wrightwingthe mistake is thinking the pak-fa will actually be a flying device. I say the PAK-FA will be Sukhois break into the sex toy market — the worlds stealthiest vibrating sex toy. You need 14,500kg of thrust to power the strap on version hence the new engine.
It’s important to take the thrust, weight, and drag into account in this field too.:cool:
wrightwingSu-27SM is continous upgrade untill 2020. So expect 200 to 300 modernized and 80 to 100 new flankers in addition to Su-34. Sukhoi is said that IRBIS is the most capable radar in the world in export version. I am expecting Su-27SM2 to outperform it.
what is information targetting system for?
So are you pulling that figure of 80-100 Su-35s out of thin air, or is there a link showing that to be the case? If the IRBIS is the most capable, why isn’t the PAK FA going to use it, rather than the AESA system? I wouldn’t expect Sukhoi to advertise to potential customers that the IRBIS is the 3rd best radar in the world, in terms of getting sales. Of course they’re gonna say it’s the best.
It isnt a problem when Russian clearly said they can shoot donw stealth vehicles. Where did they said Stealth is a problem? show me a single statement than i will show u tons of statement of stealth not a problem. including MIG-35 new IRST.
You’re using the term stealth in a monolithic fashion. What size RCS(and what range) is the target that’s being described, when the assertion that they can shoot it down ?
Stealth is a relative term(i.e. 1m2 is stealthier than 5m2, .01m2 is stealthier than .1m2, etc….
When you’re talking about a systems capabilities or effectiveness, you need to be specific in terms of the target you’re referring to. If the IRBIS can detect a .1m2-.01m2 target at 90km, that means its detection range for a .001m2, .0001m2, .00001m2 targets at significantly shorter ranges. On the flip side, if the IRBIS is operating at peak power, it’s gonna be detectable at well over 400km. A Flanker’s best chance would be remaining passive(using it’s IRST when close enough), and relying on external info to vector it in on an angle that’s outside the scan of the Raptor’s radar. The problem though is that you have to have a pretty good idea where to look in the first place, and be within range of the IRST.
wrightwingProvided that F-22 can even get off from the ground on time. F-22 has limited range and limited quantity. where it is parked satellites and AWACS on ground will be looking for it and than Su-35 will unleash its long range air to ground weopons. Su-35 is equiped with sophisticated missile warning and jamming counter measures systems both internal and external. There is alot of flexibility in airframe.
The F-22 would be at a disadvantage on the ground, so I’ll concede that point. As for limited quantities- how many Su-35s are there currently in service?:cool:
What is the actual range of the F-22, or do you feel that all of the open source info is the true extent of the capabilities(seeing as how you like to use that excuse w/ regards to Russian aircraft). The Su-35 doesn’t have anything comparable to the ALR-94(or the APG-77 for that matter).
S-400 is 90s era product when Stealth is perfectly understood. and Soviets were working on materials since 80s. Most of missile ranges and capabilities are for export products. so dont assume 300 to 400 km S-400 as reliable figure.
Just because stealth is understood, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a problem. It just means that you understand why you can’t see targets until they are very close. As for those ranges, why should I assume a significantly different figure? What countries has Russia exported S-400s to? Why would export info be given, if it’s not being exported? Please provide a link that shows export missiles/radar = 1/2 range of Russian models, since you love to throw that assertion around.
It took 30 years for Greesnpan to admit his beliefs were wrong. I doubt LM is going to do that publicly otherwise money line will be close down. They are simply not capable to predict future. they didnot have idea of nano-technologies untill late 90s.
In your own words, can you explain to me what you think the term nanotechnology means.
Speaking of LM, and their ability to predict nanotechnology-
http://www.examiner.com/a-185531~Lockheed_to_build__revolutionary__nano_aircraft.html
wrightwingWould you accept the above mis-quote is as valid as the comment re sams?
It seems that there a large number of people who dearly wish to believe that their favourite (delete as appropriate) aircraft / system / teddy bear is the best in all circumstances, this is just not reality. All systems have their strengths and weaknesses and anybody likely to be opposing them will be working very hard to find and exploit the weaknesses, just as the users will be looking to exploit the strengths. If you truely believe that an aircraft will “always” be able to defeat any defense system, as certain people here are saying, you are delusional or have simply been sucking up too much propaganda, similarly no air defense sam system will ever provide full impenetrable coverage. Real life is not a movie, things go wrong, un-predicted events happen, variables change, the god of humongous **** ups wakes up and decides to play etc.
