wrightwingFirst, you are talking about a direct hit which is wrong because the missile just needs to get within the lethal blast radius, it does not need to hit the target at all. Second, you assume that the pilot is able to calculate the exact dodge maneuver. I can assure you he can’t. With a Python or AIM-9X on his tail, every average fighhter jock would be pi$$in in his pants of fear rather than play cold-blooded Bond. 3. Third, the missile does not follow the exact path of the aircraft, this has already been explained to death here.
Say what you want, I stick to pilot’s opinions here.
+1
Very well put!
wrightwingMAWS react to ultraviolet spectrum, meaning a burning engine, and would thus react the moment the missile ignite.
If the missile is fired at the range of 80 km and has an average speed of Mach 4, the pilot will have around a minute to position himself, (which should be plenty for any warplane except P-3 Orion and the like) assuming he doesnt fly towards or away from the missile.
The other guy however, can not assume he will be staying at the same spot, because perhaps he was flying towards the missile the last few sec ? and the missile went active after the intercept point.
So the seeker will have to go active in good time for this reason, in addition to the reasons pointed out by crobato.
Did you mean the IR spectrum(i.e. detecting the heat)?
Do you have a source for the 80km detection range? It’s difficult to detect an airplane at that distance with engines constantly running, much less a small missile with a relatively short burn time. These are just a couple things off the top of my head that I’m skeptical about.
wrightwingSeems strange the USN are going to be using the F/A-18G Growler. The F-35 with it’s stealth, would make an awesome SEAD aircraft.
Maybe the workload for a single crew member is too high.
Even the F/A-18E/F seems like a huge wasit of time, the F/A-18C/D (and maybe the F-14A/A+/B/D) could of served on until deployment of the F-35 I would of thought. Yet the USN is maybe going to order more F/A-18E/Fs.
Looking at the specs, the only advantage the F/A-18 has over the F-35 is aerial refueling.
Am I missing something..
A- there’s no way a single crew member could effectively fly, and operate all of the EW systems.
B- the need for EW is right now. The Navy can’t wait till 2014-17.
C- As soon as you started hanging all of the jamming pods on the F-35, it’d defeat the purpose of being VLO.
D- The SH/Growlers can buddy tank, and carry HARMs
As for the Super Hornet-
The Super Hornet offers far more capability over the C/D models, in terms of range, payload, avionics, and without A-6s or F-14s for longer range strike missions/Fleet Defense, there’d be a serious gap in capability waiting for the F-35Cs. The C/Ds have a lot of hours on them too, which is another big consideration.
wrightwingThe M1’s design is of 1970’s origin. Do you really know what you sound like? These things are all hunks of metal, the only thing that really matters is the electronic subsystems. Give the F-22 the electronics of a MiG-15 and it wont matter how stealthy it is. The T-90M of today is certainly better than the un-upgraded M1A1’s of Gulf War 1 vintage.
The Indians have shown an Argun turret on a T-90 chasis. Someone clearly feels the big problem with Argun is an underpowered, unreliable drive train.
How does the armor protection, main gun firepower, and mobility of the T-90 compare to the M1A1?
wrightwingDoes the USAF have an equiv missile to the ASRAAM on the F-15? And is the full capabilty of that missile now exploited on the F3?
I understand the ADV has ‘carefree’ handling, does this mean that the pilot can try and do what he intends, and let the aircraft ‘try’ to match the control inputs?
The radar in the in service Su-27 can track 10 targets, and engage 1 – is that correct? The ADV has ‘multiple engagement’, what does this mean? Does it mean the Su-27 has to destroy it’s tragets 1 at time? And the ADV can launch 2 AMRAAMs for instance, and the radar will guide both missiles ‘at once’?
What does the pilot or WSO see on his screen when looking at a target – say if you were to intercept a blackjack 50 miles away, what would it look like? Does anybody have a screen shot?
Basic questions I know, thanks
As for the F-15, the closest equivalent would be the AIM-9X.
The ADV does have multi target tracking, and with active missiles(i.e. AMRAAM) should be able to conduct multi target engagements or ripple firing against a single target.
I have no idea what the Blackjack would look like on the WSO’s screen.
wrightwingI just realized that an R-77 or AMRAAM will use their radar in terminal phase, so the RWR on the aircraft will pick up and distance and time can be accurately measured.
The MAWS would alert a missile is fired from a certain direction, giving the pilot time to turn away, then when the missile goes active in terminal phase, the pilot will have accurate updates on time, distance, and speed.
The aircraft computer will have the same info, and can easily calculate and inform the pilot how many G he need to pull, and when he should start the maneuver.
In all it’s no biggie for an agile fighter with a modern MAWS + RWR and a computer to dodge.
The question though is at what range the MAWS detects an incoming missile, and what range the missile goes active? With data links, the missile doesn’t need to go active until the last possible moment. At Mach 4+, that doesn’t give a pilot a long time to react.
wrightwingYou have got to agree, the Tornado ADV is an awesome looking aircraft, especially from underneath.
