wrightwingand by the way here is an early Russian two dimensional thrust vectoring system, old in technological terms, but still used in the F-22.
There you go again with the notion that 2D means older technology than 3D, therefore 3D is better. The reason you use TVC at all is with specific goals in mind. LM chose to go with the the 2D design because it achieved the goal they were after, better than a 3D design would have. You also realize that there is old 2D technology, and new 2D technology(and from the looks of that Flanker, that would certainly fall under the former).
wrightwing[B]it can detect an “standard” target (RCS at 3 square meters) 400 kilometers away. Normally, that figure is given for head-on aspect, in tail-on aspect it drops down to 150 km. Stealth targets (RCS at 0.01 square meters) can be detected at 90 km range. Irbis-E is also capable of target identification, and can conduct simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground operations.
The fact that the Irbis can detect 3m2 targets at 400km, and .01m2 at 90km, makes it very formidable against legacy fighters. You’re using the word stealth in a very general sense though(i.e. .01 is stealth, but so is anything smaller than that, and that will affect the detection range), without regard to RCS. Open source figures for the F-35 put it in the .001 range, and the F-22 in the .0001 range, which means that the Irbis will detect them at far less than 90km(more like 15-30km if the Flanker is lucky). How long do you suppose it takes an AIM-120 to cover that distance?:cool:
To put things into more perspective for you- The F-35 will see the Flanker on its DAS/EOTS long before the Irbis can detect it(not to mention its ESM or the Raptor’s ALR-94). The Flanker’s IRST will have a greater detection range than its Irbis against the F-22/35, but then only if they happen to fly into its field of view(and due to their greater situational awareness, they’ll probably choose intercept vectors taking that into account).
wrightwingOK, but the key is: Can the Patriot batteries here provide a reliable protection against a coordinated attack of Iskander? The answer is simply “NO”. May be they can intercept a percentage, i.e. about 50% (being utterly optimistic), but the end result will be absolutely the same. In fact the Russian planners predicted the deployment of Patriot batteries in Poland as the next NATO move but they,… simply don’t care.
In the end, as far as the GBI site starts to grow, its Nemesis, the Iskander deployment in Kaliningrad will also start to grow. Time to recognize this reality (on both sides).
The thing to remember is that the earlier Patriots weren’t designed specifically to engage ballistic missiles. You had different fusing/warheads/software/etc…. designed for proximity kills against fixed/rotary winged aircraft/cruise missiles. The new missiles are hit to kill, and much more accurate against a missile target.
wrightwingHe used official data. There is a nice chart and some nice pictures in the original. You may think what you want, but the laws of physics are the same for any aircraft, even US aircraft.
He also highlights that the US Navy version is much better in subsonic flight, whereas other versions, while still capable, are much like the F-18 in supersonic flight. What’s wrong about that?
Well his T/W numbers for the F-35 are way off, which’ll give very misleading info. Additionally, it didn’t sound like any credence was given to the avionics/VLO, and how they might affect the outcome.
I don’t doubt that the Flanker is a very formidable aircraft, but it is a pretty one sided analysis. I wonder if LM did an analysis, you’d accept it with equal credibility.
Oh God, read my post again.
His point is about foreign customers that may not have access to the latest JSOW or AMRAAM, and may not have AWACS, j-stars and sats…
If a customer is limited to iron bombs, then he has a point. My question is which customer is limited to iron bombs?
wrightwingReading the thread again, I’m not sure we’ve read the same article. Of course the latter is sometimes biased, (to say the least)and not always accurate. But the author makes some good and important points:
1) The manoeuvering capabilities and turn rate of the Lightning is much less than official statements suggest
This being based on all the available data on F-35 maneuvering capabilities right?:rolleyes:
2) Computer modelisation of air-to-air combat F35 vs Su35 showed a close combat rate victory of 5:1 in the Su’s favour
No doubt every capability of the Flanker was taken for granted, and every capability of the F-35 downplayed.