The discussion taking place here is being conducted in a sterile enviroment where both sides are making the (wrong) assumption that everything is on line and all conditions perfect for their particular wet dream.
No piece of equipment, including the F-22 is 100% effective in every conceivable scenario. I do believe that the F-22 will have the advantage most of the time(against current technology and that which is predicted) though, if gross blunders aren’t made by the pilot/mission planners.
wrightwingWhile Russia is standing solid on its diverse economy, middle class people and world-known companies …
… or to be more honest, have nothing except for oil and arms.Price awarded for someone who can point out one Russian export product except for oil and arms, or one Russian company known outside Russia that is not directly connected with either product.
Well they do manufacture tubes for guitar amplifiers as well as weapons, and oil, so that’s pretty diverse.:D
wrightwingIt is quite easy to find stealth aircraft. You just need to have the processing power to find the place in the sky which have no radar return at all. 😀
Or you can build a giant biosphere, covering the entire country, so that any aircraft trying to enter your airspace crashes into it. You can then find them by looking for explosions.:cool:
wrightwingThe idea is that low-freq or bistatic ground radars will guide interceptor-fighters (Su35) with aesa antennas.
The key element is not the AESA, or Low-frequency, as neither can beat the laws of nature. The key element is heavy DSP by powerful computing power, that will be able to screen out stealth targets deep covered by noise.
The Su-35 will be detected by the F-22 first though, because of the Flanker’s RCS(and even quicker if they’re emitting anything that’s not LPI). Even AESA has limited range vs. a conventional aircraft though, so the Flanker would have to get pretty close.
If I was LM I woudnt disclose it. Not that a bright electronic engineer cannot figure out the actual info this photo contains, but it gives an excellent graphical assistance, to any tactician that will be called to counter the F-22.
I understand what you’re saying. My point was that the imagery is probably not a very accurate representation of any true capability/vulnerability(i.e. very vanilla in its depiction, and significantly underrepresentative of the true capabilities).
wrightwingThe greatest global financial tsunami since 1929 may offer an excellent-than-ever chance for SAAB to export GRIPEN, since many foreign airforces shall have to take new fighter’s price and operational cost into consideration at first right now.
Well done, Wall Street and Little Bush government…….:D
You might want to add Barney Franks, Christopher Dodd, Maxine Waters, etc… to that list, as they’re far more culpable than Bush.
wrightwingOn the other hand, there will be special antistealth radars either low frequency, passive-bistatic, or AESA systems, heavily supported by “digital signal processing” that WILL be able to pick stealth targets out of heavy noise.
_________________
BTW how did a photo like this be disclosed??
Low freq radars might be able to detect that a stealth aircraft is in the area, but it doesn’t provide accurate enough info to track a stealth aircraft, much less guide a weapon. They might be able to set up some kind of trap, if the F-22/35 is behaving predictably, where they can alert SAM sites, which might be able to passively detect them before turning their radars on. In any event, it’s going to be a much more difficult task for the SAM operator, to engage Raptors/Lightnings.
I’m guessing that the imagery in that photo isn’t classified(i.e. isn’t showing specific capabilities/vulnerabilities.)
wrightwingIt’s not just Nam, man. It’s about all weapons. What was the efficiency of Paveway IIs in Desert Storm? Something like below 30%? Do you think Paveway II achieved 30% in tests before it was cleared for use? 😎
Every weapon when tested brings up to 80-90% reliability. It’s almost boring how everyone fits the same figure. They have been claiming 80-90% since fifties already !!!
I mean, it is logical.. 100% would look too suspicious, 60% or less would mean no clearance. So they set the test conditions to chieve 80-90%, record the results, make a nice press conference and everybody is happy. Do you think anybody really cares about what the real figures are?
