F88king marketing bu******ters.

Nothing is max efficiency and max reliability with max passenger appeal.

The engineer in me groans everytime you hear these hot-air-balloons (like Leahy over in Toulouse) come out with this crap.

Its like the old line, “we can do it better, cheaper and quicker”. :rolleyes:

#4 tells you where he is, what direction he is heading and at what speed.

So why do you need constant uninterrupted tracking to obtain this again?

No modern radar set uses constant beam-on-target tracking to obtain the other guy’s vector. No modern ‘RWR’ works that way either.

Not only does the ESM have to “receive” the radar signal, but also:
1. Recognize it as such.
2. Intercept enough of it in order to get a bearing to the F-22.
3. Get even more of it in order to get a 3D positional fix.
4. Be painted long enough in order to get a vector to the F-22 in order to use your own AAMs against it.

What is the difference between 2 and 4?

What is the difference between 2/3 and 4?

:confused:

Modern IRST can see an approaching fighter from about 30-50nm away. This is well short of what the latest radar/AAMs can do. The IRST has a LONG way to go before it supplants radar as the primary sensor for A2A engagements.

IMO; the primary sensors for future A2A engagements will have to be either offboard or passive.

Active on-board is gonna be like a submarine running around with active sonar on full blast.

Anybody read or heard anything about whether the F-22’s ALR-94 ESM can detect another F-22’s APG-77 LPI radar at long ranges?

If an ESM that can defeat the APG-77’s LPI feature already exists, what would be tactical implications in a scenario where four non-stealthy fighters with such a capable ESM are pitted against two F-22s?

While you present an interesting conundrum for the F-22 fanbois… In reality I’m quite confident that in reality the “LPI” radar is nothing of the sort. “HTI” (Harder To Intercept) might be more applicable – but by no means impossible. There are loads of published papers examining the algorithms of defeating LPI.

You can be very sure that the various military-centric electronic companies around the world are several years, if not decades ahead of publicly released work.

The whole paper is talking about mid-sweep back angle configuration, so may be the taper ratio is kept constant rather than the wing area.

1/4 chord sweep?

Not necessarily. They could change either.

Exactly, so you get very similar performance with a smaller aspect ratio wing in low AOA! and even better looking figures on higher AOAs. Plus the benefit at supersonic part, why not use it?

No, my point is 35degrees AoA is well beyond what you want to do – assuming the PLAAF use Boyd’s energy-maneuverability doctrine for ACM like everyone else.

No the paper is not focusing on how best to make the LERX work, It analysed the main conflicts of modern fighter design and introduced a way of full fill those requirements with minimum compromise. The paper mainly focused on the Canard-LERX-Blended wing body configuration + relaxed longitudinal and directional stability as a good solution which covered most aspects of J-20’s configuration.

Did they produce any graphs comparing to other optimised solutions?

This is part of the abstract　
Focused on the features of stealth , super maneuverability and supersonic cruise of the future fighter , the authors identified the main difficulties and gave some practical solutions to lift drag characteristics at
sub / transonic speed , high A. O. A. aerodynamic performances at low speed and supersonic drag characteristics.

That is a very refined and interesting paper to read. Have a go if you have the time, help you understand the ideas behind J-20 much better. One thing I find is that he definitely DID NOT try to create a striker

Do you have a link to it (my mandarin is non existent, so it would need to be in english!) 😮

Off-topic, but out of curiosity :

Is this the same Amiga500 at semiaccurate? 🙂

🙂

Yip. Regularly on S|A.