4) Therefore, any country that would purchase the Lightning should think twice about it, because it will certainly lack F-22s for support and also some other crucial capabilities (datalink, infomerge with other sensors, and most importantly, as the author highlights, precision GBUs). The lack of precision guided ammo renders the F-35 a simple stealthy dumb bomber similar the the -117 IN THAT ROLE.
The author did not mention BVR and heavy ECM combat environment.
I do not doubt that the F-35 is a great fighting machine.
The problem is that is suits perfectly USAF doctrines and capabilities, but less so for other countries.
A small payload and relatively weak AA missiles load are another problem.
No precision weapons? JDAMs, JSOW, JASSM, etc…
No sensor fusion? That’s one of the greatest attributes of the F-35
Weak AA load out(min- 4 in stealth mode with a possiblity of 6-8). In non-stealth mode, 10-12.
wrightwingThings are simple folks – Su-35BM with it’s RVV-AEs and Irbis radar is able to shot down enemy’s AAMs … _period_ :diablo: . The datalink onboard helps to share radar data with other planes. ECMs onboard help to fool enemy’s AAMs.
Bottomline – Su-35BM is not so helpless as you may think …. 😉
What’s the Pk against an incoming missile? If you’re a Flanker pilot, are you gonna fly in a carefree manner because incoming missiles aren’t threats?
The ECM and Irbis can help the Flanker, but they can also be beacons.
wrightwingOnce Link 16 is properly integrated and implemented onto the F-22 and of course on the F-35 can the data presented to an individual fighter be enough to launch an AMRAAM with a reasonable level of successfully hitting it’s target?
Because if it can do this then the NATO operated F-35’s and American F-22’s will have yet another advantage over the Russian state of the art. They can integrate multiple sensors into a data fused image onboard that an individual fighter can use to get off a good BVR shot that could theoretically be totally passive.
That capability already exists, and was demonstrated in Alaska, where F-22s were handing off targets to Teen series fighters, and making sure that no bogies were double targetted.
wrightwingFirstly I would like to say that I believe that it is not debatable that a F-35 will detect a Su-35BM at a far longer range than the Su-35BM will see it. It may then choose to either attack or evade at its leisure, giving it a massive advantage in most scenarios of aerial warfare. However I would contend that it would be unwise for it to choose to attack. In a hypothetical environment of Australian F-35s having to penetrate an IADS supported by Su-35BM patrols – an unlikely but nevertheless feasible scenario – the strike-configured Lighting IIs carry two AIM-120D AMRAAMs.
Why would you send an F-35 up to intercept a Flanker in a strike configuration? You’d send it up with an A/A load out(i.e. 4-6+ AAMs)
The kill probability of an AMRAAM has not proved that impressive, meaning an F-35 pilot would likely need to fire both his AMRAAMs in order to ‘guarantee’ a kill (not that I believe this is at all a given).
An AMRAAM fired within its launch envelope and NEZ should have a very good Pk, and the fact that the F-35 will under most every circumstance have the element of surprise, it should be able to get into these parameters before firing.
Moreover, once he has done so he is completely vulnerable to counterattack from any one of a number of sources with no way to defend himself other than attempt to run, which he cannot do because he lacks the required supersonic cruise ability. His stealth will allow him to evade fighter threats beyond a certain point, but if he attempts to use afterburner to ‘bug out’ of the combat zone, he makes himself a given target for any modern form of IRST, of which the Su-35BMs equip an excellent example, which can then both run him down with impunity (and in another advantage has a virtually unsurpassed amount of fuel to burn while doing so) and direct other IADS assets to his location.
All fighters are vulnerable if they’re out of ammo. Hopefully his wingmen aren’t out of ammo too. As for the cruise speed of the F-35- that has yet to be fully determined. While supercruise wasn’t a requirement for the F-35, we simply don’t know yet if it in fact can or not. While it’s true that under WVR conditions, an unarmed F-35 would be in a sticky situation trying to get away,
the smart Lightning pilot would most likely use his stealth to avoid that situation altogether.
I imagine it would be possible for an F-35 to penetrate an IADS and come home, but they would do it through evading threats. Not countering them.
For A/G missions, this is the general idea.
