gregyes a higher speed results in a higher turning radius
what you aren’t accounting for is a higher speed also results in a smaller reaction period
This is why all modern fighters are equipped with MAWs some of which are active, giving the exact location, speed and impact time of an incoming missile, no matter how fast it is cruising. Some of them are so advanced they even display maneuvering directions on to the HUD.
it’s like trying to dodge a bullet
Neo only exists in the movies . . .
I am not a Hollywood fan.
Mach 5 is harder to build and more expensive and bigger and heavier and most of the time 3.5-4 does ‘good enough’
let’s look at the most advanced air-defense systems in the world
PAC-3
S-400
SM-3notice something? all M5+
Answered already.
gregthe Su can do Mach 1.5 with 6 missiles and no afterburners? really?
the EF claims have been somewhat ambiguous and contradictory
The claims about the EF are confirmed, whistle the Su35 is currently be tested.
Patience.
not a chance in hell it can avoid a mach 5 40g missile no matter how much warning it has unless it can confuse the seeker head
You sound very sure. Of course you are wrong.
I wont try to explain you the kinematics of the problem, but try to think simply.
If a M5 missile was that deadly , why most missiles fly around M3.5-4?
Is it because they cant? Or something else?
gregGood God the level of ignorance on display here is truly frightening.
The F-35 is the US replacement for the F-16 & F/A-18, it is written into the requirements that it match OR EXCEED the flight performance of the F-16 & F/A-18 (& even the limited flight test which have been completed thus far have been “very impressive”). While the F-16 & F/A-18 are not air-superiority aircraft by the standards of the US, several other nations (& unfortunately the USN) DO use them as such.
That the latest Flankers & Fulcrums (as well as every improving SAMs) – not to mention what our adversaries will have in 10 or 20 years – are a threat the the F-15, F-16 & F/A-18 is the very reason for the F-22 & F-35.
The F-35 has almost as much DRY thrust as a F-16C block 50/52 with FULL AFTERBURNER! Slightly more dry thrust than a Typhoon & if you believe the claim that the Typhoon can supercruise in an air-to-air configuration you would have to be an absolute fool to think that the F-35 can not.
The F-35 can carry MORE fuel INTERNALLY than a F-16, F/A-18C/D, Mig-29, Typhoon or Rafale with THREE EXTERNAL TANKS! It does not take an aeronotical engineer to realize that a F-35 with internal fuel will out fly any 4th generation fighter with three drop tanks. Load a F-35 with less than a full load of fuel & it isn’t all that heavy either…
Speaking about the level of ignorance do you have any idea how much this flying bucket is going to weight:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
And I mean empty, no fuel no ordinance no pilot…
Have you ever noticed that its fuselage is wider than that of a phantoms, which was double-engined?
Ever wondered if the engine used in the 35 is actually the same with the engine used in the (fantastic) F-22? Apart having the same name.
Do you have any hint , ANY, that it is going to supercruise ??
So do not fool yourself.
PS fuel is there for a purpose. Fuel is not ballast nor dead weight.
In some circumstances a fighter (any fighter) might be able to take off with less than maximum fuel. But the rule is that most of them need all the extra fuel they can carry, which in the case of non-stealth fighters are carried in drop tanks, in the case of stealth internally.
gregmach 2.2+ with 6 A2A missiles?
would be impressive no doubt
but remember the F-35 is only listed as mach 1.6+, so we don’t know what the top speed is, and it is routinely outrunning the mach 2.0+ F-16, so again, i don’t think it’s as slow as you think
Oh, no!
I wouldn t go up to these numbers.
Top speeds are seldom achieved on fighters
I was mostly referring to the non afterburner top or cruise speeds.
Something like M0.8 for the F-35, and M1.3-1.5 for EF or Su.
you don’t understand how this works
it doesn’t matter how maneuverable you are, a sufficiently fast missile will have no trouble hitting you
Yes I do.
And I shall agree with you that a M0.8 fighter will find it hard to avoid a M5.0 head on, missile that can pull 40-50g.
But a M1.5 fighter that can pull 6-7g, probably not. It will survive…
Specially if it is equipped with active MAWs.
gregyou keep switching between air and ground systems, it is very confusing
you claim there will be anti-stealth radars. are these air or ground?
obviously ground because you say fighters shouldn’t be emitting
yet you say detecting at 500km is worthless because there is no 500km missile
i say there are 500km ground SAMs and you say you mean A2A missiles?
