Tu22mThe exercise itself is nothing special, standard Soviet modus operandi which has been revived by Russia under the latter years. It is not like Sweden is totally innocent in these matters either.
That was 30 years ago.. and modus operandi was to go out and display presence.
Russia have during the last week done this twice, one time including active electronic warfare and the other time they where inside a small pocket of international airspace between two islands. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/spionplan-nara-svensk-ovning_8119816.svd
[ATTACH=CONFIG]215764[/ATTACH]
This was april 20th. The Gripens might have taken off but not in time to meet up the Russian plane. But it’s not even certain that they got airborne as there where no SwAF jets anywhere near the russian EW-aircraft.
I think we should let Finland take over the command of our armed forces since Sweden is incapable to command anything by any objective means of measuring.
Darker blue = Swedish airspace.
Red = Russian Il-20
Point of reference: Gotland is 40 km across (horizontal)
Tu22mMore info from the same guy (who apparanly is a former officer from the Gotlandic artillery… when that existed).
http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2013/04/24/sl-ckte-ryssarna-ner-svensk-radar-under-l-ngfredagen
Russia did send two unannounced bombers, with fighter escort and the less known part is that it was also having heavy EW-support (also with fighter escort) where one element was an A-50 Mainstay. Apparantly the ground based radars showed nothing but blur because of the active jamming from the russian EW-support during around 6-8 minutes.
Could it be the A-50 that was jamming the ground based radars so effectively?
Tu22mhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records
Curtesy of megaraptor @MP
[INDENT]The Format is:
[Name of aircraft] Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire
[Name of conflict aircraft was used in] (Nation that used aircraft in said conflict) Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire
Aircraft which were destroyed on the ground are not included in this analysis, because any plane can get destroyed on the ground no matter how good it or its pilot is.
F-16 Falcon 76-1-5
Gulf War (USA) 0-0-3
No-Fly Zones (USA) 2-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 4-0-1
Kosovo (USA) 1-0-1
Kosovo (Netherlands) 1-0-0
Kosovo (Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1979-1986 (Israel) 6-0-0
Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 44-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 3-0-0
Intifada (2000-present) (Israel) 0-0-0
Soviet-Afghan War (Pakistan) 10-0-0
Border clashes (Pakistan) 1-0-0
Kargil War (Pakistan) 0-0-0
Northwest border wars (Pakistan) 0-0-0
Aegean Sea clashes (Turkey) 1-1-0
Venezuelan Coup 1992 (Venezuela) 3-0-0
F-15A/C/I/S Eagle 102-0-0
Gulf War (USA) 32-0-0
Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 2-0-0
Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 2-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 4-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1979-1981 (Israel) 19-0-0
Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 38-0-0
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 4-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Saudi Arabia) 1-0-0
F-15E Strike Eage 1-0-3
Gulf War (USA) 1-0-2
Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 0-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq War (USA) 0-0-1
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
Yemen Border Clashes (Saudi Arabia) 0-0-0
F/A-18 Hornet 2-1-1
Gulf of Sidra 1986 (USA) 0-0-0
Gulf War (USA) 2-1-1
Gulf War (Canada) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Spain) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Canada) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA, Australia) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA, Australia) 0-0-0
F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet 0-0-0
NFZs (USA) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
F-14 Tomcat 135-4-4
Vietnam (1975) (USA) 0-0-0
Gulf of Sidra (USA) (1980) 2-0-0
Lebanon 1983 (USA) 0-0-0
Gulf of Sidra (1986) 0-0-0
Gulf of Sidra (1989) 2-0-0
Gulf War (USA) 1-0-1
Iraq NFZs (USA) 0-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 130-4-4
F-4 Phantom 306-106-545
Vietnam War (US Navy) 40-7-66
Vietnam War (USMC) 3-1-74
Vietnam War (USAF) 108-33-337
Desert Storm (USAF) 0-0-1
NFZs (Turkey) 0-0-0
Soviet border clash 1976 (Iran) 1-0-0
Dhofar War (Iran) 0-0-1
Kurdish rebellion (Iran) 0-0-1
Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 68-29-33
Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Iran) 0-1-0
Kurdish Civil War (Iran) 0-0-1
War of Attrition (Israel) 26-3-5
Yom Kippur War (Israel) 55-28-22
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Israel) 4-3-1
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 1-1-1
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-2
Mirage 2000 1-0-1
Gulf War (France, UAE) 0-0-0
Bosnia (France) 0-0-1
Kosovo (France) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (France) 0-0-0
Aegean Sea 1996 (Greece) 1-0-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Alto-Cenapa War (Peru) 0-0-0
Sea Harrier 21-0-3
Falklands War (UK) 21-0-2
Gulf War (UK) 0-0-0
Bosnia (UK) 0-0-1
Kosovo (UK) 0-0-0
Sierra Leone 2000 (UK) 0-0-0
Iraq War (UK) 0-0-0
Mirage F.1 24-43-20
Chadian-Libyan War (France) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (France) 0-0-0
Paquisha War (Ecuador) 0-0-0
Alto-Cenapa War (Equador) 2-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 15-35-11?
