wrightwingThe Aim120C7 has the same engine that the coming AIM120D will use. It is also the exact same missile used for SL-AMRAAM.
The D uses a different flight profile, to extend its range. The flight profile plays a large role in the range, not just the burn time.
wrightwingI thought we all agree on this.. When a missile runs out of fuel and Thrust, its pretty much become SPEAR rather than an ARROW. It loose 75% of its agility and it drops quickly Down to being a STONE as it try to follow a target…
This is pure physics and Logic, Why is this so hard to understand!?
Once the missiles slows down enough, then yes. Not while it’s still at M3+ though.
wrightwingF16 is a gorgeous plane, but now outdated and regularly beaten in every exercise (except on dissimilar encounters) by eurocanards. Take it or no. Every clues are there.
Actually it’s not accurate to say regularly beaten in every exercise. Typhoons do well, this is true, but it’s not as one sided as flying againt F-22s.
wrightwingF-22 and EF-2000 accelerate to mach 1,5 -1,8 during BVR combat:
The F-35 can accelerate to M1.6 for BVR combat, with the advantage of first look, first shoot. It can then decelerate, reducing its IR signature, and become difficult to reacquire, while it’s setting up follow on shots.
wrightwingRead the burn times, energy drop off over time, maximum G that can be pulled by the missiles after burnout, availability of decent sensors for the Eurocanards, especially for the latest versions.
First of all, you’re flat out wrong about missile agility. As long as the missile has inertia, it can continue manuevering aggressively after burn out. Secondly, missiles use flight profiles, designed for efficiency which allows them to maintain a high energy state through their terminal phase. To put it another way, if a target is within the NEZ, the missile will be able to pull high Gs, with propulsion or not. You may want to refresh your understanding of what an NEZ actually means(obviously this term fluctuates versus beam/receding targets/high/low altitude/etc..) That being said, if a target is within the NEZ, and is approaching the launch aircraft, it’s not going to have time to reverse course, and outrun the missile (it may well evade using other means).
Against modern adversaries with good pilots the AMRAAM is very short ranged. Your 40-50km are only viable against surplus Soviet aircrafts with rdars and rwrs that don’t work… and you also need a bad pilot in the target ac. If all of that is true then sure, you can get the 40-50km kills.
You’re using AIM-120A/B capabilities, in making this assessment. Just as a refresher, we can go over some of the range improvements that have occurred over time. The C5 variant’s range is ~50-60+ percent further than the early models. The C7 variant improves upon this by a tactically significant margin. The D model has a ~50% improvement in range over the C7. While the maximum range is tactically relevant, what this does mean is that the NEZ of the C7/D models are easily in the 40-50km range, in a head on engagement. This doesn’t even account for the additional guidance techniques (GPS, INS, 2 way datalink, HOJ, etc…along with high ECCM capabilities).
I used the lowest RCS number for the F35 and put it on the graph where the Irbis E would track that size of target. In real life the target size would be larger and there would be EW.
In real life, the F-35 would also have the ability to use EA techniques, to reduce the Irbis’ capabilities.
Why would I strap 3 drop tanks on the EF to make the F35 look good?
Who said 3? For A/A the Typhoon normally carries 2, to have a useful radius. This affects its RCS/acceleration/agility/potential speed.
What you are missing is that there are more sensors, that afterburners also make the jets easy to track from low band radars on the ground (the SR71 was easily tracked by its trail… and the fuselage, at the max range of th radar (just over 400km with the PS-66)).
The F-35’s not going to be using afterburners unless it’s getting ready to launch ordinance, to impart greater kinematic range, or in WVR, where the foe is already aware of its presence. The SR-71 used its afterburners for extended periods, which did create the IR/RF signatures you’re alluding to.
Stealth is just one attribute and it is just as important as all the others (where the limiting factor always is the most important). For the F35 the limiting factor is missile performance vs detection range where the missile range gets a drop because of kinematik disadvantage.
Stealth allows the use of missiles more efficiently/advantageously versus a non-stealth aircraft. The F-35’s missiles will have a higher energy state, as it can get much closer before being detected, and set up the launch profile to increase Pk.
