But it hasnt reached on Stealth figher. Ur making assume scenario of a decade later. Stealth aircraft inherently limited in capacity to u cannot saturate a target. There is no guarantee of not tracking VLO target from hundreds of kms.

-The USAF is buying 1,763 F-35s and 183(or more F-22s). The USN/USMC are buying 480 F-35Cs and 340 F-35Bs. When combined with 20 B-2s, that works out to 2,603 stealth aircraft +/-, planned. F-15E, B-1B, B-52H, F-18E/F, F-16C can also carry these stealthy stand off weapons.
– You’re not going to be tracking a VLO target from hundreds of Kms with high frequency radars, which are what are used for fire control.
-Now explain how targets won’t be able to be saturated. I haven’t even mentioned all the other platforms that will be flying in support, that will all be operating in a net-centric way, sharing info with each other.

when he made the statement. It was pretty obvious that airframe is not big deal. Which contridict ur point that for 5th generation airframe is the main thing.

If we aren’t going to use the same definition of terms, then the terms become meaningless in a discussion. 5th Gen encompasses a number of features, stealth being one. If one builds a brand new aircraft that doesn’t have any capabilities that 4th Gen fighters don’t have, it’s still 4th Gen(or 4+ Gen)

Range is exceeding so what. Unless u have the weopons to exploit that range.U can put space radar with 24000km range.

The F-22/35 do have weapons that can exploit that range, all of which allow them to fire outside the detection ranges of the radar/SAM sites. In the case of the JSOW/JASSM, they’re stealthy weapons fired from stealthy aircraft, which makes for a very significant threat to any would be target.

The JSOW has a range between 115km-220km depending on the model.
The JASSM has a range between 360km-926km depending on the model.
The GBU-39/40 have ranges between 60-80+ nautical miles.

Very bad example from communist era. and no one thought about civilian planes at those times. Imagine West would have been communist for 100 years. i think even NKorea would do better.

Russian air defenses were on a much higher alert posture during the Cold War, than in recent times.

I can have both ways. Stealth is not only feature of PAK-FA and it isnt 5+ generation just because of stealth.

You’re right- it isn’t just because of stealth. It’s due to stealth, avionics/sensor fusion, supercruise/supermaneuverable. Of course these are typically the categories of features that describe a 5th Gen design. The point though, is that Russia feels that stealth is an important feature, or they could build them much sooner and cheaper.

What if Radar performance is such that there is no place to avoid them. Read about Almaz-Antei. They have thousands of experts working for them and real orders booked for next 10 years with fully funded 5th generation SAM under development.
Not like LM trying to lobby around the world for 5th generation fighters.

What if monkeys could fly? X band which is what is the primary band for fire control, due to it’s accuracy(tracking range, speed, bearing, etc..) will always have severe limitations against stealthy aircraft. There are other bands, whose wavelengths have better chances of detecting a stealthy aircraft, but they can’t guide weapons. In any event, the detection range of the ESM on the F-22/35, will always exceed whatever band radar being used against it. This is why unless the entire country was covered with radars no more than 20 miles from the next radar, along with SAMs, there are going to be gaps in coverage that can and will be exploited. Here’s an example of how Russian air space isn’t inpenetrable

Please explain why the PAK FA features stealth, if it’s of no utility. You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s a good thing, or it’s useless, and I believe the former to be true.

Let me see if I can explain this so everyone can understand.

The F-22 (& F-35) knows what its RCS is over the entire sphere & its ESM system will detect any ESM threat BEFORE that threat is able to detect it. Using its ESM (as well as the networked ESM & other data from other assets) it will have a “threat picture” with which to “thread the needle” safely through the threat.

And another peace to the puzzle is that the primary ground attack weapon of the F-22 & F-35 will be the GBU-39/40 SDB which has a rather significant standoff range…

You’re never gonna convince the naysayers. On the one hand they’ll tell you how stealth doesn’t mean squat because it’s easy to counter, and then talk up the features on the PAK FA(in which the Russians obviously feel that stealth is important).

Even an F-22 can’t really perform anything over 9G,

Perhaps not 12gs, but the point was that the KS172/R37 weren’t meant for aggressively manuevering targets. It can do better than 9g though.

a range of 300KM (add 30% – 40% like you would, LOL, from a fast MiG-31, Su-35, PAK-FA, etc) – and you’re right back to some massive 300KM + range? :rolleyes: Your argument works wonders in reverse.

