Amiga500Why do you think all the latest fighter designs are essentially following the US route?
They aren’t, even on the most superficial level they aren’t even close. The PAK-FA and J-20 are both large twin engined, high speed, (probably) highly maneuverability fighters or interdictors.
The US have abandoned that approach after 183 airframes and instead went down the route of a medium sized, single engined, relatively slow and relatively unmaneuverable ground attack aircraft that will be forced to serve as a fighter.
Amiga500Oh Yes it does, Against IADS threat the F-22 would CARE a lot…
Nah, since the only thing an F-22 really has to fear is popup S400s or S300s, it can operate with relative impunity. Everything else will have to get fairly lucky (or benefit from very bad tactics) to strike at an F-22.
Its operations would be closely linked with the F-35 and the strategy to defeat the IADS would be worked out jointly…The F-22 is not going to be flying over Complex IADS with impunity, and nor would the F-35…SEAD/DEAD would have to be jointly carried and if EMCON is to be maintained the F-35 should be preferred since it can do all aspects of detecting, targeting and assessment of damage internally without relying on data linking…While the F-22 would be tasked with SEAD/DEAD with assistance from the F-35, the F-35 has to take Ground attack missions which the F-22 cannot fulfill.
And herein lies the problem. The F-35 needs its hand held to guard against the ever-present airborne threat, and is so much more vulnerable to pop-up SAM groups; while the F-22 can more or less cruise around the holes in the SAM network, and destroy aerial threats at its leisure. Yes, pop-ups are a threat, but with that Mach 1.something egress speed at 50kft altitude, the engagement envelope from the ground is quite small.
Amiga500then, of course, it is always better to be discrete, but the “shape stealth” as a key advantage to get through is something that is obviously going to become obsolete soon…
That is my thought as well. It helps, but don’t be relying on it.
Which is why I am very much “meh” with the F-35.
The F-22 doesn’t really care too much if you can track it. Its quick enough, high enough and agile enough to handle anything else in the field today.
The F-35? Slow, low and fat. On the plus side, the pilot will have great “situational-awareness” through the cockpit floor of that 40N6 coming right up its a$$.
[While the “warfighter” might be going down in flames, Lockheed shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.]
Amiga500How do these waves differ from normal radar sending waves ?
I’m guessing its a bi-static or multi-static system.
[Separate transmitter(s) for multiple receivers.]
The key to all this is in collecting the data and processing it fast enough to form a coherent picture, then being able to use that picture to track a target and additionally develop enough precision in the track to engage that target. No use being able to follow that B-2 on your tracking systems if your SAMs or AAMs just fly right by…
Amiga500My point was PURPOSE and not CAPABILITY comparison…The ATF. F-22A is an all out Air to air fighter designed around USAF requirements. The Mig-31 is an interceptor designed around Soviet requirements , and the Su-27 is a All out A2A fighter designer around Soviet requirements….
Indeed.
But I would suggest that the F-22 is too short legged when running at supersonic speeds. Especially with such a limited production run meaning they would be spread rather thin in any “big” war.
Amiga500The fuel consumption is classified , unless you are privy to information that is not out…As far as M-1.5 being better then M-1.72, M- 1.2 is probably better for fuel conspumption then M-1.5 … this is common sense…Even the PAKFA would get better fuel consumption and radius if it flies at lower supersonic speeds…
He is talking about the geometric configuration of the intake. That is something that can be measured and quantified without any classified info.
The intake was designed for the design speed of M1.5 – if Lockheed had designed it for M1.75, the F-22 would probably supercruise at M1.75 rather than max out at M1.72.
[Although, it would be remiss of me not to point out they do have a blow off valve for excess intake air to be spilled, so its not as big an issue as some fixed nozzles would be…]
Amiga500The F-22A Is a different class compared to pure interceptors…Just like the Su-27/30/35 is different from the Mig-31…If they were similar the RuAF would not operate two types. The Figures i am speaking off are from the official FTD released upon completion of testing.
I would say the F-22 is further away from the MiG-31 than the Su-27 is.
If the Russians evolve the PAK-FA with the fuel fraction of the Flanker and with the corresponding reduction in fuel consumption
Fuel fractions:
F-22 = 0.29
Su-27 = 0.36
MiG-31 = 0.43
Amiga500F-22 Stated Supercruise speed is Mach 1.72.
Yes… all well and good… as far as LM’s powerpoint presentation goes.
Thing is – the MiG-31 could go for longer (time) and further (distance) at Mach 2.35 on burners than the F-22 can on full military.
Simply by dint of fuel fractions and those big F-119s not being terribly fuel thrifty at full dry.
If the PAK-FA approaches the fuel fractions of the MiG-31, if they can make the engines a touch more fuel efficient at dry than the F-119s and if the Russians have placed more emphasis on low supersonic drag than on VLO (relative to LM with F-22)… then be prepared for the PAK-FA to have potentially much enlarged ‘real’ combat range relative to the F-22. Of course, that could come at a cost of VLO performance, of warload capacity and of overall engine thrust on burner or of low speed airframe/engine performance.
Amiga500I’m not questioning the bravery and skill of today’s crews. What I’m interested in is if 617 squadron was tasked with destroying the Dams today could they do it?
Assume you have any aircraft or payload at your disposal.
Depends what the defences are doesn’t it.
