totoroDo yoiu have the source for this claim about Top and Buk?And also what years are we talking about?
Nope, no source to offer, i’m sorry. As far as the time frame, it was just prior to the nato attack so i’m figuring it must’ve been 1998, maybe early 1999.
totoroI remember back then that tor and buk systems were offered to serbia, and some 1-2 units were sent for evaluation but in the end they were not bought by serbia as they were too pricey. Rather, money went into modernization of kub systems they already had.
As for the new airplanes – prices that were thrown around here are not realistic. Just look at what hungary or czech republic or poland or greece or south africa payed for their planes. Okay, hungary and czech were offset deals which screw up the actual plane procurement cost but south africa had a very small offset deal set up, and still payed almost 60 million per gripen (support cost included, spares included, weapons excluded). Greeks recently payed 46 million per f-16 – thats fly away cost with no additional equipment, spares or weapons. heres a link to the total cost of the deal Link also says that the price of a plane ready for service, with spares, equipment and armaments would be almost 50% up.
New planes with new tech do not come cheap. So i am very sceptical towards the idea serbia will buy 24 new planes. At best, it would be a 12+2 deal like hungary or czechs did. But even that might be too great of a strain for the budget. Maybe the best solution is to go for used swedish A/B gripens, if indeed 60-70 of those will soon go on sale.
totoroJust a little bit of flight real life fact 565: That’s not necessarily the case. The F-14D is slower than the A, the -229 F-15E isn’t noticably faster than the -220 F-15E. The F-16/101 wasn’t faster than the A. The thing star49 (and apparently yourself) don’t seem to realize is an aircraft isn’t always limited by how many pounds of thrust are coming out the back end. Sometimes there are other factors.
Would you care to read my entire post? The very next sentence mentioned drag. So why just concentrate on thrust? So let me try to repeat myself: things to watch for if you wanna go fast are thrust and drag. There may always be artificial limitations (be they of engineering or mission design kind) set to certain aircraft but theory is still very simple – produce more force to move you forward than there is force trying to slow you down. We both know that, so there’s little need to quibble over the basics. If a plane is slower than it can be, there is always a good reason why they made it that way.
totoroI’m not so sure, because the air is so much thicker at 10,000 ft, that it might use up more energy to go downward at 10,000 feet than just to fly straight at 50. A missile’s range is doubled every 26,000 feet I think.
It doesn’t work that way. It’s very simple. Imagine the missile is a cannon ball. Every projectile that is fired into the air has to land somewhere. And the point it lands at will be its maximum range, not some imaginary point in the sky. Missile’s wings don’t come into the game here as the force gained from the lift is simply working on the vertical plane. (not that a 50 K feet launch would be vertical, the missile would still take some sort of ballistic trajectory) Once your lift is greater than your weight, only enemy of your range is drag / lack of sustained force to defeat drag.
totoroThe figures i gave are pure guesswork, of course, based on size and weight (sans warhead) of missiles. They assume same efficiency of the fuel, comparable flight trajectories, comparable weight of other subsystems within the missile and so on. I am very well aware its possible those things may not be comparable. So yes, there’s a ton of IFs there but since the specific data is classified guesswork is only thing left for us.
R77 may have slightly longer range compared to amraam but from what little data has been published it seems to be slower and has a somewhat inferior radar which is also somewhat less jamming resistant. I wouldn’t think amraam users have anything to worry about. And 120D seems to be on track to maintain slight superiority over the newest r77 variants.
To Slobo: you’d have greater range against 10 000 ft target as the the force you’d gain from gravity is much bigger than force of drag at 10 K feet against the missile.
totoroI’ve been reading about that 50% range incrase of D model since C5 was latest version so it is probably comparing with that model, not the range of C7.
Also, all the advertised ranges are indeed ideal situation ranges. So yes, they do mean hitting a non manouvering target at negligable speed at 10 000 feet with launching the aam at 60 000 feet at mach 2. Simply by launching the same missile from, say, 10 000 feet reduces the range by a significant margin. Launching it at, say, 600 mph would also reduce the range. If target manouvers, forcing the missile to further adjust it course, the range drops again. So, in your average real world situation, advertised ranges for all the aam missiles can safely be halfed, furthermore if the target somehow detects the launch and can start manouvering away away as soon as possible.
