wrightwingI was stating the obvious. Not everything requires ‘sources’. If you think that the F 22 will stay invisible for ever then you’re the bigger fool. :rolleyes:
Stealth is not = invisible. What it does mean is that a given radar has much less detection range. It also means that in order for an IADS to be effective against stealthy aircraft/missiles, there have to be far more radars to ensure they have overlapping coverage. What does remain constant is that a fire control radar needs a certain amount of resolution to achieve a lock/firing solution. Certain bands work well for this. These bands happen to be more susceptible to stealth shapes/RAM, than other bands. Those other bands can’t guide weapons, or give precise info though. Now add electronic warfare/electronic attack/decoys/etc.. in support of stealthy aircraft and missiles, and that makes the radar noise threshold that much harder for a SAM crew, or interceptor.
wrightwingThe F135 has an enlarged diameter to increase thrust/bpr so it doesn’t fit.
It’s not optimised for supercruising like the F-119 though
I would think the APG-81 radar is more advanced than the much older APG-77.
It’s newer in design, but then the APG-65/66 were newer than the -63, but I don’t think you can argue that they’re better. The -81 has more A/G modes, but for A/A the -77 is gonna be the better choice. Newer model -77s will benefit from the -81’s technology(i.e. the APG-77(v)1).
wrightwingIn an entirely clean configuration, why not? There’s almost no clutter on the airframe whatsoever, and if widely RAM-treated it’s not utterly infeasible. By the time you start hanging missiles off it then you’re going to have a far larger signature but given the extensive work carried out in both the RAM and airframe (yes, they specifically modified the airframe to reduce RCS as well) areas an end result of 1-2m^2 is not unrealistic. Especially as I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone come up with any actual figures for the RCS of Flanker variants other than variations on ‘it’s huge’.
RAM can lower RCS no doubt, but the overall shape of the Flanker hasn’t changed much(i.e. it’s not a very stealthy shape). I doubt very seriously if it’s been reduced to 1m2(or 2m2 w/ weapons hanging off of it).
wrightwingI agree with your assessment – I’m fairly confident the EF will knock the socks off the SH in BVR. A lot of factors are important – it is up to you as the analyst to sift through what is marketing PR and what is actually operationally available and relevant.
The EF – with its higher cruise speed – supersonic acceleration – supersonic agility – vs. an F/A-18 using the same BVRAAMs will have a significant missile energy advantage. What this translates to is:
AESA radars used on a VLO platform are fantastic – they give the best LPI characteristics. But on a non-VLO platform there limitations are exposed… Thats why Selex claim there is no current AESA radar that outperforms the Captor – range wise except perhaps the latest APG-63v3 and the APG-77v1. Their range shrinks on the edge of their gimbal – the exact position which is crucial to BVR… especially if outnumbered or if your not supported by AWACs. A lot of the so called EA modes – are future promises of AESA and are by no means operational currently. The USAF says it intends to pursue the EA modes when the F-35 is in the inventory.
What about when SHs are datalinked, and have E-2C/D support?
Which variant of the AIM-120 do Typhoons currently have(the C5?) If the SH has the C7/D, and the Typhoon doesn’t(or the Meteor for that matter), that’ll offset the kinematic advantages. Once the Typhoons have more mature avionics/weapons, it’ll be a different story, but the SHs have better kit in current configuration.
wrightwingWhy on earth would any airforce in there right mind want to buy a non VLO jet when the F-35 is available, and dont give some tripe about Eurofighter is stealthy as I have seen people try before, its not.
Of course your assumption is that the F-35 isn’t a good fighter. The Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35 are also multi-role aircraft. Are they bad fighters too?
wrightwingAgree AMRAAM has been very effective.
But the way i see it, None of the aircraft had the hardware and software needed to calculate time to impact. (or even a modern MAWS to even know they are under attack)
So those pilots, if they at all knew something was wrong, was tasked with
looking over the shoulder trying to keep visual contact while at the same time trying to estimate time to impact and then are being tasked at flying with a certain speed, turn, and g, without even looking at the instruments since they had to keep track on the incoming missile.
And that was the best case scenario if they were lucky to be flying away from the missile without an early warning.What i am suggesting is that today, there is hardware and software for both initial early warning of missile launch, and to calculate time to impact in terminal phase, AND calculate what turn and how many g are required.
From what i have read, all models have about the same speed and g limit, and would thus have the same limitations in engaging a target that turn over 2.5 g at Mach 1. I think the longer range is good tho
Yes, but without accurate and relevant info presented in a very easy way at the right time, well….
The AIM-120 was designed from the very start to engage aggressively maneuvering targets(i.e. Fulcrums/Flankers/etc…), in a high ECM environment. I’m just going to assume that Raytheon designed the missile to be able to engage targets pulling more than 2.5gs, seeing as how the threat aircraft are 9g aircraft. The speed of the missile depends on the burn time, and launch speed, which is why it’s listed at Mach 4+. The later model C/D variants have more energy in the terminal phase, than the A/B models, due to larger motors/more stored energy.
wrightwingWhen you already have a missile coming at you, it can be safely assumed that you have been detected already, and radio silence is obsolete, you will probably also turn on your jammer at high volume at this moment, as well as light up the area with as many flares you can crank out.
