I think it’s very likely the F-35 will be able to achieve a top speed of ~ Mach1.8

IMO

Even the Super Hornet is listed as having a top speed of M1.8+, so I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the F-35 was in that same class.

And at M 4.0 per AAMS the difference in seconds would be?

The only real difference here is visual capabilties, range of detection of SAMIR is virtualy in the SAME ballpark.

The difference is that with DAS, the F-35 will know about the foe’s presence, not just his inbound missile. That’s a huge difference.

A- the F-35 pilot’s awareness of a foe, would allow him to maneuver to maintain the optimal attitude in relation to the foe. He could then either choose to engage or avoid altogether.

B- the F-35 pilot could fire a HOB LOAL shot prior to the foe engaging, for self defense.

C- the F-35 pilot can use it along with the GMTI in searching for high value

ground targets.

D- the system can be used in WVR if multiple aircraft are involved to keep track of friend/foe

etc….

a MLD/MAWS isn’t even in the same ballpark

Kindly asked you how on hearth can anyone bar AdA/MN/GIE/DGA/Thales have this detail in hand?

The more common radars were listed and reported in AFM BTW but obviously details of the more advanced systems weren’t as for Thales they certainly have enough X-band Active Phased Array Radar experience to provide the Range with some, since this is a dedicated AdA ECMS attack squadron experimental range BTW…

Unless the system was tested against an F-22, F-18E/F, or F-15 w/ APG-63(v)2, then it hasn’t been tested against any AESA LPI radars. MSA and PESA systems don’t count, as they’re much easier to detect.

It goes BOTH ways so it is generaly preferable to have some proper standards and rules to be based upon.

Like the word Cruise: (in relation ro engine wear aircraft performance and Range).

Operational Ceiling: which involves a combination of ALL the above (and IS a compromise anyway).

Optimisation.

Designed Limits.

That’s what makes servicemen, technician and pilots do their job prtoperly.

Schorsch puts it i makes guessing much easier and accurate because one knows how to reduce the margin of error.

Educational, too.

The technicians have access to the real specs, that the public doesn’t have.
It’s a bit daft to think that the real numbers are available in open source documents, and that the plane absolutely cannot exceed them.

The relative maneuverability means squat – how heavy is a S-300 missile? Warhead size and kinetics (raw speed in this case) alter the effectiveness equation as well, not just how maneuverable the missile is. And certainly more maneuverable than any Raptor or PAK-FA.

These missiles are optimized for AWACS/Tankers/ISR, etc…
They aren’t going to be fired at 300-400km against a fighter, as the NEZ against a fighter would be much smaller than the aforementioned aircraft, and secondly, the launch aircraft isn’t going to detect a fighter at 400km.

While I personally doubt also that the KS-172 can be carried by the PAK-FA by some degree, Piotr Butowski seemed to think pretty well that it could be. The bays could well be elongated and possibly have room for 2 of the missiles. The internal pylon setup will be the key engineering challenge.

I seriously doubt you’re going to cram a 24′ missile inside of a fighter that is smaller than the F-22, much less more than one of them. You’d have to carry them externally, and you’d still be limited in how many you could carry.
Were I the Flanker/T-50 pilot, I’d rather go into A2A combat with 8-12 smaller missiles, than just a few large missiles.

The 50KM – 100KM is all speculation, from the radar capabilities to the RCS of the aircraft. The Irbis-E is also of 4th generation, and it really spells the doom of any legacy fighter. The Irbis-AE variants for the T-50 is what you have to worry about. And guess what, Sukhoi engineers aren’t oblivious to the fact that stealthy aircraft are going to be facing the T-50, and so – guess what? They might just be developing radars and EOS systems that will locate stealth much better. I mean, how much more logical can you get? Considering that the project is 10 years younger than the Raptor and 20 years younger than stealth, and the radar is still not even revealed.

When you have one VLO foe fighting another VLO foe, most likely your going to have to be much more reliant on your passive sensors, as you’ll both have greatly minimized detection ranges. The foe with the lower RCS will still have the advantage, when using radar though. As for the Irbis E vs. legacy fighters- having a powerful radar has some advantages, but if the Flanker is emitting, every ESM system within many hundreds of miles will know it’s there, before the Flanker sees them, allowing them to change headings to take advantage of that.

I’ll ignore the fact that you are pulling these numbers for detection ranges out of your posterior, and simply mention the fact that there has been a lot of talk that the T-50 will be able to carry Kh-58Ux size weapons, which means it will carry any R-37M variant and even a K-172 possibly. This means that is can take any “advantage” of these missile you talk about, only at the cost of carrying less, and other friendly aircraft could carry smaller missiles.