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-8-0
Gulf War (Kuwait) 3 (possibly 12)-0-0
Western Saharan War (Morocco) 0-0-7
Angola Border War (South Africa) 4-0-2
Aegean Sea clashes (Greece) 0-1-0
Rafale 0-0-0
Afghanistan (France) 0-0-0
Tornado ADV 0-0-0
Gulf War (UK, Saudi Arabia) 0-0-0
NFZs (UK) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Italy) 0-0-0
Iraq War (UK) 0-0-0
JF-17 Thunder 0-0-0
Waziristan War/NW Pakistan campaigns (Pakistan) 0-0-0
J-7 1-0-0
Sudanese Civil War (Sudan) 0-0-0
Uganda-Tanzania War (Tanzania) 0-0-0
Sri Lankan Civil War (Sri Lanka) 1-0-0
MiG-21 240-501-[too little information for an accurate count of losses to ground fire]
Vietnam War (North Vietnam) 78-95-0
Vietnam War (North Korea) 1-0-0
Vietnam War (USSR) 6-0-0
1967 border clashes (Syria) 0-7-0
Six-Day War (Egypt) 5-13-
Six-Day War (Syria) 0-7-
Six-Day War (Iraq) 0-1-
War of Attrition (Syria) 7-56
War of Attrition (USSR) 0-5-0
War of Attrition (Egypt) 18-93
Yom Kippur War (Syria) 30-26
Yom Kippur War (Egypt) 26-65
Yom Kippur War (Iraq) 1-9
Egypt-Libya Border War (Egypt) 6-1
Soviet-Iranian border clashes (USSR) 1-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 5-26
Lebanon War 1982 (Syria) 2-38
Turkish border violation 1986 (Syria) 1-0-0
Ogaden War (Somalia) 1-6
Angola Bush War (Angola) 1-3
Congo Civil War (Zaire) 0-0-0
Congo Civil War (Angola) 0-0-1
Uganda-Tanzania War (Uganda) 0-0-1
Uganda-Tanzania War (Tanzania) 0-0-1
Mozambique Civil War (Mozambique) 1-0-0
Sudanese Civil War (Sudan) 0-0-3
Somali Civil War (Somalia) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 0-3
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 32-40
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-4-0
Indo-Pakistani War 1965 (India) 0-0-
Indo-Pakistani War 1971 (India) 6-1-
Kargil War (India) 0-0-1
Soviet-Afghan War (Afghanistan) 0-4
Atlantique Incident 1999 (India) 1-0-0
Afghan Civil War 1992-1996 (United Front) 4-0-
Afghan Civil War 1992-1996 (Dostum-Gulbuddin Militia) 0-2-
Abkhazian War (Georgia) 0-0-0
Nagorno-Karabakh War (Azerbaijan) 0-0-6
Nagorno-Karabakh War (Armenia) 0-0-1
1986 Cuban border incursion (Cuba) 1-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 1-0-7
Croatian War (Croatia) 0-0-1
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 1-0-0
Balloon shootdown (Belarus) 1-0-0
1966 US China border violation 1-0-0
1963 US Czech border violation 1-0-0
Korean DMZ (North Korea) 1-0-0
Sa’dah Insurgency (Yemen) 0-0-1
MiG-23 25-102-[too little information for an accurate count of losses to ground fire]
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 3-2-0
Lebanon War 1982 (Syria) 1-30-
Israeli UAV shootdown 2002 (Syria) 1-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 16-56
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-8-0
NFZs (Iraq) 0-1-0
Gulf of Sidra 1989 (Libya) 0-2-0
Egypt-Libya Border War (Libya) 0-2
Soviet-Afghan War (USSR) 0-3
Iran-Afghan border violations (USSR) 4-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 0-1
Angola Bush War (Cuba) 0-0-0
MiG-25 8-8-1
War of Attrition 0-0-0
Yom Kippur War 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 0-2-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 5-1-0
Syrian-Iraqi border violation (1986) (Iraq) 1-0-0
Soviet-Iranian border violations (1986-87) (USSR) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 1-2-0
NFZs (Iraq) 1-1-0
Nagorno-Karabakh War (Azerbaijan) 0-0-1
MiG-29 6-18-1
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistra War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1
Su-27 6-0-2
