toanAccording to the declaration from Frenchman, Rafale has achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees and some maneuvers at zero speed during the flight tests before ~ Although the upper limitation of AoA for productional fighter today is almost the same as the Eurofighter.
toan1. It seems that every members (including DA, IPA, and serial productional fighters) in Typhoon family have never been used to explore the skills of post-stall ~ that is the job for EFM/X-31 project.
2. The carefree handling FCS of Eurofighter today just won’t let the fighter to fly into the situation of post-stall.
3. It is said that the Eurofighter is the most unstable fighter in the world. Although this means that Eurofighter shall have extremely quick reponse in changing nose direction / AoA, it may also mean that flying at extremely high AoA (> 40~50 degrees) is very difficult for fighter’s FCS to keep its safety becuse of its extremely unstable status.
Therefore, the Eurofighter today has relatively strictive FCS upper limitation for AoA (29.5 degrees) and lower limitation for speed (100 kts) comparing with most other Eastern and Western NG fighters today.
toanThe detecting distance is much lower as your tracking distance!
A: No, it should be that the tracking range is much shorter than the detecting range of the same radar for the same target.
http://www.novia.net/~tomcat/AWG9.html
Pulse search 63 nm ( 73 mi; 117 km)
PSTT 49 nm ( 56 mi; 91 km)
PDS of 53.8-sq ft (5-sq m) target 115 nm (132 mi; 213 km) –> This is the detective range for AWG-9 to RCS = 5m2 target.
RWS, TWS 90 nm (104 mi; 167 km) –> This is the maximal effective tracking range for AWG-9 to use AIM-54.
VSL, PRL 5 nm ( 6 mi; 9 km)
CW illumination for Sparrow 38 nm ( 44 mi; 70 km)
In fact the DLR claimed the Typhoon isn’t stealth but invisible in the front quarter for RADAR in A2A!:diablo:
A: Can you offer the document for such claim, thanks.
toanCosts for projected upgrades not included.
These costs are almost impossible to predict right now ~ When F-15 and F-16 began to enter service in 1970s, I think it is also impossible for them to predict the total costs of their endless serial upgradings at that time.
toanSu-35, 21th century edition:
1. IRBIS-E Radar: It has been declared to be able “detect” the target of RCS = 0.01 m2 at the range of 90 km+.
2. Minimal frontal RCS: may be reduced to 1 ~ 3 m2 with the help of RAM.
EF-2000:
1. Captor-M Radar: t has been declared to be able “track” the target of standard fighter (RCS = 5m2) at the range of 185 km+.
2. Minimal frontal RCS: 0.1 ~ 0.5 m2 should be the most reasonable range of estimation according to the military information that I’ve collected.
According to the basic formula for the relation between RCS and radar detective / tracking range:
* Su-35BM with IRBIS-E shall be able to detect EF-2000 at the range of around 160 ~ 240 km. And for fighter’s radar, the effective tracking range to the target is often between 1/2 to 2/3 of its detective range for the same target. Therefore, my personal estimation is that Su-35BM shall be able to track EF-2000 in the range of at least 80 to 160 km away.
* EF-2000 with Captor-M shall be able to track Su-35BM at the range of at least 123 to 163 km away.
Simply speaking, I think both fighters shall be able to track and lock each other at the range that is long enough for fully using their LRAAM (Meteor and R-77M/ER), and that is why I think Su-35BM will be a very tough enemy for Eurofighter today to deal with. The final winner and loser shall depend on EWS, tactics, and pilots’ training, experience, and real-time response.
However, Su-35 shall be still in the range that Eurofighter has the capability or potential to handle with. The really terrible threat should still be PAK-FA/T-50 ~ After it enters service formally and begins its exportation at the time of around 2020, I wonder what methods or procedures will UK / German / Italy / France governments and airforces be able to take to deal such a threat to national defense and arsenal exportation ??
toanOne question here, assuming this is the type of aerial encounter you want to pursuit while fighting in a Typhoon, why would you need a 7g turn in such situation? What external factor would make you think about pulling hard while at M1.6?