Laser(or IR/EO/TV) guided weapons are reliant on environmental conditions as well as the proper functioning of their systems. If the environment interferes, the weapon could miss, even though it was functioning flawlessly. The more important stat on modern weapons would be how well do GPS weapons(with inertial backup, etc..) perform. Pilot error is another consideration. If a weapon A2G or A2A, is launched outside of its envelope, it’ll likely fail too, even though the weapon performed the way it was supposed to.
wrightwingSole S-300 system can simultaneusly destroy much more than a single F-22 carries and these are pint size bombs anyway.
A single Pantsyir system can engage upto 12 missiles in 60 second time.
http://kr.blog.yahoo.com/shinecommerce/14227.html?p=1&t=3
Number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged: 4
Maximum number of targets engagement rate: 12 per minute
Crew: 1 – 2 operators for the air defense system and 1 driver
Reaction time: 2 seconds (form target acquisition to firing first missile
A 250lb bomb traveling > M1 is more than enough to take out any SAM system. It only takes one bomb getting through to overturn your apple cart.
No SAM is 100% effective in every conceivable scenario. How long does it take to reload(and how many reloads are on hand)?
wrightwingNo. There is nothing like series of tiny spots. A typical radar site might detect an approaching Raptor at fairly close distance due to Raptor’s optimized head-on RCS. But the same site will see a Raptor at less than optimal angle from far greater distance.
If you got an F-22 in the middle of densely radar covered area, there always will be several sites seeing the bird at fairly reasonable distance. If the sites are datalinked then your aircraft can expect incoming missiles from all sides, even from those which according to Raptor pilot’s bubbles of safety diagramme should not be seein anything..
When I think of it, I believe that in a scenario sole F-22 against sole S-300PMU site, the F-22 has very good chances to win. But over an area with dozens of S-300/S-400s, Pantsirs, Anteis or Buk-Ms connected in an integrated defense network it might not last that long.
The Raptor doesn’t have conventional RCS when viewed from other than head on, so that’s where your scenario breaks down. It’s designed to be VLO from all aspects(with it’s frontal aspect having the lowest RCS).
wrightwingSurely every thing is the same.S-400 destroy everything so it means this person is oblivous to any thing made of stealth.
The S-400 will have long range capabilities against conventional aircraft. That’s why stealth aircraft were developed, to counter improved air defenses.
Sukhoi and Ruaf will put there own definitions what is relevant for 5+ just like they have for 4, 4+ and 4++. and it will depend on time frame. some thing 5th generation in 1990s is not the 5th generation of 21st century. so PAK-FA and MIG-1.44 are 5th generation but not the same capabilities. there is no fix target for 5th generation. Just like 4th generation era spread over 3 decades.
If they’re gonna be using a different definition than the rest of the world, then it’ll only be applicable when THEY are comparing various Russian aircraft with one another. If there’s not one standard, then it’s the equivalent of telling your girlfriend that 4″ is really 8″.:D
wrightwing:confused:From exactly which stealth aircraft types are these fired? :confused:
The F-35. The F-22 would use GBU-39/40, with about an 80+ mile range.
wrightwingUr making statements without factual basis. F-35 is much more expensive than F-22 at this point of development. i dont know how so many are going to built. how do u know about high frequency radars in other countries which is classified information.
High frequency radars work the same way, no matter who builds them. They send out radio waves in certain bandwidths(i.e. X Band) and these radio waves behave the same way no matter what the national origin happens to be. Stealth works the same way- by absorbing or scattering the energy away from the source, so that there’s little to no return. Fire control radars need a certain resolution to detect, track, and guide weapons. Without a strong enough return, the radar won’t be able to do these things, and that’s the gist of stealth. In a nutshell, it means a VLO aircraft can get very close to an emitter, before a signal can be detected. So long as the VLO aircraft stays outside of that range, they’re gonna have first look, first shoot, first kill advantages.
Su-34 is fifth generation aviation complex but it is neither stealth nor supercruise. u cannot impose definitions.
5th Gen refers to specific capabilities that previous generations didn’t have. Some 4th Gen aircraft may have some 5th Gen systems(i.e. Super Hornet, etc..) but they’re still 4th Gen platforms. If you use a different definition, then the definition loses meaning, because then it can mean anything. Definitions can’t be subjective, where opinions come into play, as everyone has different opinions. It would be akin to you and I arguing over how long 1 meter is, or whether an hour = 60 minutes.
Sign In
