Second factor is that Sweden never had, and likely never will, operate(d) an aircraft carrier. so Sweden has no experience in the developement of carrier besed aircraft, let alone the requirements (more then just a beefed up airframe, tailhook and landing gear). and Sweden has no facilities to simulate carrier landings (although it could move its testing to the US or Russia).

Oh no you didnt! 🙂

HMS Gotland

HMS Dristigheten

But regarding Sea Gripen I think it’s up to Brazil.

text

Thread is about stealth, not classified performance data on F35 components.

But i can comment on one part 😉
Considering that very few aircraft in the USAF inventory have any form of IRST-system I would say DAS and EOTS in any form is a step up.

You’ve been somewhat misled as to how these things work.

Step one. Off board sensors or the AN/ALR-94 detect SAM site emitting and that info is fused into the F-22 pilots picture on the avionics display.

Step two. If he deems the SAM site a threat he then uses his APG-77 to focus in on the SAM site.

Step three. (This is the one you went wrong on) Instead of targeting an area of 8 hectares in size to to carpet bomb the F-22 pilot instead uses the APG-77 to create a radar snapshot of the area of interest (which takes a matter of seconds). Once the pilot has the frozen snapshot image displayed they can then if need be enhance and zoom and taker another snapshot (again this takes a second or two depending on factors such as distance and resolution.

Step four. Select the required targets from the radars snapshot image and from there go on to select weapons etc.

The chance of a SAM system having the time to accurately target an F-22 used in the manner above is slim to none and it if did it would not be using HOJ methods but Home on Emmisions. Patriot batteries are going to have the same problem to deal with when the PAK-FA and J-20 come online.

I think you missed the whole point of dispersed receivers.

If you have one radar emitting, then anything that flies will reflect the radar emissions in various directions. Stealth is basically the same radar absorbant jets as the 4th gen aircrafts but with added controlled scattering, ie they reflect it away from the emitter. This does not effect systems like silent guard. This also means that the range of the old early warning radar gets improved since it doesnt need direct reflections.

When the stealth ac is close enough to a dormant SAM it will turn active and engage the stealth aircraft.

The snapshot that the F22 can take, in a perfect world, will have a few problems.
1 Resolution at distance. Will it even see the antennas?
2 Clutter, the radar will look very similar to a normal power grid, telephone masts and fences. Will the resolution be good enough to distinguish the target?
3 Fake targets that look legit while the real target is camouflaged (the vehicle will likely be hidden and only show the antenna, som efake targets for 90$ will look more legit.
4 Decoys, small radar reflectors hanging in trees, laying on the ground etc will make it almost impossible to get a solid read of anything.

These are just the basic techniques.

Joking aside I cannot think of another tactical fighter with the same level of sensor quality and choice as the F-35 and the only one stealthier would seem to be the F-22. Can you name a fighter with a sensor suite on par with the F-35? I can’t.

The sensors in the F35 are different from the others, but I wouldn’t call them better.

Some examples:
Most jets have high resolution IRST with a large scan sectors while the F35 has low resolution (px/m²) in a 360 sphere with a high resolution FLIR. To be honest, I don’t know which is the best. I know one offers better performance in close range and in AG-mode while the other (high res IRST) is better in AA-BVR mode.

The radar wont be the best as it neither will be the best performing in range nor in scan sector. (And that is by quite a large margin). My guess is that Pak FA will have superior radar systems since Irbis E is the highest performing one today and the simple fact that it will have 4 X-band AESA antennas + 2 L-band “anti stealth” AESAs in the wings… + one or two IRST-systems.

The ECM on the F35 is about 100% Star Wars inspired. There are no chaffs, flairs or towed decoys/jammers. Instead it will go all in with the stealth/jamming combo and DIRCM. The stealth/jamming combo works if the enemy is engaging from below, but if the missile is slightly above its basically the same as engaging a 4th+ gen jet that is jamming, only that the F35 will have kinematic performance that sux. Against IR missiles the DIRCM has about half a missile generation before becoming obsolete (useless) as this has already been defeated in Shtora (dynamic filters in the seeker, multiband seekers like IR/UV/TV-mix).

So I’m very not impressed. Sure, the individual systems are good, and probably better than for others. But it’s like having a car that has the best deformation zones ever made, and because of that they removed the seatbelt. Now, tell me if that increased security or not. That is what they did in the F35.