Abkhazia War (Russia) 0-0-1
First Chechen War (Russia) 1-0-0
South Ossetia War (Russia) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 5-0-0
Somali Civil War (Ethiopia) 0-0-0
Angolan Civil War (Angola) 0-0-1
F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger 25-23-30
Vietnam War (USA) 0-0-1
Vietnam War (South Vietnam) ?-?-?
Vietnamese-Cambodia War (Vietnam) ?-?-?
Ogaden War (Ethiopia) 7-0-2
Yom Kippur War (Morocco) 0-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 18-23-12
Western Saharan War (Morocco) 0-0-14
Yemen Border Clashes 1979 (Taiwan) ?-?-?
Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 0-0-1
Fighters that have yet to see combat: F-22 Raptor, Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Ching-Kuo, J-10, Saeqeh, Azarakhsh, MiG-31, Su-30, Su-33, Su-35.
Observations:
1) US multi-role fighters seem to be primarily used in the strike role. They barely break even between kills and losses on the air-combat scorecard.
2) The F-15 Eagle is completely dominant as a fighter, 1) because it’s a really good aircraft, and 2) because it’s so expensive it can only be used by nations with enough money to invest in the training and maintenance it takes to make really good air forces.
3) Looking at the losses of the F-4 to ground fire, one can see how big of a threat SAMs were in the 1960s and 1970s. Compare this to more modern fighters and one can see how aircraft design has outpaced SAM systems.
4) The poor performance of the Mirage F.1 is somewhat surprising.
5) The ridiculously high kill ratio of the F-14 in Iranian service is also surprising. The common canard is that training trumps technology, but an air force with great technology but beset by political purges and struggling with maintenance problems and embargoes can still have a turkey shoot against an air force with both poor training and poor technology.
6) Su-27 is the only Russian fighter to have a positive kill ratio in combat, but as we all know this is likely due to “monkey model” export fighters, as well as the poor training standards of Arab air forces.
7) The unbeatens (aircraft that have engaged in significant air combat but never been shot down in air to air combat): F-15 Eagle, Sea Harrier, Su-27.[/INDENT]
Tu22mMore information from a former politician (from the Moderates that hold the office now):
Samtidigt som tv� ryska bombplan eskorterade av fyra jaktplan �vade p� att sl� ut v�ra luftf�rsvarscentraler s� sl�ckte n�gon ner de radarstationer som finns p� Gotland f�r att �vervaka luftrummet. Om det var alla eller bara n�gra tvistar k�llorna om, men minst en drabbades av of�rklarliga �driftst�rningar� � den st�rdes ut av �n�gon�
At the same time as the two Russian bombers, escorted by four fighter aircraft, trained to take out air defence centrals someone disabled the radar stations that are located on Gotland to monitor the airspace. If it was all of them or just a few is a piece of inormation where the sources have different views, but at least one had “performance disturbance” – it was jammed by someone
If Fredrik Antonsson is credible or not may be disputed but with his background at least he has the right contacts to get access to the information he claims to have. And he
Source http://nyheter24.se/blogg/6mannen/2013/04/24/storda-radarstationer-storda-forsvarspolitiker/
If this is true then it means that the SwAF did nothing when unannounced aircrafts made their surprise mock/excercise attacks against high value targets and engaged in active electronic warfare against Swedish radarstations in peace time.