Ok let me be more clear.
Long wave ground radars guide via data link, fighters equipped with AESA radars ( and very powerful digital signal possessors ) up to 100-120 km from F-35s. The AESA are turned on and with the help of DSP they track and should I say club 35s like baby seals.
there is no time limitation, the F-35 will ALWAYS be better than the EF in this regards
Ok we can agree that we disagree on that and leave it there.
Time will prove who is right and who is wrong.
1. it certainly won’t be that much faster with a useful load
What about 6 a2a missiles
2. no, that’s still not making a whit of difference against a Mach 5 missile
A very fast missile is not a very agile one. Anyway.
the F-35 will ALWAYS be stealthier and thus more survivable than the EF
Stealthier yes, more survivable, mmmhhhhhhh we can still have a bet on that!
gregI suspect that in most situations the Flankers will have to rely on onboard sensors, and perhaps AWACS of some sort. If we’re talking about an A2A scenario, then the Flanker will most likely be on the offense(which means it won’t have ground based radar asset). The F-35 is always gonna know about the Flanker’s presence first in a 1 vs. 1 scenario. With the AIM-120D, it’s gonna be able to shoot first too. At close range it’ll have the AIM-9X/AIM-9X Blk 2 and HMS.
Ok then lets talk about a real scenario.
How about the Taiwan front? Or the middle east front?
EDIT: Remember attacks on Serbia and Iraq? What abut that scenarios?
gregdirecting fighters to where you are? hello?
I am still here…
As for directing fighters, it is always better to be left to ground or airborne radars. Something like the “NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVUs” . Or whatever comes along. The fighters should keep their emitions quiet.
1. there are several (such as RIM-67C)
Was referring to a2a missiles.
2. good thing we only go against western systems :rolleyes: (the S-400 already has ranges of 400+km)
Which is said it can down F35s….
3. the 500km isn’t the point, it was just a made-up number (obviously), the point is that the F-35 will ALWAYS be better at penetrating an IADS than the EF or equivalent
Yes I know what you mean. And you are right.
WHat I mean is that this potential (UNFORTUNATELLY as my own country will buy this bucket, and I ll have to pay for it) has some kind of a time limitation.
1. no they don’t
2. no it’s not good enough, because even if it was 0.1 mach faster (which it isn’t), that makes squat all of difference to a Mach 5 SAM
What about M0.6 faster? Maybe not for the grippen, but certainly for all the rest of them.
1. how many slow-flying B-2s have been lost in combat?
2. the F-35 is faster than you think . . .
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I am not a paratrooper you know 😉
you keep claiming the EF and Gripen (haha) are better because they can outfly (haha) SAMs
your argument against the F-35 is that future advances will render stealth obsolete (not likely)
yet what about future advances in SAMS that make them faster, longer ranged, more maneuverable and IMPOSSIBLE to out-run?
Ok I understand now. Sorry about that.
Answer: The most probable future advance in SAMs will be their ability to track and hit low RCS targets. Why?
a. it is easier
b. it make for a product that sells most 😀
what good will your EF be then?
Pretty good
so i convinced you?
here i thought you’ve been claiming that the ideal tactic is to outrun the SAM
The ideal tactic is always to stay hidden, we agree on that.
What I am saying is that this cannot always be possible.
Hope I dissolved any misunderstanding here.
gregIf they aren’t using their radar, then it doesn’t matter what the capability of the Irbis is. I suspect there will be situations where the NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVUs, won’t be available, and the Flanker will have to depend on it’s onboard sensors.
In that case Advantage: F35
In that case I admit you are right…:)
gregJust how far away do you think the F-35 will be able to pick up an emitting Irbis? If the Irbis has a 400km range, then the F-35 will be able to pick up the Flanker at even greater ranges than that with its ESM/RWR suite. It will be able to manuever to ensure it always has the maximum relative degree of stealth.
Not quite my friend. Not quite.
Fighters dont need to have their own radar always turned on.
Especially if they have “NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVUs” ground radars to guide them and IRIST pinched on their noses.