Using them as air dominance units in their current form is a fatally flawed strategy because they simply will not stand a chance if they are ever located in the air. In an air-combat configuration (in which role they lack any other utility, unlike other fighters that can carry a reasonable AAM load in addition to strike weapons) they have the capability to shoot down four enemies
but to assume they will do so is surely not valid. It’s not like you’re going to be assuming a Su-35BM will be able to down 12 F-35s after all, even allowing for the fact the F-35 represents a tougher target in BVR.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
The thing to remember- an AAM’s performance is greatly improved if you fire it within its envelope/NEZ(especially against a target that isn’t violently maneuvering).
The Irbis-E radar and tail engagement radar fitted on the Su-35BM make it almost guaranteed to pick up any attempts to attack it. It is then free to retaliate against the missiles with any one of a number of capabilities at its disposal. If circumstances allow the pilot may attempt to utilise a close-in missile of his own to defend himself; the R-74M and his Irbis-E will allow him to shoot at the incoming missile even while evading it with his unmatchable manoeuvrability (which is of course not as great as that of the missile but nonetheless gives him an advantage in this area in comparison to all opponents).
If you think the F-35 will have difficulty shooting a Flanker with any reliability, what do you think the odds of shooting down an incoming missile with a high Pk?
He will almost certainly use his DRFM jamming pods, and while Russian ECM technology lags significantly behind the West, it has caught up significantly in recent years, especially with the help of technological imports, and represents a formidable barrier to any radar-homing weapon. Lastly he may attempt to decoy the weapon away with flares and chaff. If any of these succeed, the F-35 pilot will have wasted between twenty-five and one-hundred percent of his firepower.
This works both ways with regards to expended weapons, and countermeasures.
If the Sukhoi survives, he (and his wingmates, given the Su-35BM’s relatively modern datalinks) will be alert to the threat and will likely be able to locate it. They have the capability to spot the F-35 in a head-on aspect anywhere within a fifty-kilometre radius thanks to their IRST, and considerably longer in all other aspects.
What’s the field of view for the IRST? The Flanker needs the general location of the F-35, to reliably spot it.
The F-35 will hardly have been firing its AIM-120s from their maximum range of 160km. If he is he is rather foolish. The Sukhoi pilots then have ample warning both of the incoming threat, leaving them plenty of time to countermeasure it as I have outlined, and the fact that an F-35 is operating in their vicinity.
What’s the detection range of an AMRAAM by the Flanker? Certainly not 160km. Additionally, the only info that the Flanker will have is that there’s a F-35 somewhere within AMRAAM range, once the missile is detected. The D model AMRAAM has a 2 way datalink, so it can remain silent, giving the Flanker pilot little warning, till the last moment.
If the F-35 is anywhere within 100km, I would contend he stands a considerable chance of being detected both through the aforementioned IRST or his radar (or other IADS assets, or ESM, though this obviously represents an ‘unfair’ scenario). Debating the latter is rather pointless without any realistic idea of the F-35s stealth and, let’s face it, the Irbis-E’s exact performance either. Not saying I disregard NIIP’s figures, but as with all manufacturer’s claims they can be taken either way. Another important thing to remember would be that by the time F-35s are entering service the Su-35BM platform will almost certainly have matured and the appearance of an AESA radar on the type is almost guaranteed sooner or later. Probably sooner. The AN/APG-81, meanwhile, though unquestionably superior, will be difficult to replace.
IRST is a narrow field of view sensor. If you don’t know the general direction to be looking, it’s not quite as easy as you’re making it sound. The F-35 most likely won’t be doing a lot of emitting to alert ESM systems of its presence. The Su-35 will be entering service around the same time as the F-35, and F-35s will mature too. Why would the APG-81 need to be replaced?
New software updates, more efficient AESA modules, higher power output, etc.. are all achievable without having to go to an entirely different radar.