Mica, for example, has been tested under ideal conditions to hit a target at 67 km away. Now, depending on whether you believe french aam tech is on par with US / russia tech one could use that result to conclude that c7 has little over 80 km range and r77 has around 100 km theoretical range. 120D would then feature some 110 range in ideal conditions. In practical world though, it is doubtful there would be any launches happening at more than 50 km away.
totoroJust a little bit of flight theory 101: more thrust force means greater max speed. Less drag also means greater max speed. Of course, be that as it may, the actual improvements that we’re talking about here are miniscule as we’re already flying over mach 2 and air resistance is tremendous and for every 0.1% of greater max speed we need to use a great deal more of thrust. While additional 4 tons of thrust over existing 25 or so tons might not make a great difference in top speed it will make more of an impact in acceleration when drag is still relatively low. Not that i said anyting new. 😀
totoroBig wing may produce more lift and give you lower wing loading for better sustained turn rates. It also, however, means more drag, especially induced drag. So you need greater thrust. When it comes to angle of attack, smaller high loaded wings are superior.
Also, the article about canberra mentions no context. Which speed and which altitude were those flights done at? Sure it’s possible caberra has a greater sustained turn rate at 500 m – cause f16’s design wasn’t specified for maneoverability at such conditions.
It is always a matter of trade of. If you’re optimized for speed, you won’t be goot at sustained turn rates. If you’re optimized for low alt you wont be maneouverable at high altitudes, etc.
If technology and mission to design plane for are equal – inherent relative inefficiency in use of more engines versus single engine and the fact drag will increase more than your thrust will (since more thrust means more weight, more weight also means bigger wings, etc) makes it very sure that in the real world – smaller airplane will be more manouverable than a big one.
totoroThe question of whether two aim120 (i assume d model has same dimensions as c) can fit in place of one 2000 lbs jdam depends on the extra space around the jdam, in its current fit. Right now, if you fit two amraams fin to fin (and i’m talking zero in between space, so they’re touching) and consider the cross section area they occupy as a rectangle, that rectangle would be 640 long, 710 diagonally and 320 mm high. One must allow for at least some breathing space so in reality that rectangle would be a cm or so longer.
jdam in question occupies a round cross section area 635 mm in diameter. So, again, it all depends on how much space there’s left around that jdam. I don’t think anyone can tell from that picture. It all depends on whether LM planned for 2 amraams in place of one jdam or not. If they didn’t plan for it in advance, its my belief its unlikely they left enough space around jdam as every liittle bit of space matters and must be used.
Alternatively, if one positions amraams like they are positioned in f22’s bay, with one missile being slightly in front of the other, the cross section rectangle would be 570 mm long and 650 mm diagonally. Again a very tight fit. In this situation one also has to keep in mind length of such amraam combo would be just lil over 4 meters. Judging from the f22 weapons bay pics i’d say in practice it’d be closer to 410 cm. 2000 lb jdams are 377 and 388 cm long (two versions) Again. It could be possible but it really depends on the extra space around jdams LM planned for in design stage.
In the end, i don’t think 4 amraams is a low number. lots of planes carry exact same number and its deemed as enough for their users. f16s for usaf included. Even if US decides 6 amraams is needed, i would think we would see a further redesigned and scaled down amraam, perhaps aim120E?
totoroFinally a good picture of the bomb bay. And finally it confirms there’s no way f35 can carry more than 2 amraams per bomb bay. Actually the space for the bomb looks a bit shorter than for the amraam but i’m guessing thats just an optical illusion, as 2000 lbs jdam is slightly longer than amraam. I wonder what does vtol version’s bomb bay look, it was said it’s smaller. Shorter? Narrower?
totoroYeah, su33 does take off without a catapult. but even with the skijump, there’s just no way to get enough lift so its range and/or payload is significantly reduced, basically relagating it to point defense air to air fighter. su25 variation is used for strike missions, with its larger wing, but that one too can use just part of its full potential payload/range.
totoroJust what do you mean when you say fake radar beacons? Do you mean structures that look like radars or you mean something that actually emitts a signal? It is not that cheap to build a radar which will have enough power to cover 100s of kms. It may be cheaper than a cruise missile but it definitely wouldnt be cheaper than a jdam, sbd or the like. And Iran currently doesnt have the means to regularly prevent US planes getting in range to use such weapons.
totoroCouple of ways i can think of:
1. Have your people in the US, for decades, trying real hard to become B2 pilots. Then if you actually succeed and you’re flying that B2 into iran to attack it – you just crash it into the ground. 😀
2. long wavelength radars do work. They’re old tech. Iran has them. It’s within Iran’s capabilities to modernize them so good software can lower the background clutter issues LWRs usually are associated with. Problem, however, lies in the fact that they’re huge things. There is no such thing as a small LWR radar. We’re talking about radomes of size approaching 100 feet. So, they’re far from mobile, which means their location would be known and they would have dozen cruise missiles on their tail in the opening minutes of war.
One solution would be to make them semi-mobile, make a system that can transport pieces of such a radar on large trucks, then somehow assemble it in short amount of time. Still, i doubt that short amount of time could possibly be less than an hour or two, even if that. That still gives US enough of an opportunity to strike such targets, especially with loitering capability of block IV tomahawks.