Both Raptor and Typhoon are designed for firing their own BVR missiles at the speed of Mach 1.6 to 1.8 and height of 40,000 to 60,000fts in order to give their own missiles most amount of initial speed and kinetic energy to achieve the best NEZ and effective ranges.
After that, the fighters (especially for Typhoon, which has no real stealthy capability to protect itself) will need to begin its evasive maneuverability in order to avoid the possible hit back from the enemy fighters. And according to the formula:
Turning radius = Speed * Speed / G-loading
If your fighter can achieve about two times more G-loading than traditional fighter under the same condition (medium to high altitude and super-sonic domain), then your fighter’s turning radius will be just 1/2 of traditional fighter at the same speed, or it shall be able to keep the same turning radius as traditional fighter with more than 40% faster speed ~ which means much more chance to evasive enemy’s BVR attack successfully comparing with the traditional fighter.
toanSure. But if the fighters were equipped with RWR and as such were aware of being attacked, they could have undertaken countermeasures – dropping chaff, changing altitude and maneuvering wildly – this all would have greatly decreased chances of AIM-54 to achieve a kill.
Agreed. But if you take the most modern radars into equation, please take the most modern digital RWRs which can handle LPI radars, as well, not vintage types.
And what kind of modern RWR system now has formally declared that it can handle LPI radars?? Although it is said that the DASS of Eurofighter detected the Raptor radar’s lock-on during the test in USA. This UK’s story is not formally confirmed and even being denied by USAF…….
toanThat is possible but exactly what sense does it make to design a fighter enjoying advantage in areas of the flight envelope where almost no actual aerial combat takes place (or ever took place)? What fraction of its service life will an EF spend soaring at M1.5-1.6? 2% or less?
It is the main area of flight envelope for Typhoon to do its BVR engagment business ~ Climbing up to the height of 40,000 to 60,000 fts, accelerating to Mach 1.6 to 1.8, firing its BVR AAMs (AIM-120B/C5 or Meteor) and then beginning supersonical evasion.
F-22A is also mainly designed for this kind of BVR tactics ~ According to the declaration of USAF, the best BVR combat flight performance it can achieve is at the height of 40,000 fts, while Eurofighter has the best BVR combat flight performance of its own at the height of 45,000 fts and the speed of around Mach 1.6 according to the declaration of Typhoon’s pilots.
toanRWR will notify you when the fighter radar acquires a lock-on target, way sooner than the missile reaches its terminal phase.
1. Then it is not the problem for AIM-54 itself ~ most fighters today still need to use its own radar to lock on its target before firing any kind of missiles.
2. The modern fighter radars today ususally has LPI modes to decrease the possibility of being dectected by enemy fighter’s RWR ~ That is why F-22A could “kill” F-15C and F-16C hundreds of times before they found they had been locked by F-22A in the past exercises including the Red-Flag.
toanWhat’s the (empty) weight saving from baseline Su-27 compared to Su-35?
Is it a given that Su-35 will supercruise with a reasonable AA load?
It is said that the baseline Su-27’s empty weight is around 16,400 kg.
When Su-30MK and Su-35/37 (1990 edition) came out, the empty weight of them was increased to 17,700 to 18,500 kg.
Now, according to the declarations from Russia and different military sources, the empty weight of Su-35 (21th century edition) shall be able to reduced to the range of 16,500 ~ 17,500 kg class.
Will Su-35 be able to supercruise with a reasonable amount of internal fuel and AA load ?? I guess so.
toanToan do you have any figures of T/W ratio for Eurofighter and new Su-35 both clean ie full fuel but no weapons and full fuel and full weapons load ?
Is it possible to get these figures ?
Thanks
All that I can estimate for you are the figures roughly equal to the T/W ratio for taking-off or sea-level flight with very low speed, since it is impossible for me to get the complete thrust envelopes of 117S and EJ-200 engines in different height and speed.