While its stealth characteristics mean an F-35 that engages first from outside the Su-35BM’s sensor scope means it has a reasonable to good chance of executing a successful getaway, if it does not, then the Su-35BMs are almost guaranteed to catch it then kill it through sheer weight of firepower; they are likely to ripple-fire a mix of seeker types at once, and are free to do so with up to six times the number of missiles on their hull as their opponent. It’s unlikely that they’ll ever carry twelve AAMs at once I agree, mostly because it will hinder their supersonic performance, but in a best-case scenario for the F-35 (carrying 4 AIM-120Ds) he is still certain to face more missiles than he has, and he has no guarantee that he has a reasonable
I refer back to the previous link-
“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. “
So, to conclude, it would seem to me that in order to stand a reasonable chance of shooting down a Su-35BM, an F-35 would have to approach within the Sukhoi’s maximum sensor scope. Once he does so he is massively outgunned by a more manoeuvrable opponent with a vastly better thrust-to-weight ratio, far better kinematic performance, supercruise and more fuel.
I wouldn’t write off the F-35’s handling characteristics quite so soon.
“What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor“, Beesley said. “
As far as T/W ratio-
F-35A(production models will be lighter than AA-1 as well, so these figures will go up)
There’s not a significant advantage in T/W, and the F-35 is flying clean, with out the substantial drag penalties from the external AAMs and pods.
48,000lbs of thrust
44,400lbs loaded weight
1.08:1 with 100% fuel
1.25:1 with 12000lb fuel
1.31:1 with 50% fuel
Su-35
63,800lbs of thrust
56,600lbs loaded weight
1.13:1 with 100% fuel
wrightwingI think you do not understand the realities of total war between major air forces.
The US has less than 120 F-22, Russia and China have made tremendous advances in radar and SAM technology, the F-35 is very limited in its weapons load.
Don’t confuse first day of war stealth profile with a small weapons load. Once the IADS and fixed wing threat has been attritted/destroyed, the F-22 and F-35 can carry external stores.
the reality most mobile systems use a radar grid to detect stealth aircraft, and most airborne radars do detect the F-22, the distance and range of detection will change, most radars will be aware of the F-22 from very few miles away, however the F-22 is detectable.
What the Russians are symply saying is the indetectability of the F-35 is not as it has been advertized.
If the F-22/F-35 are only detectable from a few miles, how effective do you think an air defense network will be?
Stealth technology has two main drawbacks, first it is not perfect due to quantum mechanics and second degrades aerodynamics:
First RAM can not absorb all the radar frequencies, but only a limited band of frequencies besides planforming increases weight and reduces aerodynamic efficiency and still bounces back radar signals that are simply detectable.
RAM treatment also increases weight.
results, well the F-35 even having an excellent engine is no more agile than a F-16; and the F-22 carries too much dead weight and a very limited internal weapons capability, same is for the F-35
The question you have to ask- are the advantages one gains in survivability/element of surprise areas that you’d rather compromise? You also have to ask- has the Raptor appeared to be slow and unmaneuverable due to its compromised aerodynamics? You keep bringing up the internal weapons load as a disadvantage- stealth isn’t required on every mission. Once the major threats have been eliminated, both the F-22/35 can carry external stores. This is a non-issue.
Stealth aircraft in a high sortie rate against an enemy armed with large numbers of fighters, fighters in the class of the J-10, Su-35BM and large amounts of Su-27s or MiG-29s, besides S-400 type SAMs and attacks to the air bases where F-22 and F-35 are based by ballistic missiles, will mean the F-22 will have a serious disdadvantage due to the fact they are outnumbered in missiles and aircraft
The side that has the element of surprise, and is able to get the first strike will have advantages. What if the side with stealth aircraft is the first to attack though? This changes the scenario/outcome considerably.
So theoretically a Fighter like the Su-35BM detecting a less agile F-35 will beat it.
