kilcoo316Could you elaborate on that?
By asking for an explanation are you implying you think a CIWS built to deal with supersonic sea skimming ASMs (with terminal manouvering) will find it impossible (or anything like difficult) to cope with 8 slow moving smart bombs?
:confused:
kilcoo316The primary role of a gen 5 asset during the first 3 days of a hot war is to eliminate the enemy’s C4I. JSFs will not be tasked with “mano a mano” warfare with Gripens. JSF’s job is to use stealth to slip unnoticed past the DCA, maybe using an AMRAAM shot to mission kill the DCA, and then loft GBU-39s into the enemy’s C4I assets, killing them. The first victims of such an assault would include the GCI radars.
A properly planned aerial assault will always be a one-sided affair with the attacker marshalling forces and concentrating them on a small sector of enemy defenses, overwhelming them. IOW, JSFs will not use “lone wolf” 1 v many tactics of WW1. You don’t fight one bean, you have to fight the whole burrito.
You assume:
1. The airforce in question (which is NOT the USAF as they aren’t in the market for Gripens) will have other aircraft to devote to counter air instead of their F-35s, only in the case of the UK may that be true.
2. The GCI radars in question will not track the JSFs and vector defense fighters onto them (remember, long wave radars can track pretty much anything – getting a fire control solution is a different story).
3. If your going to concentrate your limited number of fighters (remembering the purchase prices limit aquisition), the opposition is going to sit on their **** when they know you’ve no top cover over half your territory.
4. The follow on support operations will somehow magically be accomplished by an F-35 fighter-bomber force a quarter the size of a Gripen fighter-bomber force without crippling the lifetimes of the airframes.
kilcoo316You may purchase 4 Gripens for the price of one F-35. Yet, the F-35 could destroy 10+ Gripens in exchange. (maybe many more!)
LOL
Your talking through your hole there.
An F-35 carries 6 A2A weapons max (IIRC), so you accept a kill ratio of 6:1 or you load-out the JSF with the pylons and take your chances.
GCI radars will ‘track’ the JSF, don’t even bother replying back saying they can return and re-arm without being detected and intercepted. 40 – (4×6) = 16 Gripen able to deal with 4 F-35s.
kilcoo316What are you going to make it out of (or is this a pure theoretical exersize?)
Even 10 is a very low aspect ratio for a glider wing (more pushing onto 20 is the norm). But, if this needs to actually be constructed, then 5 is more realistic in terms of make-able.
You can use a program like Xfoil to generate a custom aerofoil shape, or just grab an existing one from NACA or a book.
kilcoo316You conveniently forgot about the radar absorbing structure of the leading edges, wing tips and trailing edges which is designed to prevent L, S and C band returns.
I only happened to mention (RAM material) it in the 2nd sentence.
They also use surface materials to dissipate radar waves
RAM is a structured “material”.
The surfaces cannot absorb low frequency waves at it would require them to be extremely thick. Things like ailerons and elevons are impossible to hide to a low frequency radar as the part is of a similar order of magnitude to the radar wave itself.
If you want to make the structural body of the aircraft out of RAM – good luck.
kilcoo316Here we go again. :rolleyes: It’s only been pointed out to you about five hundred times but here it is again: 1. stealth doesn’t make you invisible when you’re practically on top of the radar. 2. Flying the same route night after night is a dumb idea. 3. Knowing the route a stealth aircraft is going to fly enables you to park a missile system under it. Add the three together and you lose an aircraft. Any questions? (You’ll want to bookmark this so the next time you’re tempted to type “all stealth sux cuz remember F-117” like a fanboy you can read this and save yourself the embarassment).
There are rumours (and I’ll stress that again, rumours) a 2nd F-117 was that badly beat up the airframe was scrapped (but it was not shot down).
1. Is that true?
2. If so, what where the circumstances?
kilcoo316You ignore the little factoid that B-2 has been undergoing RCS upgrade modifications during periodic visits to depot (Google is your friend). The RCS of today’s B-2 is much improved over the B-2 of 1996. B-2 will remain untouchable for the foreseeable future despite Russian sales brochure hype.
Yeah yeah.
The B-2, like the F-117 before it and the F-22 and F-35 after it, rely on their shaping (both internal structures and external surfaces) to redirect incoming radar waves away from the source. They also use surface materials to dissipate radar waves (bit like an acoustic liner), but RAM is limited to operation only over a small range of radar wavelengths (like an acoustic liner – physics is physics).
The internal shaping of the B-2, or the F-117 or the F-22 or F-35 is not going to change.
The RAM can be updated, but its efficiency is limited to K and X band radar.
