ceilling which BTW is WAY lower than 40.000 ft.
The USAF is the primary user of the F-35, and will operate F-35s before either the USN or Royal Navy. The F-16 and F-18 were the primary US aircraft being replaced by the F-35 along with the AV-8B, which the USMC uses.
F-35 was NEVER requiered to be MULTI-ROLE, and de-facto it is designed as a STRIKE aircraft FIRST = OPTIMISED for the role with secondary A2A capabilties.
Could you please define multi-role the way you understand it? For me an aircraft who’s purpose is A2A, Interdiction, Strike, DEAD, CAS, Time Sensitive Targets, and ISR, would appear to be multi-role.
That chart you keep using to show the F-35’s limitations, is also lowballing the F-22. Could you reconcile this fact, when stating unequivocally what the F-35 can and can’t do. We know that the F-22 cansupercruise at M1.7-M1.82, has a top speed of M2.4+, and cruises at 60,000+ ft. Why is it so difficult to accept that the numbers for the F-35 might be on the extremely conservative side too?
LM and the USAF/USN would certainly disagree with your assessment about the F-35’s A2A abilities
wrightwingIn A2A configuration YES.
Link please.
Definition of CLEAN again?
My definition of clean is the same definition that everyone but you seems to use, which is flying without external stores. It certainly doesn’t mean 6 or more AAMs and/or EFTs.
And AGAIN, there is NO evidences that ANY of these European aircraft couldn’t fly at M 2.0 with their standard AAMs loads expecialy NOT their aerodynamic limits.
They have the thrust to fly at least 0.2 M higher with multi-shock inlets and their aerodynamics are also designed for this sort of Mach.
Can you provide one link showing EF/Rafale/Gripen reaching or exceeding M2 with a full load of AAMs. Even the F-15 can’t do this, and it has a higher top speed than any of the other planes.
wrightwingNo it wasn’t and i think i duely corrected with correct figures which isn’t everyone’s case… 😀
Here is the reason for my mystake:
Read: With 3 X 2.000 l.
This becomes 2 hours at 100 nm from Carrier with the MN standard 1.250 instead.
As for the M 2.2 obviously i meant 1.2, one doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see this.
They aren’t going to supercruise at M1.2 for 2 hours either.:D
wrightwingNO you guys don’t start with your “fuzzy maths” as Dwidht was so elegantly puting it…
-which will have a higher speed?
With 1 X 1.250 L and 4 AAMs which IS the MN standard light CAP condifuration, the Rafale supercruises at M 1.2.
With 4 X MICAs it’s M 0.1 IGHER.
The Eurocanard Mach limitation is not Airframe/AAM related but engine/inlets soi M 2.0 still is DASH speed with 4 AAMs.
-which will accelerate better?
Non context; considering the aerodynamics if you know about them.-which will have a better inst./sust. turn rate?
Non context; considering the aerodynamics if you know about them.See basics explained BELOW and de grasse, unless you can grab them don’t bother coming back with some pseudo non-nonsense comment.
Has the EF demonstrated M2 with a combat load? All the stats I’ve seen say that it’s capable of M2 clean, not with 6 AAMs and EFTs. The Rafale and Gripen(and Flanker, etc…) are going to have the same performance limitations of clean vs. combat load. The F-35 and F-22 are going to be able to reach their top speed with combat loads, and have no turning limitations due to external stores.
wrightwingWhile they will of course know the location of the emitting battery, firing a HARM is not the end of the story. If it’s emitting it will see the incoming round and pass on the data to all systems in the IADS. The HARM has to then run the gauntlet of the 48N6E3 missiles, Tor-M1/M2 and Pantsir-S1 self-defensive systems, and any fighters that are on patrol as well – and that’s if the battery doesn’t simply go silent, at which point they become a little useless. This is one of the reasons that the JDAM and SDB are intended for the role on the Raptor – but given that all of those systems are designed to have a capability against PGMs too, it’d take a war before we find out whether that approach would work either, which, needless to say, I have no desire to see.
What’s the Pk of the defending missiles against multiple incoming ARMs, especially if any EW support is degrading their performance?
wrightwingNEZ or not, the larger missile can be fired to get a mission kill against the enemy, which is more than acceptable.
The launch aircraft still needs to detect its target before it can fire, and the Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon aren’t going to be detected at 400km(or probably even 200km for that matter), much less the F-35 and F-22. Additionally, if the IRBIS E(or whatever the follow on is) is radiating out to 400km, even high RCS legacy fighter’s will detect it on their ESM/RWR systems before they’re detected. The only way they’d get caught off guard is if the Flanker/PAK FA was flying EMCON and getting datalink updates allowing them to get within the NEZ before emitting. In any event, carrying a few very large missiles is a very inefficient way to provide CAP. It’d be far better to have 10 AAMs with 100-150km ranges.
There is also no evidence to suggest T-50 is going to be (significantly if at all) smaller and/or have smaller bays. We shall soon find out.
While no one knows for sure, everything I’ve heard from Russian sources lead me to believe that the PAK FA will be in between the F-35 and F-22 in size.
As you said, we shall see.
This is the new Keypublishing fantasy eh? Radars are basically worthless, it’s all about passive detection perversion. The lower RCS foe will have hardly advantage whatsoever when he uses his radar, as it will alert the enemy’s RWR, especially if the foe has jamming and a good radar/EOS system in return.
As for Flanker vs legacy, it’s not going to matter what advantages you can make when you know where the Flanker is, especially if he’s already tracking you. You are mission dead probably, if not falling out of the sky.
The IRBIS is hardly LPI. While LPI doesn’t mean NPI, is does mean the likelihood is very low that the RWR will know that there’s a hostile radar tracking the Flanker, etc….and this is a huge advantage when combined with a very low RCS.
wrightwingCare to provide the source?
They do increase drag yes, yet the question is how much in this particular case and is it going to affect the performance. 3 drop tanks and still M 1.6 capable, someting the F-35 has yet to demonstrate CLEAN!
That’s M1.6 with A/B though, and the EF should be able to hit M2 clean, so that’s a .4 Mach reduction in performance just from carrying EFTs.
wrightwingWe speak about performance here, nothing else. And no I didn’t use the lower number (40k lb) but the average and so far officially confirmed number (43k lb). The 48k lb figure might be easily a typo all sources so far suggest 43k lb, with 40k lb meaning the thrust class. So 43k lb is safe to assume, 48k lb is not.
The 48k lb number may be a typo, but it shouldn’t be completely dismissed either. I agree that 43k lb is a safer assumption until there are corroborating sources for the higher number. It is interesting that that number hasn’t been retracted in any brief/brochure I’ve seen though. Of course the dry thrust numbers are far more important for the vast majority of the mission profile, as Max A/B isn’t really used very frequently if you need any kind of range.
Sign In