1. Empty weight:
a. F-22A: 19,660 kg
b. EF-2K: 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg
c. Su-35: 16,500 ~ 17,500 kg
d. MIG-35: around 12,000 kg
2. Internal Fuel:
a. F-22A: 8,165 kg
b. EF-2K: 4,600 ~ 4,996 kg
c. Su-35: 11,500 kg
d. MIG-35: 4,800 kg
3. Ferry range with internal fuel only:
a. F-22A: 3,000 km
b. EF-2K: 2,600 km
c. Su-35: 3,600 km
d. MIG-35: 2,000 km
4. Maximal engine static thrust at sea-level, AB / Mil:
a. F-22A: 15,876 ~ 17,690 kg / 11,567 ~ 11,839 kg*2
b. EF-2K: 9,185 kg / 6,125 kg*2
c. Su-35: 14,000 ~ 14,500 kg / 8,800 kg*2
d. MIG-35: 9,000 kg / 5,398 kg*2
5. Normal take-off weight / Maximal take-off weight:
a. F-22A: 29,250 kg / 37,876 kg
b. EF-2K: 17,000 ~ 17,500 kg / 23,500 kg
c. Su-35: 25,300 kg / 34,500 kg
d. MIG-35: 17,500 kg / 23,500 kg
6. TWR for normal take-off, AB / Max Mil:
a. F-22A: 1.086 ~ 1.210 / 0.791 ~ 0.810
b. EF-2K: 1.050 ~ 1.081 / 0.700 ~ 0.721
c. Su-35: 1.107 ~ 1.146 / 0.696
d. MIG-35: 1.029 / 0.617
7. TWR for maximal take-off, AB / Max Mil:
a. F-22A: 0.838 ~ 0.934 / 0.611 ~ 0.625
b. EF-2K: 0.782 / 0.521
c. Su-35: 0.812 ~ 0.841 / 0.510
d. MIG-35: 0.766 / 0.459
8. TWR for fighters at a “fair” base, AB / Max Mil (PS.):
a. F-22A: 1.198~ 1.335 / 0.873 ~ 0.894
b. EF-2K: 1.120 / 0.747
c. Su-35: 1.098 ~ 1.184 / 0.690 ~ 0.718
d. MIG-35: 0.984 / 0.590
PS: My personal estimation of the taking-off TWR for each fighter with six BVRAAM (AIM-120 and R-77), two WVRAAM (AIM-9M, ASRAAM, and R-73), and the amount of internal fuel for the ferry range of about 2,000 km. Please just taking it as a grain of salt.
toanThe fighter’s performance you can see in airshow is alway its low-level (less than 10,000 fts) and subsonic domain, and Eurofighter has no particular superiority comparing with other modern Eastern and Western fighters in this flight envelope region.
Before the Block 5 fighter, the early stage Eurofighters have some very strictive FCS limitations: the maximal upper G limit is 7.25 to 8.1G, and the upper AoA limit is 25 to 27 degrees ~ If the fighter you saw in the airshow was this kind of early stage Eurofighter, then it would be nature that its performance in airshow seems to be “Below the standard”.
Even the fighter you saw in airshow was Block 5 fighter, the maximal upper G and AoA limitations for it are still 9.0G and 29.5 degrees, which would still make its performance in airshow not much more special comparing with F-15 and F-16, not to mention comparing with the masters of high AoA superagility such as F/A-18E/F, F-22A, Su-35, and MIG-35.
The main advantages of Eurofighter in TWR, SEP, wing-loading, and drag over most other Western and Eastern fighters today won’t be so obvious until they are compared at medium to high altitde and (especially in) supersonic area ~ At the height of 40,000 to 50,000 fts and the speed of 1.5 to 1.6 Mach, while most other fighters in the world today can’t even pull up to more than 3.0G without losing speed and altitude in this kind of condition, the Eurofighter is still be able to pull up to 5.0 to 7.0G without losing speed and altitude.
toanNone of the shot down aircraft sems to have had any kind of RWR system thus enabled the kill simply by not doing anything except flying straight. In today’s warfare AIM-54 would have had less of a chance
ARH missiles won’t switch on their seekers until the last moment ~ From finding that he is locked by missile seeker to being shot down, the pilot often has only several seconds for response.
