Tu22mBigger than Typhoon or Rafale, quite a lot bigger than Gripen
I think thay sort of shows why vague definitions like “too big” are so bad to use.
I’d say today that a small fighter is smaller and lighter than F16C, Medium would be FA18C size and heavy fighter would be F15 sized.
According to my definition then…
Gripen is the only real lightweight fighter (since the F16 just keeps putting on wight), and the Rafale is the smallest medium weight fighter. The Rafale C is pretty much the same weight as F16 block 60.
Eurofighter is close to Hornet size and weighs more so I’d say it fits perfectly as “medium sized”.
Everything that is the same weight and size class as the Hornet has export potential, even if it’s made by China. It’s when we go to F15 size, or better yet Su27 size, that we are talking about fighters that perhaps a dozen countries can afford to operate as they should (getting enough flight hours etc).
F15 size or larger, that’s where i say a fighter is too big for exports in general even if we have exeptions to that rule.
Tu22mI’d say its fairly small.
Going by the metrics, compared to the FA18C we get
| width: 500 | align: left |
|---|---|
| [tr] | |
| [td]Aircraft | |
| Length | |
| Wingspan | |
| Wing Area[/td] | |
| [td]J31 | |
| 16 | 9 |
| 11 | 5m |
| 40sqm[/td] | |
| [td]FA18C | |
| 17 | 1 |
| 12 | 3m |
| 38sqm[/td] | |
| [/tr] |
Sure, The FA18C might not be the smallest bird out there, but it isnt huge either.
Tu22mSo to carry this system require an empty slot of 3 m^3, (if carried internally)
and coupled with all other systems that has to work simultaneously require a bare minimum of 300 kW, even taking advances in account.
So something at least the size of Su-34 planned from beginning to accommodate laser, cooling, and generate the power needed, IMO.
Isnt that roughly the size of one internal bay on the F35 if filled completely?
A 2000lbs MK84 has a cross section of ~0,75-0,78sqm and is 3,3m giving ~2,5m^3 if it was a cylinder. And that fits.
The big problem is that in the atmosphere there are particles. These will absorb energy. So the KW on target will be degraded as a function of the quadrant of the range and absorption/air density at the given altitude.
Personally I would love to see lasers being standard but… we have tried it already and the physics just keep staing the same. A missile will keep having better range.
Is there anyone who has the actual formula for the absorption levels of energy in air?
Tu22mBut what was the mission kill rate (forced shutdown on the target radar) of HARM? That is an equally valid mission objective for an AR
Ironically that was over100%
OTOH we can say that Serb IADS was 100% succesful by the same token since NATO ac where forced to operate at high altitude.
Or one can say that mission kill never occured because the IADS stayed operational and so on.
Considering costs we get an interesting result. An AGM88 cost ca 500’000$ in todays money, and in order to kill 3 radar stations (for SA6) they launched 389 AGM88 + other guided munitions.
This means that the cost to destroy one SA6 fire control unit is $65mil.
The same money would buy you at least 4 units of Pantsir S1 with radar on all units.
So the money spent on destroying the 3 SA6 (assuming it was all done with AGM88) would buy 13 Pantsir units.
What we see is that its pretty economical to buy Shorad.
Tu22mIt was usually intercepted between Gotland and the Swedish coast. I heard that on at least one occasion the squadron that did the interecept got a postcard with a picture of a SR-71. The sender was anonymous and the only thing written on it was “congratulations”. 🙂
I posted a thread where you can see the tracking of the SR71 on PPI films as well as follow the intercept missions. Even jamming from larger EW aircrafts and huge chaff releases are shown.
First to obtain missile lock on the SR71 was the pilot Per-Olof Eldh in a JA37, regarding the postcards there are several stories about them. It happened several times and some of the where sent as a practical joke from Central C&C.
Tu22mThat isnt particularly accurate Tomcat. The europeans worked a lot on signature management, but stealth is a compromise and in Europe the focus was rather reduce critical RCS (ie head on) and have a broader band approach.
We didnt need stealth bombers, we needed superior fighters that also could deal with the relevant threats. So the development went into multirole fighters with, in comparison to American and Soviet/Russian designs, minimal RCS, superior EWS and superior datalinks.