The SU-35BM also uses jammers to reduce detectability
Under what conditions do you think the Flanker will detect the F-35 first? Remember- the F-35 has a pretty elaborate suite of passive sensors(ESM, DAS, EOTS) in addition to its LPI AESA modes, and low RCS/IR signature.
wrightwingYeah man, this stuff is like so foreign to the Russian weapon designers! :rolleyes:
They’re aware of stealth, AESA, etc…, but it’s still several years before any of this technology shows up in a production model Russian aircraft.:D
wrightwingI did not know that LM has managed to develop “Stealth Radars”… since apparently they can detect SU35 BVR and fire off shots while poor old SU has not clue Raptor/Lighting are there… :rolleyes:
Only thing worse than Russians with head up their **** (author of the article which is total crock) .. are Westerners with head up their **** accusing russians of having head up their ****. :diablo:
It’s called LPI or low probability of intercept. You might want to do a little reading about it.:rolleyes:
wrightwingThe moment the F-35 fires its AIM-120 that close, it’s going to get shot out of the sky right back with either an R-27TE or R-77M.
At that point, you may as well say the F-35 losses, since the Flanker’s 3D TVC would give it evasive advantages.
Remember the ECM talk from that USAF rep after the latest Red Flag?
Because the AIM-120 wouldn’t have to go active if it’s using it’s 2 way datalink, or HOJ, so the Flanker wouldn’t have much reaction time. Notice I said the Flanker was in the NEZ, which means there’s not a lot the pilot’s gonna do anyhow. It wouldn’t necessarily be close either(especially with the C7/D models).
Red Flag represents worst case scenarios for weapon systems, so that pilots get training value. If their weapons/sensors etc.. had a 100% effectiveness, the plane with the longest range missiles/radar would always win.
wrightwingwrightwing, i bet a formation of a flanker at 15000 mts and other at 5000 mts of altitide can detect an F-22 at 300 km of distance, in a game of 1 vs 1 the 22 will win, but on a game of 5 vs 5 with 5 Irbis, im sure their stealthness is useless , but is ok, time will tell.
Your “source” never claimed the frequency, you know?, the difference between the radar propagation of an 10 Ghz and 20 GHz is huge. other that is another nice claim without any support
It won’t matter what elevations the Flankers are flying at, if they’re all at the frontal aspect of the Raptor, and it’s doubtful if the Flankers will be flying higher than the Raptor.
300km? :rolleyes:
You do realize that not only is the signal deflected away from the source, but at greatly reduced strength over that of a conventional aircraft’s return.
Fire control radars are X band. One could deduce that this might be a frequency you’d want to be stealthy in. I would surmise that the smart guys and gals at LM, and the USAF have spent some time thinking about this stuff.
wrightwingThere are some things we must consider as strong points that the su-35 will have over their foes;
1-3D TVC, which means high mobility at altitude (a great help for BVR tactics), no gentlemen it has nothing to do with post stall pirouettes or air shows.
2-The agile antenna of the Irbis, meaning it can point over the target at a safe direction, im sure the Irbis means a lot for pasive tactics, remember the RCS is not absorved, it just goes to another place
3-The very-long range missiles, treating AWACS.
1- does nothing to help detect low RCS target sooner
2- an agile antenna does nothing for detecting returns that aren’t headed in the direction of the antenna. It only means that it has a fast scan rate for azimuth and elevation.
3- if the Flanker is shot down prior to launching those missiles, how does this factor in to your scenario?
overoptimist claim..
This is based upon what?
At K band perhaps? 😉
I’m not sure about K band, but X band for sure.
Still remains to see which will be the operative ceiling of the su/F-35, something which will have a lot of influence on the performance, even the electronic one, as far it seems the IRST on the f-35 seems more optimiced for ground combat than for aerial one.
Nothing I’ve seen would lead me to believe that the EOTS/DAS is optimized solely for A/G. It is touted by the USAF/LM as one of the important features in A/A, along with the AESA, and ESM systems.
wrightwingSounds like more fan boy whining.
What no one has considered here is the use of ECM, which clearly helps the Sukhoi a lot more.
Does the Flanker fly around with its ECM emitting at all times? What is the real world performance of its ECM? What is the chance that HOJ mode might be used if the answer to the first question is yes(or even an AIM-9X when the F-35 is within range)? My assertion is that the Flanker won’t be running its ECM at all times, as that’ll give its position away to ESM, just like it’s Irbis will set off any RWR/ESM. The F-35 will be within the AIM-120’s NEZ by the time the Flanker knows it needs to jam/evade, if we’re doing a 1 vs. 1 comparison.
Sign In