Why was the Tornado ADV developed? Israel and Japan both used F-15s to replace F-4s, why didn’t the RAF do the same? Was it because of tanker support? Also why does the F-15 only require 1 crew member, but the Tornado ADV needs two – don’t they both do the same job, and I would of thought the ADV avionics to be equal to the F-15MSIP.
How good a ‘dogfighter’ would a Tornado ADV be with ASRAAM – would it have any chance at all if it got close in with a Mig-29 for example?
Personally I prefer the Tornado ADV to the F-15 – it has always been the underdog in the interception role, but I think they are more capable than people seem to think.
Kind Regards,
The ADV wouldn’t want to do WVR with a Fulcrum/Flanker. Its strengths are in BVR.
wrightwingAnd then where im suggesting is not the same for the russian ones? all this is about the BVR superiority tale, that everybody love to believe, thinking about just the missiles and forgetting about the platforms, thinking that maneuverability is obsolete, just because their beloved aircraft are just not ahead in that field
High agility planes are still a priority for air combat, the dirty close combat has not “gone since the 90’s” -unless you have numbers, a lot, or your foes dont use decent RWR or radars- , dumb over-optimistic and simpleton statement
I was just pointing out that Russian aircraft and weapons have to deal with the same laws of physics, and this discussion seemed somewhat one sided.
wrightwingOk…lets dont start with the “riccioni hate my craptor” thing, that guy was one of the responsble to create the most successful plane in the USAF (the f-16)
Dont increse the g limit of the AMRAAM, that missile can hold only 25 gs, i dont know about new versions , maybe 30 gs on them…the Mica is the missile that can hold 50 gs
Speed aproaching is important, you can reduce the incoming velocity to say M2.5 instead M3.5 and increase the probablitity against a very maneuverable aircraft
Of course , to repeat the same sh!t that is said in the fan books give you a respectable position, when ppl talk about physics, is obvious that you are falling in a low level discussion..call that guy whatever you want, freaking moron, ignorant, etc.., but he is supported by physics, instead all you guys are supported by your merchandising…
That is why the russians have not left the tail radar concept, with that you can actually increase the probability of evation even further
Over optimistic BS, but great for a salesman..:D
I suppose Russian missiles don’t suffer from these limitations though.:rolleyes:
wrightwingWell, if the F-35 has minimum of six internal AAM’. It wouldn’t likely be a problem……….:o
Which is why I said to the other posters, the only thing the F-35 needs is max utilization of internal carriage of AAMs, as opposed to the suggestions that had been made about-
TVC
Different wings
Different inlets
Different canopy
Different nose
wrightwingBy Dave Majumdar, Special to LiveScience.com
posted: 07 November 2008 04:05 pm ET
Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program
In a pure stealth air to air configuration, the F-35 currently carries four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally in its weapons bays, Davis said. While this configuration gives the jet a significant punch, Davis said studies have been undertaken that would increase the stealth air to air war load to six to possibly as many as eight air to air missiles which would be carried internally. The jet can also carry air to air missiles externally should the need arise and stealth is no longer a concern, Davis said.
I don’t think you’re getting my point.
From my post #31
“Max internal carriage options for AAMs would be the only thing that would be pressing, when used in this role.”
We’re in agreement, so I’m not understanding your response.
wrightwingWell, you would have to be looking in that exact narrow part of the sky for it to be effective. Further, it would be for a very brief period of time…….
Question: If, you are at BVR how would you be able to see it with the naked eye????:confused:
Perhaps not in daylight hours. Afterburner flames tend to attract attention against the backdrop of the night’s sky though(and you could see that from a long way, depending upon your aspect in relation to the F-35. You’re also gonna be a bigger target for IR sensors, if they’re looking in your general direction.
wrightwingIf, the F-35 can indeed fly just above Mach 1 at Military Power. (which more and more people speculate that it can) Why couldn’t it just engage its afterburner for a short period to get up to say Mach 1.3 – 1.5 to fire its AMRAAM’s. As this would give it a similar Kinetic Energy as the F-22 during super cruise!
Let’s not forget the F-35 has a more fuel than just about any fighter currently flying……..
The problem with doing that is that you’d give up the element of surprise(BVR) as soon as you used afterburners(you’d be far more visible to IR sensors, as well as the naked eye).
wrightwingIf, the F-35 can indeed fly just above Mach 1 at Military Power. (which more and more people speculate that it can) Why couldn’t it just engage its afterburner for a short period to get up to say Mach 1.3 – 1.5 to fire its AMRAAM’s. As this would give it a similar Kinetic Energy as the F-22 during super cruise!
Let’s not forget the F-35 has a more fuel than just about any fighter currently flying……..
My point is that in the air superiority/dominance role, the only thing I’d like to see is the 6-8 AAM internal load out vs. what others were saying needed to be done.
wrightwingwell from all the reports and posts ive been reading on this site and many many others it doesnt. So that is why i went to the trouble of bringing this discussion up
The F-35 will be the air superiority fighter in many nation’s air forces. It is designed from the outset to have very capable A/A capabilities. Max internal carriage options for AAMs would be the only thing that would be pressing, when used in this role.
Sign In