This is still unconfirmed so do what ye wish with the info.
Tu22mA Rustavi source? Really? Russia had contingency plans, that were shown to be exactly the right idea when Georgia started the whole mess. I really don’t want to go offtopic on the subject, but come on…
Putin http://www.kremlin.ru/transcripts/16180 :
План был подготовлен Генеральным штабом где-то в конце 2006-го или в начале 2007 года. Он был мною утверждён, согласован. Более того, в рамках этого плана проводилась и подготовка южноосетинских ополченцев.
The plan was prepared by the General Staff about the end of 2006 or early 2007. It was approved by me, agreed. Moreover, in the framework of the plan was carried out and the preparation of South Ossetian militias.
The question was about this film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYQeeFXhOQw
This gave Russia casus belli and it shows that they can be aggressive if they want to.
Anyhow, the whole situation is quite embarrassing for the SwAF and it proves that no matter the equipment it’s policy and leadership that counts.
Tu22mSomeone remind the Finns the Cold War is over.
Seriously, this scenario is laughable. It ain’t happening.
Baby steps TR1, baby steps.
First you have increased military presence in disputed locations and military build up. Like the Caucasus, baltics and/or the arctics/polar region.
[INDENT]* In the polar region this has already been the case where Russia have been “parking” their nuclear subs in disputed areas in order to silence Norways claims of ownership regarding the possible oil fields there. They also have an expeditionary polar unit being set up trained to operate in that area.
* Russia has increased military presence in the caucasus region.[/INDENT]
Next comes claiming ownership of a landmass. Most recently in 2008 where Russia (according to Putin) started the whole situation and provoked Georgia to go to war. http://www.rustavi2.com/news/news_text.php?id_news=46258&pg=1&im=main
from wiki:
[INDENT]* Since 2008 Russo-Georgian War South Ossetia has been occupied by Russia. The Russian 4th Military Base has 2 main compounds in South Ossetia: one on the northwestern outskirts of Tskhinvali and another in Java. There is also a large number of troops stationed in the Leningor District. up to 3,500
* Since 2008 Russo-Georgian War Abkhazia has been occupied by Russia. Base on the site of the former Bombora airfield, near Gudauta (7th Military Base)[[/INDENT]
They also have ongoing military operations in the whole caucasus region in Chechnya as well as Dagestan where they occasionally continue to ignore Georgias borders.
It’s very unlikely that Russia will go to war with Finland, the Baltic countries or even Sweden. But they have acquired the capability to do so and they regularly practice similar scenarios.
They have also demonstrated that they are interested in expanding their sphere of influence and control over land mass, thus they have gotten less predictable. Commanders high up in the hierarchy have displayed that they still believe the cold war is at it’s peak…
Lets say Putin wont stop the next Coup d’etat attempt. They will still have intact capabilities but the will to use it may have changed. This is why it’s better to stay on the safe side.
Tu22mAll pilots on holiday… what can one say 😛
Because of work regulations they can’t have any pilots on readyness at holidays like easter, unless they deny a lot of the staff to go.
If you ask me it is beyond laughable but thats what happens.
Some fun trivia about how it has gone to where it is now.
Sweden, in the 80s, had a standing army of 850’000 men. Today it is <14’000. Many of the colonels however stayed after the downsizing resulting in some odd ratios where we have more colonels than 2 star sergeants and more generals than howitsers. The ratio between officers and soldiers is 2:1.
(The third bar is civilian personel in the army, the first is officers (incl specialist officers) and the second is GSS (squad leader, soldier, seamen)).
So this is the result of stupid politics and a bunch of colonels and generals with too much time on their hands.