About 15 years later the US fields the F22, a fighter so expensive not even the richest country in the world can buy more than 185 of them.
Considering the threats, the budgets etc the Europeans made the best choice. And still, 35 years after the decisions where made the costs and compromises that revolves around stealth is debated… and frankly, there are still plenty of tasks that 3rd gen fighters are fully capable of doing and even outperforming 4th gen peers.
You have the numbers in the reports.
Tu22mF-117 flew Desert Storm missions using the tactics practiced for destroying hardened Soviet C3I centers. Two 2000 lb bombs were used on hard targets with the second bomb going through the hole created by the first (two bombs/one target).
Worked like a charm on two targets… As with many projects and ideas it all looks great in theory but fails to actually deliver in reality.
Tu22mThe question his numbers support was simply: are low observable characteristics at the expense of other charactieristics, such as performance and cost an indispensible feature?
Many of the more thoughtful think not.(Ps the generations thing is marketing bull 🙂 as soon as that gets introduced into a discussion it generally indicates to me that there is a lack of substance behind the argument)
The position taken up by so many pro F35 and por “stealth” people is so polarised that it is becoming laughable.
When verifable numbers are challenged and an attempt at ridiculing them made it makes the “pro” argument appear even more strained.Low observable tech is a useful tool but it is not a panacea that halts all development. That fact is rarely discernable from many a “pro stealth” comment.
It’s like reading my own thoughts, only better composed.
Tu22mSuch comparison makes sense for real combat situation. F-16 would most likely start with two bags and upon having entered the combat zone it would have full internal load. F-35 would start with full internal load and upon having entered the combat zone it would have ca 60% fuel.
Anyway, much more interesting is the fact that two full wet bags incl. pylons only add 2.2 seconds (13%) for the F-16. That is completely inconsistent with Scooter’s claim about how even a Sidewinder or AMRAAM impacts the performance greatly.
Not arguing with that logic. I just dont get why they are messing around with it. Just print the actual numbers instead of calling it stuff like “Tactical Mnvr Wt”.
OTOH, all fighters usually do this with 50% fuel no matter the difference in range. Even the Sukhois do so and their combat radius on internal fuel is ~810nm on internal fuel. Should they compare performance to an F35 with drop tanks? 🙂
There is a standard way of doing the comparisons, LM are the only ones not following them.
Tu22mHe makes some good points but is about 100% wrong with the Viggen vs Draken.
Viggen was the ultimate Cold War platform. It was faster than the Draken, it turned better, had better range, it had datalinks that where exeptionally modern, it required shorter runways etc. And it started out as an attack ac… I think it still is the only Swedish ac to have gone up with the SR71 and succesfully obtained missile lock on.
But the first years where troublesome, just like they where with Tunnan (crosswinds during landing killed a lot of pilots because of the swept back wings), or Draken (unintentional Cobra maneuvering in the 60s put pilots in spin and that killed many, it was pretty unstable as an ac and needed several upgrades before being competitive to Lansen).
During the 50s we averaged 21 killed pilots per year by accidents alone, in 40 years of cold war we had over 600 dead pilots + civilian casualties. Most of them died in Tunnan and Draken.
When Viggen came we finally had a high performing ac that was “safe” to fly fast at low altitude.
Tu22mBIO, i was asking the values of altitude and speed generally considered as meaningful (like i think mach 0.65 to 0.9, think i’ve seen this) so as to ask a Dassault by mail. Nothing more. So if you can give me most used values in the USA, i’ll ask about Rafale performance (also plz say with which loadout etc.). I’m only trying to get data from Dassault.
Acceleration numbers for F35 @30k ft:
Mach 0,8-1,2 F35A 61 sec
Mach 0,8-1,2 F35C 104-112 sec
Subsonic, with 4470kg fuel @15k ft:
Mach 0,6-0,95 F35A 17,7 sec (54% internal fuel)
Mach 0,6-0,95 F35B 19,0 sec (73% internal fuel)
Mach 0,6-0,95 F35C 21,0 sec (50% internal fuel)
F16 in comparison is likely to have full internal fuel.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220859[/ATTACH]
The “*Tactical Mnvr Wt” or Tactical Maneuver Weight is Lockheed language for enough fuel to have the same range as he baseline aircraft, ie the F16 with full internal fuel. If the F16 is has 50% fuel then the F35 numbers are adjusted accordingly and my figures are too high.