Which number are you disputing? The 50km figure? The IRBIS-E can only see .1m^2-.01m^2 targets at 90km, so 50km is probably a very generous figure. What range in a head on engagement do YOU believe that detection will occur for targets in the .001-.0001m^2 targets? F-15s couldn’t detect the F-22, even when the pilots could see the F-22s with their eyes. Do you think a Flanker is going to do significantly better?

From what I’ve heard, the T-50 will be a smaller plane than the F-22, which currently only carries 6 AIM-120s internally with 7 inch diameters and weighing in at 335lb.

How many KS-172s/R-37s can the T-50 carry? I highly doubt the KS-172 is going to be able to fit in the internal weapon bay being over 24 long, and 20 inches in diameter. Additionally it weighs 1,650lbs. At that size you’re not going to be carrying very many of them. The R-37 while being considerably shorter >13feet, it is 15 inches in diameter, and 1,320lbs.

What do you suppose the relative manueverability of these missiles will be compared to the AIM-120 being longer and 5x the weight?

You’re lecturing people on LPIU you dont even comprehend the power issue.

To detect at a decent range you have to emit and no matter how you shape your beams yuou need power to do so, not every source on heart hdoes emit at this sort of frequency and power which makes it that little easier to detect.

The point is that non-LPI radars are using a wide, powerful beam, on a single frequency. LPI uses narrow beams, rapidly changing frequency/power, and very brief target painting, so the RWR/ESM isn’t seeing a consistent and constant EM source. If it were as easy to detect/intercept as you seem to think, it’d be a waste of time and effort to use it.

No it aint detecting is not the problem, intercepting is.

Again- the happy vs. glad debate.

Really let me know what you’ll figure what militarey power means.

Military power is the max power setting without lighting the afterburners. At military power, the F-22 is capable of M1.8+, which means that it could use a much lower throttle setting to cruise at M1.3 or even M1.5. The EF/Rafale on the other hand are in military power to reach M1.3, which means they’re burning fuel at a higher rate than a F-22 below miltary power(unless you think they’re so efficient that there SFC in military power is lower than the F-22 below military power. Even the F-35 can cruise at M.95 at 40% power.)

My word is that of someone who knows what design teams in the west are using as standatd, pitty you keep refusing to learn clean means “aerodynamicaly” clean for designers and aerodynamicist.

Your world is using different definitions of words.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clean+aircraft

-2. An aircraft that does not have external stores.

NO it aint. You got it all wrong for a starter, EVERY EM emission IS detectable, detecting and INTERCEPTING are NOT the same thing.

And SPECTRA is NOT a simple RWR.

We know how it works so does Thales and people who designed RBE2 AESA or RDY/RDY-2.

It got a lot more to do with onboard computing power…

It’s not a matter of airspace devoid of LPI radar emissions also being devoid of any other EM emissions as background noise, where the detection of any emission betrays the location of the emitter. LPI works by appearing as background noise, which RWR/ESM systems filter out. This works because the beams are very narrow, low powered, and the frequencies are hopping >1000/second, and the beams only paint for very brief periods at a time. If a single freq were used, or high power, the ESM would differentiate the signal from background noise, and alert the pilot.

Even 100 km will be good enough.

Except that 100km is very optimistic.

F-22 have much more powerful engines and at equal SFC will naturaly use lot more fuel than a Rafale, it will only supercruise faster.

Faster and longer. The F-22 can always throttle back saving fuel, and still flying faster(it doesn’t have to be in military power to supercruise).

Clean is computed with TWO wingtip AAMS for the reason i explained.

Perhaps in your world. Clean means an aircraft with no external stores of any kind. If you hang one weapon, pod, fuel tank, the plane is no longer clean.

WRONG: Rafale is commonly estimated at 1.m Typhoon 1-.5m…

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Right, back to the dummy SAM operators who are blindly emitting. No no, I think it’s the F-35 that’s emitting and getting painted. What sort of stupid assumptions are these? :rolleyes:

There could be 3 (or any number) of sites, of which 2 or 1 are emitting, or they could be awaiting AWACS information from a hundred kilometers away.

And I wish any aircraft without standoff weapons of 300KM + a LOT of luck getting into a site protected by multiple S-300/400 batteries with short/mid range SAM cover and AWACS / other friendly interceptors on station.

Those S-300/400/Tor M1/etc.. sites are going to be able to detect/track/engage F-22/F-35s at even 100km(probably more like 50km), much less 300km. Even SDBs will be able to engage outside of the SAM launch envelopes, not to mention JSOW/JASSM. A foe would have to have a LOT of SAM batteries to ensure overlapping coverage against VLO targets.
I guarantee you a F-22/F-35 on a SEAD/DEAD mission will be using EMCON, using ESM/IRST/and LPI SAR, along with information/imagery datalinked from other ISR assets.