As you may or may not be aware, X band is around 2 to 4 cm. The S-400 is designed around a radar operating on a wavelength of above S band. RAM is going to do bog all to improve radar signature against such a radar.
After RAM and structural shaping your into the realm of active jamming.
kilcoo316In stand-alone mode, a little less than 6,000 square kilometers.
LOL
Where did you pull that from. Considering not one specification was listed!
kilcoo316How much space of Russia can a S-400 defend against a VLO-technology intruder with stand-off weaponary and EW-suit?!
152 light years. :rolleyes:
kilcoo316LO is useless? the B-2 is no better than the B-52?
if you had any credibility, it is gone now
:rolleyes: It isn’t that complicated. I’ll try to explain the obvious (yet again).
Against advanced enemies (i.e. ones with latest hardware) the B-2’s time has come and is almost gone (I believe the S-400 renders its VLO technology obsolete).
It would have been effective from IOC through to 2010 at best.
After that (against advanced enemies), it will be reduced to using stand-off munitions, so to all intentions and purposes, it will be no better than a B-52.
kilcoo316capability is not solely about electronics
capability is also about increased range (more fuel)
capability is also about internal carriage / stealthas far as electronics go, the original F-16 didn’t even have a radar
the F-35 will have a very sophisticated radar and an electro-optical sensor suite the envy of anything this side of a U-2
I was referring also to growth within a design.
Considering the advances in materials, in electronics and in propulsion, I find it disappointing that weight continues to climb as rapidly as it does.
well what do you think a new plane should bank on to keep it safe?
speed? can you outrun a mach 5 missile?
manoueverability? can you outturn a 20G missile?ever since Gary Powers, the US has given up on trying to outfly a missile
so if not stealth, what is your answer to safely avoiding SAMs?
Active electronic warfare has been, and will continue to be the only safe way of negotiating airspace defended by SAMs.
BTW, its quite easy to outmanouvre a 20g missile… a 60g one is harder.
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
that’s freaking hilarious
I included it to qualify the comment, rather than make a definitive statement.
Which would you prefer.
anyways, do you agree that at whatever range it could detect an F-35, it could detect an F-16 even further away?
yes or no
Yeap thats true. But if the difference in detection is is 200 and 250 miles what practical change results?
perhaps i should have clarified, the MiG-35 isn’t even PLANNED to become operational, it is tech demonstrator not unlike the Berkut
The MiG-35 is available for export, and is competing for the Indian MMRCA deal.
that’s a remarkable claim considering they’ve never flown against each other
yes I’m familiary with the internet friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend-in-a-pub rumor about the raptor and EF going toe-to-toe
the problem is, there’s no evidence to support it
Dozer, one of the main F-22 pilots was very dubious of it. He said he had never heard of it happening and he doubted that it could have happened without him knowing about it. I’m going to need something more than an anonymous internet rumor
So they have to fly against each other to compare sustained and transient turn rates, energy bleed rates etc?
the optics for see-through-plane will never be fitted to the F-22
Again, I think the advantage of those optics will be extremely marginal.
well more is always better
are you saying having more range would never be helpful?
Not if it means you have an increased airframe weight. See my earlier point regarding MiG-29 and Su-27 and which was actually better designed for a war in europe.
you’re wrong, trying to restart a production like that’s been shut down is hugely expensive
and that’s assuming they still have the tooling
They’ll have the tooling for parts, restarting a production line where everything has been done before is infinitely easier than getting a new jet test flown, and getting that brand new production line (with new techniques) up and going.
well that was enough for you when it was the Russians 😀
It is common sense that surface to air radar acquisition techniques are going to improve at a rate far faster than the RCS of the F-22 or F-35 is going to be reduced.
Without going to active jamming, the stealth characteristics of the two aircraft are essentially fixed. Whereas improving longwave radar is a question of software and computer power.
seriously, control systems have evolved tremendously, i certainly would expect it to be substantially improved
Expecting and achieving are worlds apart.
kilcoo316at first you said LO wasn’t needed for CAS because there were no threats.
now you’re saying the threats are so great LO does no good
color me confused
I think its pretty clear.
LO is not needed as it will be useless for any wars against advanced enemies. Against the current threat, current machines are more than enough.
improved visibility is a good thing, yes or no?
– not if it disorientates the pilot
– not if its actually unusable in practise
maybe we should just bury pilots in the fuselage and give them a porthole to look out because that’s all they can do at 8 g :rolleyes:
So what part of the plane will a pilot be looking out of in a dogfight?