That is a tactic, but if the missile has HOJ/ARM capabilities, that will assist it in successfully engaging an aircraft.
wrightwingNo, i dont assume the pilot is able to calculate the exact dodge maneuver.
I assume the computer to do it, if it has the software for it.
Thats why i kept asking around if MAWS had a way to judge distance, until i realized it was RWR that was going to provide that info.
The pilot would, with the appropriate software, be told when to initiate maneuver.
Agree every pilot has a reason to **** in his pants with a Python or AIM-9X on his tail.
I however, was talking about AMRAAM with a speed of Mach 4 and max g of 30, i hope you understand the difference.
Even AIM-120As have had a good degree of success under real world circumstances, and the C/D models are far more effective. Granted they weren’t dealing with sophisticated jammers, but the targets certainly weren’t being cooperative.
wrightwinghttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA427399&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
-Detection range of up to 10,000 m in front aspect ahead of the flying carrier
-Remark: In open literature, between 60 % and 80 % of all losses of military aircraft in combat missions since the 1960s are attributed to short-range surface-to-air missiles. This type of surface-to-air missiles and also air-to-air missiles cover considerable distances between missile motor burnout and maximum range. This means that a next-generation missile warner requires the ability to track burnt-out missiles, so-called post-burnout tracking. UV-missile warning systems are not able to even detect this part of a incoming(engaging) missile.
wrightwingNo i meant ultraviolet spectrum, it has severalfold longer detection range vs infrared due to inherent difficulties in IR spectrum to penetrate the atmosphere, particulary in bad weather. The downside is that it can’t be used as DAS (looking at the ground through the floor of the aircraft etc)
Otherwise everyone would have DAS already.
http://www.avitronics.co.za/Airborne/missile.htm
I didn’t see anything about an 80km detection range though.
wrightwingIndeed, is the same tale of “stealthy mode” turn on/off…LPI is a tale, radar is energy, energy can be measured, in concept the only LPI radar mode should be a very very very very low frequency radar, because the very low energy quanta levels…the other LPI stuff is just merchandising rubbish
Nice myth, everything has their limits , everything has it balance, going to total pasive tactics you will lose initiative, and who gets initiative is attacking
The Raptor’s LPI has worked well against legacy aircraft during ACM. Energy can be measured, but unless you want your RWR going off all of the time, there are thresholds that it’s set at. It’s just like using a radar detector in a car, that does off when you drive by a grocery store, etc….
When you combine low thresholds, with rapid changes in frequencies, and very narrow beams, it makes it much harder to pick this out from background noise.
wrightwingSo what?, i dont get where is the fear of the tail radars, you can even turn on only when you are painted by other plane radars...i dont get where is the big fuss about it
I dont know, India and Russia re using it?,another radar means more weight, most of the other airframes are lighter than the su-27 and does not afford more room specially for such improvement
That only works against non-LPI radar modes. A tail radar gives a missile something to home in on, for a passive attack. The less active emitting the better.
wrightwing1-Lethal radius is not so huge to dimish the effech of the distance difference at these speeds
2-I agree that on close combat would be hard, but on BVR sems not so difficult, remember the article is about BVR combat, seems is not so focused on dogfights, either way, the tail radar is a important factor here
3-I does not follow the exact path, but close
The question will always be, how much warning does a pilot have, and was the missile launched well within its NEZ? Obviously the more warning, the better the likelihood of survival.
wrightwingWould it make sense for a country like Canada/Austrailia or Finland to operate a mixed force of F/A-18EFs and F-35A/Cs?
Well Australia will be doing that. It’s a matter of budgets though(nice to have vs. need to have).
wrightwingI know the RAF Typhoon will use ALARM in the SEAD role and take the over the role of the Tornado. Maybe the ALARM will be used on the F-35 also in the RAF, and also I presume the F-16CJ/DJ will be replaced by the F-35A.
Just thought as the F-35 would replace all Navy combat jets, as the F/A-18 replaced A-7/A-4/F-14.
To use the F/A-18E/F alongside the F-35 seems like having two combat aircraft that perform the same roles, except one has more stealth. The range and payload of the 2 aircraft seems very similar – so the F-35 will effectively replace the F/A-18C/D and the F/A-18E/F/G the S-3/F-14/EA-6B.
Funny how the USN seems to be purchasing more 2 seat F/A-18F than F/A-18Es, when industry seems to pushing the idea of UCAVs.
The F-35 was never going to replace all the combat aircraft types. It was always meant to be used in a hi/lo mix, like the F-14/F-18. The F-35C will give CBGs the ability to take out high threat targets, so less/non-stealthy aircraft can continue with their missions. Not every mission requires a VLO airframe, so the Super Hornet works out very well when carrying a lot of external ordinance isn’t an issue.
Sign In