The fielded sensors of yesterday has a target acquisition range of 50km+, the AMRAAMs high Pk range is <15km. The F35 will have a really hard time coming up from behind any of the Eurocanards. (Based on one sided supercruise, enemy having datalinks and additional radar sources like AWACS etc supporting from behind)
Newsflash- the Typhoon will be flying subsonic more than supersonic. Unless it’s already at M1.4, then it’s not going to enjoy significant kinematic advantages. No foe is going to have a sensor/situational awareness advantage (this includes Russia, China, etc.. much less anyone with less capable equipment).
wrightwingI’m echoed here http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_03_2013_p26-582961.xml
and yes, i’m sticking to trusted and true old values that were before trimming the numbers became latest merchandize fashion,
altho i have to add that fuel went up last few years and air frames got older so cant give hard numbers,
other than $25k for F-16 is way inflated.
Well, if fuel cost is the reason, then it also stands to reason that with cheaper fuel prices, the F-35’s cost would necessarily be lower too.
wrightwingYou forgot that under the assumed scenario here, the Red force would be operating with a fully integrated Defense system with all the radars, passive systems, data links etc to vector it to the F-35. While the F-35 would be alone without any support of its own 😉
D’oh!! I’m going to have to rethink the entire AirLand strategy now. 🙂
wrightwingYou just aren’t getting it at all.
If the F-35 “sees” the other aircraft 300 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot, and the other aircraft “sees” the F-35 200 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot – what effective difference is there? Well, apart from a being able to stick “50% greater detection envelope” on a LM or USAF powerpoint.
This isn’t a good example, especially if we’re talking about a non-5th generation threat. A better example would be the F-35 detects (on radar) the conventional aircraft at 100nm, but the opposing aircraft will need to be 15-20nm away, to see the F-35 (on radar). This gives the F-35 a significant advantage in setting up the engagement (or avoiding it altogether). This means that even if the foe has kinematically superior missiles, they can’t take advantage of them, as the F-35 will be able to take shots from outside of its detection range. THIS is why being stealthy (and having superior situational awareness), is an advantage.
wrightwingAnyone else pounded the issue of the collective RCS of a group of F-35 goes up exponentially with increasing number of a/c in the flight ?
(by radar bouncing against each other)
They won’t be flying in a tight formation, in combat. They’ll be separated by miles, so no, I don’t think this is an issue.
wrightwingYou forget that one is cruising at m 1,4
Typhoons can fly M1.4. This isn’t the speed that they fly for the majority of their mission, anymore than the F-22 stays at M1.8 at all times. So……you’re speed advantage relies on the Typhoon already flying at M1.4.
and the other needs +60 seconds of after burner usage to get close to that speed. But with afterburner the currently fielded IRST-systems will detect the target at some 80-90km. So the blue bar for the EF gets even longer while the orange bar for the F35 gets a little bit closer to the Eurofighters. But still the Eurofighter has a larger margin.
If…..the F-35 were receeding. The detection range head on is much shorter than that. You’re also forgetting that the acceleration times, that you’re using are for a clean Typhoon. Once you start hanging EFTs, and other stores on it, the times increase quite a bit.
wrightwingWhat about SC? Never heard of any significant mention of sustainable supersonic performance on dry power….If the F-35 has to go high high to achieve any respectable supersonic speed (even high transonic) in dry settings it defeats the purpose for its really not going to be operating at that altitude in most of its missions..
Why would it be operating at low altitudes for A/A missions? Don’t confuse strike profiles, with OCA/DCA profiles.
wrightwingPls stop trolling Spud.
I will show it with a graph what kinematic performance does and why it is so important.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216856[/ATTACH]
As you see the superior avionics and VLO platform makes the track and detection range relatively impressive. But is it comes at the expense of poor kinematic performance this means that the enemy will have one advantage in launch speed and one in exit speed. In the case of EF 2000 its close to doubling the effective range of a Meteor. This is just physics and has nothing to do with avionics so far.Against old jets however it is a different story. What the ultra cool stuff like EOTS, stealth and radar does is increasing the blue bar for the F35. But unless the orange can keep up it is of no benefit at all.
The can’t climb, cant run argument is the relative performance of the F35 vs the competition. And that assesment is as correct as it gets.
The F35 is not designed as a fighter jet. It is the most advanced attack jet made but without kinematic performance that’s on par (or close to) the competition it simply isnt good enough as a fighter. And you can have as many cool gizmos as you please, but unless your orange bar is larger than the enemys blue bar it will be a fight where kinematics crown the winner.
EDIT: The F35 should have a larger blue bar but I dont see if that matters.