Ahead and above, or the floor?
five blind radars networked together still leave you blind
networking is only helpful if someone has useful information
I suppose you believe LPI radar actually works against other 4.5/5th gen passive systems then? :rolleyes:
in the right circumstances (range, angle), it’s certainly possible
Probable is the word your looking for.
no
the F-35 is harder for a SAM to shoot down = fewer of them will be shot down
in my way of thinking, better to make something 10x harder to shootdown than just expect to lose 10x as many aircraft
I disagree with your opinion on this.
never in history has anyone delivered so much ordinance so precisely
yes there were mistakes, but orders of magnitude fewer than in previous conflicts
Never has anyone dropped as much ordinance…
You’d like to think it would improve over dumb bombs!
yes the proliferation of more advanced SAMs is an arguments for using obsolescent airframes with gigantic signatures :rolleyes:
Yet the new SAMs coming into production are said to be able to deal with ‘stealth’ threats at massive ranges.
Or are they too advanced for JSF?
having topcover doesn’t mean there aren’t SAMs lurking about
such as in Kosovo . . .
Which shot down how many aircraft?
Ohhh… was it one of those mighty aircraft that relied entirely on VLO technology to do the job? (with rumours of another written off)
Hmmm… own goal methinks.
Oh oh oh… it gets better… what was the other NATO loss? A single engined F-16 due to engine failure… hmm…
kilcoo3161. it is when you consider all the capability (weight) that has been added
Not really considering the corresponding shrink in electronics. :confused:
In fact, from that perspective, it (and nearly all other military aircraft) are **** poor when it comes to the capability growth = weight growth relationship.
2. you seem to think manouverability is the be all and end all of combat
i don’t know how to be more blunt
you’re wrong
the MiG-29 is more manoueverable than the F-15
here’s a little homework assignment for you:
how many F-15s has the MiG-29 shot down?
how many MiG-29s has the F-15 shot down?
:rolleyes:
How many MiGs were flown by trained competent pilots with proper support?
I think that is a measure of your desperation drawing that pathetic comparison into it.
I don’t think manouverability is the be all and end all. But I do think its extremely stupid for an aircraft that is supposed to be around for the next 30-40 years to be banking on current VLO technology (and little else) to keep it safe.
According to the Russians, the S-400 can already deal with such aircraft at long ranges – what do you think is going to happen in 20 years?
1. the MiG-35 isn’t an operational plane
2. as far as the Rafale and EF, proof?
1. neither is the JSF last time I checked.
2. The EF-T can live with the F-22 in virtually all areas, the Rafale isn’t far behind the Typhoon. I’ll leave you to work out the comparison of F-22 to F-35.
so what’s your proposal for replacing the SH?
Don’t. The navy can go suck for being spasticated in procurement for this last 20 years.
range, loiter ability, sensors, network ability, cost
range – ok – but not really necessary
loiter – same as above
sensors – upgrades to the 77 will bring it in line with the 83
network – same
cost – IMO the jury is still out on that
the F-35 will have a greater range than the F-22
So does the F-22 not have enough range?
no, the F-35 has sensors the F-22 never will
Like…
yes
1. how much do you think it would cost to restart production? it certainly wouldn’t be cheap
2. Harriers are expensive to maintain, the F-35 should cost less in this regards
3. Harriers are finnicky and accident prone. Losing planes and pilots is expensive. Hopefully the F-35 will be more user friendly and safer and not have as many ‘accidents’
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/national-reporting/works/national1.html
ONE THIRD OF THE FLEET HAS CRASHED, 45 officers dead, and that was 4 years ago
more later . . .
1. Not as costly as the JSF farce currently is.
2. So update the engines – again, cost less than the current farce.
3. And JSFs are going to be soooo different (because Lockheed said so).
kilcoo316It Is about requirments , the SECOND fighter , needs to complement the F-22 not surpass it, The DOD learnt that Supercruise , high T2W ratio is expensive and the LOW end of the force will be very capable without it whilest as capable in every other respect .
OK, thats their decision, one I happen to disagree with. But hey.
Targeting , larger scope for internal A2G weapons , ground modes for the radar , cheaper cost to maintain , purchase meaning that it can be feilded in larger numbers .
I’m not sold on the lower costs yet. They’ve still some way to go before getting the thing near ready for IOC.
I dont believe that comprehensive Ground mapping modes (to bring it even partially close to the level of the JSF’s radar) are funded .
OK.
I don’t believe that any difference will be significant.
Nope
When did that change?
kilcoo316No, that’s procurement cost, not construction cost. For comparison, the procurement cost of an F-22 was given by the Pentagon as about $170 mn when the construction cost was below $130 mn. When you compare the cost of F-22 with F-35, you should always bear in mind that difference.
So what is the current quoted construction cost of the F-35?
(Bearing in mind Lockheed’s ability to talk brown stuff)
Sign In