This is how Lockheed make comparisons. And never mind what 240.42 configuration is, it’s just a build configuration and not a payload config. IIRC the 240 stands for LRIP7 and the last .42 should be upgrade or avionics config.
Tu22mI’d say 1-3%, but otherwise fair enough. However, we must take into account that the PK probably differed enormously depending on the target. I would expect the PK against UAVs (slow, many of those lost flying fairly low, not using countermeasures or attempting to evade) to be much higher than against fast manned jets.
True datt. In the RAND report we see one prime example where, they mention how easily the SA7 was to foil by using flairs. UAVs dont.
So against fighter aircraft the Pk was likely less than 1%, but in total ~1-3%.
We have also seen in first person view how effective maneuvering (together with chaffs and jammer) is against missiles that pull 60G, or~45-50 at that altitude.
BIO:
What the stats prove is that survivability comes from a lot of factors. Stealth is just one of many. Kinematics, avionics, SA or information, experience, EWS, EW-support, anti radar support/capabilities, mission profile, resistance to damage, distance to enemy etc are all just as important… heck. even daylight matters as it turns out.
There are no silver bullets here. Thats why PAK FA and F22 have superb kinematics AND stealth, it is also why the F35 does not look like a subsonic flying triangle but rather like an obese fighter.
Tu22mIt’s a race, like everything else. But so far, I get the impression that PGMs are getting better faster.
Guess time will tell…
All 21 UAVs shot down by SAM? I think that unlikely. There are reports that helicopter door gunners shot a couple down, for example, & others were reported lost to AA guns. Also, that figure of 21 includes some technical failures.
The AH-64 crashed in Albania. Was it ever over Kosovo? Was it hit by anything, whether SAM or AAA?
Thats the number I got. One AH-64 crashed and one was shot down. Can we set Pk to 1,5-3% then (a margin of error of 50%)?
Anyways, we now have the data from the latest two air campaigns and more interestingly the last air campaign where the west encountered any form of resistance.
Tu22mJust to give you guys something from more modern times… (1999)
In Allied Force over 389 HARMs where sent towards SA6 batteries, but in the end only 3 where actually destroyed by all bombing (the radar vehicles where assigned 1 per battery).
Pk of HARM was… <1%
~30 US aircraft where hit incl 21 downed drones and 3 downed ac (1 Apache) and the Serbs fired 815 SAMs.
P(hit) of SAM was… 3,7%
Pk of SAM was… 3% (including drones, have to include them)
Obviously hitting stuff is tricky. But its a new dawn now, a new era! This time around missiles will hit their targets at least 90% of the time, like the adverts say.
Tu22mHow many Serb radars had to shut down suddenly? Air defences can be suppressed without being destroyed.
Note that newer weapons aren’t fooled by a radar shutting down. They can still find it.
There are a lot of new things that have happened but in the end its all the same 😉 And yes, you are correct. SEAD played its role perfectly leading to few ac losses.
But…
For instance SHORAD, like Pantsir S1 have become really good. These make SEAD/DEAD missions a lot harder to accomplish.
Another part is decoys. It’s not hard to throw out a tenfold amount of reflectors near the radar tower, or better yet, small units that are active decoys.
The problem for a missile like HARM is that the sensors on the ac have an uncertainty when it comes to triangulating the position of the target. Even if you are 99,9% accurate in all three dimensions, from 20-40km this equates to +/-30m. At 50 km you have an area similar in size to a footballfield (+/-0,1% = +/-50m = 100m).
So it will have to rely on other sources of tracking, like active radar. And that is foiled by decoys. If it tracks emissions then an active antenna will foil it.
So despite everything being different it still is very much the same 😛
EDIT:
Found some bits on Allied Force as well 😀
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365.html
Sign In