When the chief of the army told the truth he got bullied by the politicians and took a few months leave because of “exhaustion/fatigue” after he publically said that Sweden only can defend one confined location against a limited attack for about a week.
So this story is about more than the airforce…
@TomcatViP
It’s common practice to send a couple of jets to observe the movements when they are so close to the border. Considering that RuAF likes to do these mock attacks while carrying live missiles it is a good rule of thumb to be cautious and demonstrate presence.
Tu22mProbably CFTs, but I like the weapons pod as well since it can be used by other jets in the airforces.
I wouldnt be surprised if they would fit the Gripen, F16 or F22 as well.
Tu22m@totoro made a couple of threads on the subject
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113735-missile-flight-theory
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?117432-historical-kill-percentages-of-SAMsGeneral opinion is that there is not much room left for improvement in missile agility,
so we enter a new unwelcome phase with DE weaponry, one that will drive up cost on platforms
Either you put missile pairs in tiny supersonic “minicarriers”, add boosters or go for a ramjet. All of them take up more space which make them pretty uninteresting for 5th gen fighters that have limited internal space in the bays.
Best solution so far is the ramjet (at least for the 5th gen fighters). For others a simple booster package could possibly do wonders.
Tu22mSo you’ve managed to dig something up 😉 , back up a few years out, i may have posted something regarding this (A AF document or something) but cannot seem to find it now. Remember around 5 years ago having quite productive discussions regarding AMRAAM, METEOR, R77 ranges against credible targets…on this forum…will try to find something…
Yup 😉 We have two very good posts, both signed by Obligatory (and cola). Hopefylly this will add some value to the thread.
I have done some rough calculatons (not good enough to post on a forum) but the conclusons I come up with is that with a ~20 degree turn/s the negative vector (negative acceleration) is ~1/3rd of the forward vector. This means 1/3rd of the acceleration capability of the propulsion system is sacrificed just to counter the negative acceleration forces. So a jet with say a thrust/weight ratio of 1 that needs 0,7 to maintain the speed will need to go on full throttle just to cope with the negative vector. And to that we have added drag.
I know this is simplistic and not 100% accurate but it goes to show what turning does to performance. If a missile will need to cope with 10 or more negative G-forces (as in negative vector, not azimuth angle) to its current direction then it will lose speed really fast. In a jet this force might get to 0,5G, and in a jet like the F22 it wont matter that much since it can maintain a high enough positive G-force to have a positive vector in total (when the forces cancel eachother out).
In a missile that has run out of fuel every negative G-vector means it will lose speed with a pace of Gforce x 9,8m/s every second of the turn. This could be translated to 100m/s if it makes a high G turn (30-40G?) with high negative vector (~10). And that is without the added drag. It’s not unreasonable to expect the drag to double with this kind of turn as you hit high AoA with high speed. So in total it migh lose as much as 25% of its speed during 1 second of the turn. (-100m/s negative vector, -100 to 200 total drag @mach 3). This is hypothetical though and I would like to have real calculations to back this up before i claim it to be valid in any way.
I still believe they show the principle behind energy conservation etc, but the calculations are very premature.
I believe this is congruent with the basics of math/physics and falls in line with dog fighting principles. However, my uncertainty is with how the negative vector should be calculated correctly, not if it’s present. There might also be better way to do the calculations and if so I’m all ears.
Tu22mOf the ones stil lin use I think the Mirage family is pretty capable, as well as the F4.
Out of the ones not still in service I would like to add Viggen.
Tu22mNo expert on the Aim-120 or BVR Missiles, so would let it pass on to more informed members, however i can speak of expereince of talking to AF jocks who are confident of the C5’s performance at BVR against current and planned threats. Those jocks will transfer to the D eventually. A lot about the Aim-120, Meteor, R77 is classified but like i said, i am no expert at BVR Missiles but i find it hard to believe that the Aim-120D would struggle beyond 20-30 nm against 4.5 generation jets.
Well, I at least hope you understand the physics behind it? The problem with BVR tactics is that you have to kill the enemy at the location where he decides to be. If the enemy decides to move around in dense air then you have to accept that the missiles will have a hard time conserving energy and thus be effective at range. So you are correct in assuming that the F35 will be able to engage them at a long distance, but the likelyhood of a kill will be very low basically no matter what the enemy is flying if they just stay low and hold some distance.
