First off I have to say thanks for an excellent post. It has everything from sources to a friendly tone.
well like in the link i have posted the f-35 can detect clean EF-2000 at 120 km , we dont know how much pylon , missiles will increase the RCS number , and since supercruise consume a lot of fuel , they may need to carry fuel tank too which increase RCS even further likely much more than 200 % , and the most important thing aircraft with vertical tail will have RCS rised significantly compared to aircraft with V tail like F-35 when the enemy is not completely head on
But why make this into an apple vs oranges comparison? I go for the jets + weapons for a reason. Its the most comparable data you can get.
And btw, I agree that we dont know the true RCS figures. So I wont debate them. Sure, you can set the ‘un jammed’ range to 120km against the old Eurofighters if you want to. Shaping will always give you benifits in some aspects and disadvantages in others.
you still dont have information like aspect angle and velocity , not to mention IRST affected by cloud , weather , and your triglometry will have big problem for example : how do you know the enemy is an F-35A not F-35 C , or how you know it an F-16 not an F-2 ..etc there alot of aircraft look alike but have different size
6 pixels across is whats neded for a positive target identification according to FOI. As long as you got position of the enemy (approx) it is enough to fire the missile. The trajectory however wont be perfect but it will do the job.
Please enlighten me on how many clouds there are at 30’000 ft and above, or for that matter how often you see rain at those altitudes. Btw, that level of detail requires pretty short range between radar and target. If you have a target far away that isnt responing to IFF signals it is likely that its an enemy.
we dont know how good is jamming Vs AESA , and using jamming is more like saying hey iam here => F-35 can attack you by using ELINT system
Thats not how jammers work today. For every advancement on the detection side you have an advantage using the same technique on the defensive side (at least when it comes to radars), ir is trickier.
Aim-120 have NEZ bigger than that about 30-40 km , and meteor if i remember correctly have NEZ about 3 times of normal missiles , and btw just because missiles run out of fuel doesnot mean they are less lethal , for example if both F-35 and the enemy fly at high altitude the missiles will decelerate very slow , i dont think it easy to evade something at mach 4-5 while your aircraft is also moving toward it at speed of mach 1.5 ( think about it , it quite hard to evade a bullet when you are in your car , right 😉 )
Depends on how you count NEZ. In this case the best comparison would be an arrow from a longbow (usually starts at 300km/h) that had stron LED lights vs you in a car averaging ~100km/h. Pretty early on it will be very hard for a shooter to hit you in those speeds. And since you like comparing with cars I will ullustrate how to make the tightest possible turn with the highest possible exit speed.
The key here is having full throttle once you have begun the turn. This is impossible without propulsion. So once you lose propulsion maneuvering will suffer, and every turn costs a lot of energy.
This is why the demonstrated Pk of missiles outside the 10nm range is almost laughable. If the enemy sees the missile coming, and the missile has no propulsion left, it is fairly easy to out maneuver it. That is why burn time is so important.
It is wuite possible that, say Aim120D or Meteor will have a Pk within the propelled range that is as high as 80%, but once propulsion is lost, a maneuvering target will make this go down all the way to 0% depending on the distance and maneuvers utilized.
since F-35 detect these 4.5 much further than they detect F-35 , doesn’t that mean the F-35 will have time to accelerate to very high speed and also climb to higher altitude before launch missiles :p
Absolutely, but that requires afterburner which increases IRST detection range.
about the RWR and AESA radar i think this a very good read
Thx. And that read confirms what I say. A rwr is pretty much the same as a passive radar. Lets say you have one that is 100 times smaller than a normal array, ie the rwr only has 14 antenna modules (receiver units). Now, is it likely that you get a reflection of 1% of the light you hit the target with at long distance? Not really. The sensitivity is normally in the -50 to -60db range (1/100’000 to 1/1’000’000 range).
And thats the expected returns at maximum range. If you have antennas made for LPI intercept (as EWS39 has had for over a decade) it sort of doesnt matter. But these numbers show you what reflection is expected in return at max range so if you have just over 1/316 to 1/1000 the amount of listening ‘receive modules’ as the enemy has in their radar you will have a relatively better probability of detecting their emissions before they detect the reflections.
Some more read up here: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~anita/new/papers/militaryHandbook/rcvr_sen.pdf
As I have stated several times. The whole scenario is too complex to be fully covered on paper. I will focus on the physical limitations in simplified scenarios.
Basically they are conservation of energy, kinetic advantage/disadvantage, the likely high Pk engagement ranges etc.
Sign In