Another solution would be to actually create an aircraft capable of carrying such radars. It would have to be large and it would have to fly slow, cause of the huge drag. Airship seems like the best bet. Immune to cruise missiles. Prone to getting its ass kicked by enemy AF. So while it may be a very valid option for a country like China, Iran just doesn’t have the necasarry resources nor strategic depth to protect it. Plus it’d take years and lots of money to make such system operational.
Would just like to add that any nearby country which puts its radars close to border and regularly illuminates the US forces will get a warning from the US in a matter of hours. “Stop what you’re doing or one of our bombs might accidentaly hit your radar installations.” They will not ask if that data is sent to iranians, they will assume that’s already the case.
3. Seduce a B2 pilot, get a strand of his hair while he’s asleep, then make a voodoo doll with that and stab the livin crap out of it with a needle as he’s flying his B2. Actually, it requires a voodoo doll of the co-pilot as well.
4. Have a vast network of small and mobile vehicles equipped with powerful IRSTs and/or your average radar. Then just keep looking at the skies more or less straight above you with IRST and use radars sporadically to further determine the details of an overflying blob on your IRST command screen. As it was pointed out before, B2s (or f22 for that matter) have bigger both RCS and heat signature looked at from underneath. Not only that but when they’re overhead they’re already in decent range for detection for radar – 15-20 km.
Depending on number of units in such network and your ability to transfer info and command them – you’d have an ok chance of detecting a b2. Hell, at 15-20 range looked at from underneath you’d probably even get a missile lock. Trouble is, SAMs able to reach such altitudes are both too expensive to deploy in such huge numbers required for the propsed network and they’re too big to be as mobile as required.
So realistically, you’d get b2s general location, much like with LW radars, but still have to have enough planes to search that area of sky to actually detect it and bring it down. If b2s have f22s for cover – that might be a problem. Also, every unit of such sensor network would not be exactly cheap. Which could mean limited numbers. Which could mean you’d have only enough of them to concentrate them near to potential targets. Which could mean you’d detect the b2 too late to prevent it from dropping it bombs. But you’d probably still detect it, and could possibly bring it down, if you can react fast enough with your interceptors, as it turns around and starts to head back.
There are only so many b2s to go through. 😀 Once again, this approach may not be affordable and doable if youre iran. It could, however work for a potent and richer enamy who can withstand a pounding until most of the B2 fleet is out, like china.
totoroamste will be a very nice addition to US capabilities, indeed. One still has to have those planes over the battlefield to do the ground search and target tracking with their radars. So if you wanna do that safely without risking your high value assets like E-8 you need to neutralize enemy air force and high altitude SAM systems. So it is sort of a catch-22 there. In my opinion, amste’s primary use is for CAS missions, destroying enemy tanks/artillery/ other moving assets while staying out of range of short and medium range SAMs. long range high altitude sams, however, have to be neutralized in a different way. (highly stealthy planes may do the job, yes)
And as for decoys, i guess i’ve not been clear enough. While decoy in air to air combat means a chaff, a flare, an unmanned flying drone or a towed drone – when i said decoys for ground equipment i mean fake launchers, fake radars etc. You could have them of various kinds – simple inflatable ones which would look alike only from a certain distance and quite elaborate ones, with heat generators, which could not be discerned from the real thing. Still costing just a tiny fraction of the price of a real thing. Smart enemy would litter the battlefield with such decoys.
totoroInertial and gps. That for one version of sdb. Other version adds to that a terminal seeker for target recognition to be used on slowly moving targets.
SDB indeed is the best air to ground weapon since sliced cheese. BUT. One still needs accurate info on the targets. SDBs may be able to hit a moving target but one needs to know the general location of that moving target. If you fire a weapon from 60 miles away, moving target will already get out of its seeker’s reach. So practical range, especially over a land with lots of ground clutter, will have to be much less if one intends to hit a moving target like a SAM that’s relocating.
Furthermore – it is much easier and cheaper to deploy ground decoys for SAMs than it is for air decoys. It is much easier to hide a SAM behind some cover (providing there is cover around and you’re not in a desert) and make it untedectable than it is to hide a non stealth plane in the air. Of course, we are talking about stealthy planes. And thing to note is there is no such thing as invisible to radar/other sensors. Thre’s just shorter or longer range at which detection is made.
And that depends on too many things to list out. LM said f35 is less stealthy than f22. and it wont be in service for another 6-7 years. ways to counter radar stealth will continue being improved upon. I am not dissing f35, it seems to be a very fine plane indeed and superior to the legacy force. BUT, it does seem to me that it’s getting too expensive for what it objectivelly offers, when compared to f22 cost effectiveness.
Sign In