However, it is true that many modern fighters’ RWR / MAW / EW systems have declared they can handle these kinds of threat in such a short responding time. Taking DASS / TRD of Eurofighter for example, BAES declared that according to its stimulation, the system can make SARH missiles near 100% useless, and reduce 80% threatness of ARH missiles.
So, will the NG fighter’s EW system likes DASS really make the SARH/ARH missiles in the world out of date and unworthiness, and even threat the value and effectiveness of 5th Gen fighters like F-22A/F-35 (No matter how stealthy they are, they still use ARH missiles as their only BVR weapon right now and in the foreseeable future)?? Or they are nothing more than overexaggerated advertisements once again?? It should be very interesting for us to wait and see:D
toanBut generally speaking, the most important part is not the range, but the NEZ. It’s pretty much useless to state the range or the maximum ballistic range. Because it’s measured under optimal scenarios when you are facing an incoming aircraft at an unrealistic altitude.
A: And the most important of all, the huge difficulty of target identification at such a great distance ~ If the airforce is really so care about not to mis-kill the innocents.
If it’s such a magical weapon, Americans would have designed a LRAAM for F-22.
A: USAF thinks there is no need for LRAAM now because of its stealthy techonology. However, it is still keep studying and researching the techonology for building NG LRAAM in case of if USAF really need it one day.
On the other hand, AIM-120D, the newest member of AMRAAM that will enter service formally after 2010 has a respectable long range according to the declaration from American ~ Although it may still not as long as AIM-54 or Meteor.
I know what they advertised, but I was asking if it has been achieved in trials. It was said before that they couldn’t during one of the trials.
A: Englishmen declared that during the trial in Singapore, 2004, Eurofighter successfully demonstrated the supercruise capability of 1.21 Mach class in one very hot noon, while Rafale didn’t show such a performance at that time.
toanYou are going to have to show that.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
3-6039 was the F-14A used to shot down an Iraqi Mirage F.1EQ on 20 February 1987 by a single AIM-54A from a range of almost 150km. The Iraqi pilot, 1st Lt. Ahlan, did not survive the hit.
========================================================
http://www.cedarsrevolution.net/jtphp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2121&Itemid=2
A MiG-23MS that should have been shot down on 13 September 1980. This kill actually occurred one day later (there was a mistake in translation from Persian to our calender), and the victim was actually a Su-20 (mistakes of this kind can happen when one is firing over a range of 70km).
The Iraqi Fitter was one of a pair of planes from No.44 Sqn IrAF, underway on a mission of visual recce during one of border clashes that led to the war. The leader of Iraqi formation was Maj. Noubar Abdel-Hamid, CO No.44 Squadron. His wingman later reported they encountered only very slight AAA, but all of a sudden Abdel-Hamid’s plane, “just blew up”.
Well, that was the first AIM-54-kill ever (and the second kill scored by an F-14 in total): Maj. Mohammad-Reza Attaie fired from over 70km… The Iraqis never knew what happened to their Major, Iranians couldn’t help them either, then they never found the wrecakge, and (officially) he remains listed as MIA until today.
The second AIM-54-kill occurred only two days later, when Capt. Azimi killed a MiG-21 from over 50km (his RIO, Capt. Amiraslani, went on to fire around a dozen of AIM-54s during the rest of the war). Apparently, the fuze of that AIM-54 failed, but the missile cut the MiG in two, and the Iraqi pilot ejected safely. He evaded Iranian ground troops and escaped back over the border.
Both losses have been confirmed also by the document named “The Study of IrAF Losses in War of Iran”, one of few original documents left from the (meanwhile completely destroyed) official archives of the Iraqi Air Force.
On September 22, 1980, a MiG-25RB was shot down on extremely hard conditions. The MiG-25 was approaching fast and was already within 113 km, yet the F-14 RIO was unable to acquire the target. A positive lock on was made on distance of only 70 km, almost inside the minimum range. A single AIM-54 was launched in snap-up engagement mode at 64 km. The missile worked perfectly and the MiG was downed.
Sign In