That graph is making the assumption, that the Typhoon is supersonic, while the F-35 is subsonic. With a combat load, their speeds are pretty comparable. It’s also not an accurate comparison, because the Meteor couldn’t be used against the F-35 at anywhere near its kinematic range, whereas the F-35 could engage further out.
wrightwingNobody explained it better than Obligatory…
I already showed you that you can get 65 km of powered range @ mach 4 just by changing the altitude to 50kft with the same missile that would struggle to get 34 km of powered flight just 10kft lower. And in the end the missile will need to drop 7km in altitude and (because of the angle) also tavel some time at a lower altitude where the target is. This means that its highly unlikely that you can get the long range (50-100km) kills against modern enemies that will be warned in time and who can reach mach 2 at 30kft. This means you have a relative approach speed of mach 2 when powered and thus you need to chase them for a while.
You’re failing to account for a number of factors. First the launch speed of the aircraft firing the missile, can make a big difference in the kinematic range. Secondly, the later model AMRAAMs use lofted profiles, so they’re not going to be travelling through denser air, until their in their terminal attack phase (and diving towards the target, which builds their airspeed up). Thirdly, nobody, aside from a Mig-31 is going to be flying M2 or higher. Fourthly, in order for the foe to accelerate, take evasive manuevers, use ECM, they need to know that they’re under attack. When they’re being engaged BVR from a VLO target, it’s very likely that the first notice that they’ll get, is when the AMRAAM goes active, in the last few seconds of flight. If they weren’t already supersonic, they’re not going to have time to accelerate. If they manuever too aggressively, then they’ll lose energy too, making them an easier target. If they’re lucky, their ECM might give them a few moments, to consider their options. Their best hope is if their MLD/MAWs is able to give them a little more warning.
wrightwingFirst of all, i never meant that..Nor know how you could extrapolate that from what i have said. I have no data available to me comparing the Apg-82 vs the Su-35 AESA. Second, if the Su-35 can detect the F-15 before the F-15 Sees the Su35 clearly the Su35 would have an advantage…however with both having an RCS that is likely to be significant when the weapons are piled up it would maybe not matter much. Anyways i want to end the F-15 Apg82 vs Su-35 radar , when i have already conceded that the Eagle family is dated and not being pursued by the USAF. What the USAF is doing is getting a radar in the Apg82 to make the Strike Eagle an even better strike aircraft capable of doing well in PGM delivery to support strike roles. For dedicated AD missions, no need to bother as you have the raptor…For VLO strike missions you have the F-35..So the F-15E gets upgraded to make it better at what it does…No need for A2A IRST when your FLIR will suffice for mission. The Su-35 vs F-15 debate is USELESS and only deviates from the topic. The Increased detection ranges (Both active and passive) coupled with the VLO design of 5th generation fighters, would always give them the FIRST LOOK advantage compared to non stealthy 4th gen fighters….Unless the 4th gen crafts can get outside sensors which are superior to those that support the 5th gen jets…
You do realize that the USAF is modernizing between 179 and 261 F-15Cs (not to mention ~220 F-15Es, with plans to keep them in service till after 2030) right, so the Eagle/Flanker comparison isn’t entirely useless. Of course the vast majority of Flankers in the RuAF aren’t anywhere near comparable to the Su30/35. Most of them still have M scan radars, which aren’t even as good as the APG-63, much less the AESA variants. In all, the RuAF is slated to have less than 100 -30/35 level Flankers (though in fairness, they’ll be doing upgrades on old Flankers).
wrightwingThe same overkill in sensor performance held by Su35BM vs F15
There are more F-15s with AESAs (and numerous other avionics upgrades) flying, than there are Su35BMs, first of all. Secondly, I don’t know where you’re pulling these numbers from, in terms of the Irbis being superior to an APG-63(v)3/APG-82, which is what the F-15C/Es are being upgraded with, along with new computers, SATCOM, new digital electronic warfare systems, etc….and the Cs are supposed to get an IRST as well.
We know that the Flanker with Irbis E (using public figures) will be able to spot a F35 at 55km (highly speculative but its from public figures…) and passively get a target acquisition at 50km.
Know? What source? That’s some highly optimistic speculation, at best.
We know that the missiles the F35 will carry at IOC will be most useful when the target is closer than 40-50km. But this is expected future capabilities vs passive systems of today that only are “good” and not the best on the market.
At IOC, the F-35 will be using C7/D model AMRAAMs, which are good for considerably more than 40-50km.
Sign In