No IDS and you could throw a few bunker-busting LGBs into the side of it till it crumbles.
IDS and your looking at stand-off munitions…
But in general, given that the precision of targeting has vastly improved from WW2, the task would get easier, not harder.
Amiga500Most of the aircraft listed are BVR… those fancy radars and fire control systems weren’t built for nothin ya know 😉
For jet aircraft, I’ll go with the F-100 for looks, and the MiG-15 for aero-head reasons.
For prop aircraft, the Spit IX for looks and the P-51B for aero-head reasons [with honourable mention for the Yak-3].
Amiga500Good luck to them.
[I wonder what the next thing – that was rushed to meet ‘project deadlines’ – will be to fail… and where… will it be on B787, A350 or CSeries.]
I have to admit, right now I’m pretty downbeat about the shambolic way ar$ehole$ with Gantt charts (aka project managers) and clueless clowns with calculators (aka procurement) are running things into the ground for all the large OEMs. The latter insists work goes to the cheapest bidder (regardless of whether they actually know what they are doing or not) and the former insists that everything has to be geared to meet interim schedule “deadlines” – even if running it that way really means the final deadline moves further away and the end-product quality suffers. Sooner or later someone will realise it, put experienced and competent engineers in charge of the whole lot, relegate procurement and project management to the administrative functionaries they really are and clean up the market. ‘Cos right now the tail is wagging the dog…
Amiga500In BVR not WVR. Due to the AIM-54 Phoenix.
Do you realise just how large the decrease in the carrier’s area of influence is when removing that BVR advantage? (not to mention the longer range patrols of the -14).
That paragraph you recommend reading is a straight reword of what I said. :confused: The -16 has power and better energy retention while the -18 is better when the fight gets really slow.
Amiga500F-14 better match for sukhois?
Absolutely.
The F-14s maneuverability is not very good in WVR fights. The only thing the Tomcat wouldve been superior is in BVR and interdiction at higher altitude due to longer range. Not to mention the F/A-18F has far more superior maneuverability and is very good in WVR dogfight at slow speed.
The F-14 is acknowledged as having a weak roll rate, but good instantaneous turn rate and is inferior to the F-15 in a vertical fight (not surprising given the respect T/W ratios).
Now… a couple of steps could have been taken to improve the F-14:
TVC on both nozzles – due to the wide engine spacing, asymmetric vectoring would augment aileron authority, improving roll rate.
Refitting F119s into the F-14 would bring the thrust/weight ratios up to levels better than the F-15C.
The F/A-18 is very good in an extremely slow fight. However, it is also extremely quick to get there due to hideous energy bleed. Anyone fighting a hornet has a much larger energy-maneuverability envelope to work with… meaning a basic tactic of a few quick turns to create some distance and energy differentials and then nail an IR-M up the -18s ass.
Amiga500Is in-cabin air circulation/re-circulation managed to maintain good health?
Yep.
Off the top of my head, you have to have a 50% air cycle every 90 seconds (that is, effectively replace or filter the entire volume of the cabin every 180 seconds). Mostly its a 50:50 split between fresh air and filtered air.
I can check the CS25 requirements for you later, or even dig up some of my older work, but its something like that.
Amiga500An upgraded (4.5 – 5th gen systems) F-14 would still leave it at a disadvantage against the Raptor (even without upgrades).. RCS plays a great role, even if you could pack a bigger radar (compared to Apg-77) on the F-14, you’d still have to deal with the massive RCS, which would mean that the raptor would have the detection advantage by far…While the F-14 has to use its BRUTE @ Max power to try to detect the F-22, the F-22 can be silent or operate in LPI using its ALR-94 to track the F-14’s emissions…The F-22 at very high altitude and at mach 1.7 will also cover a ton of distance in a short time….RCS advantage alone would give the F-22 huge lead , and this is one of the reasons why the Russians, Chinese and others are developing RCS-reduced Airframes to host the 5th gen subsystems because that is an area where they have to improve otherwise a huge detection advantage is presented to the opponent…
no no no no no.
What did I say earlier?
Could an F-14 updated with F119s, integrated tracking systems taking feeds off an AESA radar (in that big nose), modern IRST, RWR, offboards and carrying updated AIM54s and AIM-120-C7 effectively defend a carrier fleet from F-22 intrusion. I would say yes*. Could F-18s or F-35s do the same? I would say no.
*note – this is not the same as saying it could go toe-to-toe in all scenarios and have anything like parity.
Forget trying to make it something that can go 1 v 1 with an F-22 in a bubble where both aircraft are entirely on their own.
Could the F-14 be made into something that could defend a fleet from an F-22 force? I think yes.
Could the F/A-18 and F-35 be made into something that could defend a fleet from an F-22 force? I think no. The F-22 is kinematically just too superior.
For reference, the SPY-1 B/D radar frequency is around 3 GHz (λ~9cm). The AN/APS-145 in the E-2C operates at around ~ 0.5 GHz (λ~50cm).
At that wavelength, the F-22 is too small an aircraft to retain all its VLO characteristics. When the radar wavelength is around the same length as your ailerons or elevators, you ain’t gonna hide them.
It has even been publically stated by USAF officials in the past that VLO design is pretty much irrelevant when radar frequencies drop below 2GHz (λ~15cm). We should bear that in mind when talking about off-board sensors guiding F-14s around.
Sign In