Current F-22’s in Air Superiority missions have STEALTH + SPEED + ALTITUDE to their advantage , operating fast and HIGH…Perfect for lobbing SDB’s, 1000 lb JDAMS at Enemy air defences.

And how would the F22 target the SAM-sites? Using SAR and become a HOJ-target?

Lets say the F22 has excellent sensors with interferometry that have an angular accuracy of 0,2 degrees (that is unlikely good). At 50 km just the angular inaccuracy is close to 200 meters across. With triangulation you might end up with a tiny area that is 200×400 meters large (again, unlikely good at 50km). It is more likely to be at least 4 times that area (twice the width and length).

This means that the few SDBs carried will have to cover an area that is 80’000 sqm (8 hectares) to hit a target that is pretty small… and protected by SHORAD like CV9040 AAV, Pantsir, Tor etc.

And the targets will be s this:

Below is a chart of how much artillery ammunition is needed to injure/kill at least 50% of the enemy soldiers (“put them out of combat”).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216824[/ATTACH]
I might have been optimistic in putting the VHF-radar in the 3-12 tonne per hectare range. It is likely more.

So the F22 can’t use SAR because it will make it into a flying beacon and it can’t use an ag-flir, because it has none. How will you hit one target (the early warning radar) when you need to bomb eight hectares that are protected with SHORAD?

EDIT: Come to think of it… it will be in the 20 tonne region because shrapnel and air bursts won’t do much good. You basically need a direct hit or a very close hit. Try doing that when you dont know where the target is and when the bombs that might hit the target will be taken out by shorad.

Yeah, for some reason I was thinking there of oxidizer-less gel fuel, but of course the pictured missile doesn’t have an intake like Meteor… :rolleyes:

The physics behind the CUDA are probably not the same as for all other elements in the universe, just like it is regarding the F35. :p

The missile has 6 inch diam and Aim120 has 7 inch. The frontal cross section is very closely related to drag. So in order to get similar range performance it needs a similar drag/thrust ratio that in this case will come from diam/engine length.

So we have Aim120 engine length = 74,4′ and CUDA engine length = 46,25′. To have same [cross section]/engine ratio the CUDA needs ~64 inches long engine which is 38% more than it has.

Assuming is has a speed of mach 4 (~1200m/s) it will have a burn time that is 27% less than the Aim120, Aim120C has 8-9 seconds and the CUDA will thus have around 6 seconds out of which 2,3 seconds are lost to acceleration.

Outside the 6,3*1,2km range it simply is a guided bullet that loses energy fast as hell because of turning, drag and loss of propulsion. In other words its not very useful, unless of course they can alter the laws of physics or go for a lower speed (but that would make it pretty useless as a KE weapon…)

I find it strange that one camp find the ‘Bang for the bucks’ SH good enough for today and future threats.
While the other camp only see the ‘Astronomical expensive’ F-22 as the only solution to the RAAF.

So perhaps the F-35 will be the middle road then?
F-35 Being just a tad better then SH in some areas, and under par on other areas..

In all fairness, even the F16V would be “good enough” with a decent IRST-system, not to mention F15SE.

Everything is compromises. What is important is to avoid the limiting factors and to stay above the threshold.

For instance [missile performance (A)] x [launch speed coefficient (B)] gives maximum engagement range against a qualified opponent that will take evasive maneuvers at launch time. Target acquisition/track/detection range with IRST-systems (C) today is about twice that of AxB and that will only increase

So when you design a fighter jet today, will you sacrifice B in order to improve C or is it more wise to improve A and B as much as possible to move them closer to C?

We could take this further where C(1) = radar and C(2) = IR/UV/Video. Against stealth ac the C(1) < C(2) is true, but C(2) is already 2(AxB) meaning that extra detection range gives you no extra gain at all other than better ingress positioning. But if you sacrifice B the advantageous ingress position is of no value.

Have they “destroyed” the F-35?

They have been doing their best. And that is one reason why LM is unlikely to fund them.

Hello everyone!

I am a huge fan of Airpower Australia, and I think they are dead on with the just so flawed. I was told by a friend that Airpower Australia is being paid by Lockheed Martin, to promote the F-22. Has anyone else heard about this?

That was a poor attempt to troll…