Where are you getting 300km from(the -120D is a 200km class missile, with a bit more when fired at high altitude/speed)? I never claimed the AIM-120D had that range fired from any aircraft. My point was that it outranged R27/77s.
As for the Russian platforms, the Foxhound is the only one of those planes in service, and there are only 2 SU-35 test aircraft in existence(how many times will it be able to get to high Mach numbers vs. the Raptor’s ability to cruise at those speeds for hundreds of miles? How many are the RuAF buying?- none). The PAK FA hasn’t even flown(so we don’t know how it’ll perform yet), and it’ll be 10yrs before you see them in service.

Of those 3 aircraft, 2 of them have large RCS, which means that the Raptor will always have the first look, first shoot advantage.

So add those % to the Russian missiles to then? :rolleyes:

Even adding 30-40% due to a high speed launch won’t make the range difference up. The only Russian AAMs with greater range than the -120D, are the R37/KS-172, and I’ve already stated my views on them.

You also have no evidence whatsoever except crap your are pulling out of your posterior, as I have said a long time ago. Links sir, or you might as well just drop it! 😀

So any assertion that challenges your paradigm originates from nether regions? You Russophiles regularly make outrageous claims based upon speculation/questionable links, yet show contempt if anyone else challenges them.

Carlo > You and your sourceless approach. :rolleyes:

The rest of the aviation industry journalists >Carlo Kopp

-Those 300-400km ranges are against AWACS, not 12G 1m2- .0001m2 targets. 😀

Operational
range AIM-120A/B: 50-80 km (30-50 miles)
AIM-120C-5: 105 km (65 miles)
AIM-120D: 165 km (102 miles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120

“The AIM-120C has been steadily upgraded since it was introduced. The AIM-120C-6 contained an improved fuse (Target Detection Device) compared to its predecessor. The AIM-120C-7 development began in 1998 and included improvements in homing and greater range (actual amount of improvement unspecified). It was successfully tested in 2003 and is currently being produced for both domestic and foreign customers. It helped the U.S. Navy replace the F-14 Tomcats with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets – the loss of the F-14’s long-range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles (already retired) can be partially offset with a longer-range AMRAAM, but note that the AMRAAM does not have a very-long range like the Phoenix missile.

The AIM-120D is an upgraded version of the AMRAAM with improvements in almost all areas, including 50% greater range (than the already-extended range AIM-120C-7)”

That’s reality, right off of a compilation on Wikipedia. Without links, you are just lying! :rolleyes: Their sources are listed on the bottom of the page, and check out.

Let’s do some basic math here. If the C5 has a range of 105km, and the C7 has a longer range than 105km, and the D has a 50% longer range than that, what do you think the likelihood of it’s range being 165km?:cool:

It wouldn’t even be worth mentioning that the C7 was extended in range over the C5 were that the case.

Now add 30-40% over that range when fired by an F-22 at M 1.5+.

They will still have a far longer range than any AIM-120 variant. The larger warhead and 12G target hit capability make them very dangerous.

I see you’re using Carlo Kopp as a source by the way.:rolleyes:
Can you point out in that link where the R-37/KS-172 are designed to be used against 12G targets(The R-77 is credited with that capability)? According to that article, the Irbis E will be able to detect F-22/35s at less than 30 miles. The R-77M apparently has a ~86.5NMI range.

Another interesting factoid from your source-
“The role of the R-37 also differs from the R-33 – it was devised to kill large ISR and IW/EW platforms at long ranges, specifically the E-3 AWACS, E-8 JSTARS, RC-135V/W Rivet Joint, EC-130 Compass Call and EC-130 Commando Solo.”

“Recently redesignated the K-100/R-100, Novator’s R-172 AAM-L followed the R-37 into development, and is available with a booster pack to extend its considerable range performance to 400 km. The weapon is intended to kill AWACS/AEW&C and tankers (KnAAPO).”

A glaring error that was in the article was when it was asserted that the F-35 would only carry 2 AIM-120s in the Air Superiority role(it currently carries 4, and has room for 6).

IOC for the R-37M/KS-172 will be sooner than any JRADM, and don’t forget there’s 2 fifth-gen missiles in the works for the T-50. These will easily exceed the R-74 and definitely leave all other short range IR missiles far behind.

And what is the IOC on these paper missiles?

Evidence or get outta here.

While the true range is classified, some somewhat accurate guesstimates can be made-

AIM-120C5 ~100-110km

AIM-120C7 ~50 percent better or ~150-160km

AIM-120D has 50 percent better range than C7, which put the D at ~200km or more(especially when fired from an F-22)

If you do a Google search, there are many sites where there is discussion on this as well. Take it for what it’s worth.

The PAK FA will be on sale by that time too;)

Maybe.:D