Not to mention that being faster (the Su35s and EFs are supposed to supercruise) they will always take better positions.
gregyou miss my point
stealth is stealth
stealth will ALWAYS be harder to detect than non-stealth
if they can track the F-35 from 100km out, they can track the EF from 500km out
True, So what?
If you dont have a 500km range missile you are not good.
And AFAIK there is no western missile under development with range better than 100 k? Do you know something more?
Gripens?!?
pray tell why the Gripen is better able to outfly SAMs than the F-16
Because they fly faster! Good enough?
even the other fighters, you think you’re going to outrun the SAM?
Better than a slow flying Lightning with virginity lost…:diablo:
you talk about radar advances, what about speed and range and maneuverability advances in SAMs that make them impossible to outfly?
what then?
Dont understand what you mean.
i’ll tell you what, you’ll want to stay undetected as long as possible
Of course. That is always the ideal tactic. But will not be always possible.
if the F-35 is only a bomb-truck, it is a failure
NO IT IS NOT!!!
The doctrine of the US armed forces has changes the past 15 years.
Unless there is a new cold war, the F-35 will become a successful bomb-truck.
gregexcept it does have stealth
and the EF and Flanker and Gripen would already be dead too . . .
because your plane would be so obsolete they wouldn’t dare send it into the fight so you get to stay at home in your nice comfy bed?
You missed my point again.
The 35 is stealth, but for how long?
There WILL be radars to track them from adequate distances.
You may rest assured for that.
On the other hand EFs, Flankers, Gripens, AND F-22s still pose some very good flight characteristics much better then the F-16/F-35 class fighters used to have… (now I am getting really bad, hah? apologize)
And then ….adios muchachos to the F-16/F-35 class fighters.
Ps I wish not to be misunderstood.
I do not consider the F-35 a bad aircraft. I am sure it will be a success. But as a bomb truck.
gregWhat example are you giving of Flankers eating F-15s for breakfast, if you’re not referring to Cope India? Late model F-15s are getting the features I mentioned.
Fankers are getting the same features as well.
Irbis can detect targets of .01 at 90km. The F-35s frontal RCS is lower than that, so perhaps you might get a solid lock at 30-50km if lucky. The F-35 will see the Su-35 at 220km with radar, and if the Flanker is emitting, will detect them much further away with their ESM/RWR systems. The AIM-120D can reach out to 180-200km in a head on engagement(though most shots will realistically be fired at shorter ranges to give a greater NEZ/PK). It would seem that the F-35 has a significant advantage here.
180-200km???
You do have a link for that. Right?
As per Irbis detecting F-35 range, I wrote Irbis-E with Digital Signal Processing and Control. That would make a difference.
gregwhat if my aunt had balls?
then she’d be my uncle
Precisely!!
And if a stealth F-35, weren’t stealth no more it would be a dead one:diablo:
In the same way, would you rather face the super-duper radars of the future with the F-35 or the EF?
If the radar was actually super-duper from the future I would certainly prefer the EF. I can substantiate if you like.
gregFlankers eat F-15s for breakfast when they’re heavily outnumbered, and have strict weapons limitations/ROE. I suspect an F-15 with AESA, AIM-120D, JHMCS, AIM-9X, and F110-129/132, would provide a much greater challenge.
One should always compare lemons with lemons, and oranges with oranges.
Low RCS will ALWAYS be harder to detect, than a design not utilizing any reduction.
Dont be so sure for that!
Ok F-35 with their low RCS will never be spotted as far as 200-250 km, but their adversaries dont actually need all that range.
Can you imagine for example, what will happen if F-35 can be spotted from 120km away? Say from a Irbis-E with Digital Signal Processing and Control.
gregThe idea of small bomb bay being bad. The plane is seen as a “first day of war plane”, where it will take out very dangerous targets with its stealth etc..
At a latter stage, when the threat is significantly reduced, i.e air superiority, sam sites gone, it can carry external stores bringing up the max weapon weight to a normal ground attack aircraft..Thats how the story goes I think……..
Ok here I have a problem with this “first day of war plane” concept.
Why use F-35 for “first day of war-very dangerous hits”, and not UCAVs
If UCAV prove themselves reliable, they would pose a better solution.
Sign In