Tu22mBump!
Does anyone know how to calculate the G-forces effect on kinetic energy?
Lets say the missile has to make a 10G turn in mach 4 or 3 to home in on the target, how much energy will that turn cost for the amraam? And is it possible without any propulsion?
I try to imagine a jet doing a 9G turn without the engines turned on and intuitively it feels like the jet simply would go into high alpha/superstall and then its over because it has no speed left.
Tu22mAmraam D is quite longer then the 34 km range Tu22 🙂 , rest assured of that. And as far as the real NEZ of the weapon, it is constantly tested and claimed to be superior to the previous versions. BVR weapons were once HYPED especially in their infancy however much LESSONS have been learned by operators and developers, certaintly more so then we forum members. Had their reliability been questionable the operators would not be relying so heavily on them. There has to be a time when the finally get it right…
Nobody explained it better than Obligatory…
It’s a tad more complex then that.
In space, the range of an AMRAAM is 500 light-year, but the probability of a hit is zero, cause the fins has no authority to change the missiles direction.Next comes high altitude in atmosphere, still long range but real poor maneuverbility.
Then we have sea level, pretty good maneuverbility but only WVR.
I already showed you that you can get 65 km of powered range @ mach 4 just by changing the altitude to 50kft with the same missile that would struggle to get 34 km of powered flight just 10kft lower. And in the end the missile will need to drop 7km in altitude and (because of the angle) also tavel some time at a lower altitude where the target is. This means that its highly unlikely that you can get the long range (50-100km) kills against modern enemies that will be warned in time and who can reach mach 2 at 30kft. This means you have a relative approach speed of mach 2 when powered and thus you need to chase them for a while.
Lets say the target manages to make a turn and has completed it with m2 exit speed when the missile only has 10km left and has enetered the same altitude (30kft). It will now have to close that gap with a relative speed of 600m/s –> 15 seconds. Even if the missile is chasing 10kft higher it still is more energy than the missile has from the second it clocks mach 4. So the last part will be a glide with limited turn capabilites where it loses energy really fast (unless it flies in a straight line). Remember that the energy isnt enough despite ignorig the fuel burn to get there in the first place! Just think about it, for how long can a jet sustain a 9G horizontal turn without having the engine running?
This is one reason why BVR is such a hard game to win. And this is without stealth as a factor, or jamming etc.
HELLADS is an option for the F-35 in the future, and 6th gen fighter would have it at the onset. Currently it may require too much power but plans are to get it down over the years. Its size is also designed for tactical aircraft usage..Begining with the B1’s and B52’s its versions will surely find its way onto tactical fighters in the future (Either HELLADS or its ofshoots). My point was to CONSIDER HELLAADS if we are going to consider evrything EXPECTED to come out of CHINA rather then what is already operational.
Based on how hard it is for the F35 to provide the cooling for 30-50KW in the current avionics I highly doubt it will succeed to provide cooling for a 150KW laser… Thats like 3-500% more than its current capacity. (Accoding to the 2011 DoD report). Yeah, the F35 has an impressive cooling capacity but it has been a hassle to fit that capacity in such a small airframe, I cant see how they will increase it enough for HELLADS. It will probably fit in a specially designed jet.
But at the same time one has to look back in history. Since the Beriev A-60 HEL in 1981 airborne lasers have been good enough to kill missiles. But the A60 is still in development, despite succesful trials in the 80s, and the YAL-1 in the 2000s got scrapped despite succesful trials. In 32 years we have had airborne systems with carriers that can provide enough cooling, but nothing has happened.
HELLADS is still only a scaled down model that may, or may not, materialize into a weapon system. Remember that both YAL-1 and A-60 where full scale and basically finished products, but one got scrapped (Yal-1) and the A-60 was restarted a few years ago.
Tu22mEffective NEZ’s (however the operators measure them ) have been constantly increasing from the Aim-120C , to the C5 to the C7 and to the D. Expect them to increase further in the future. The D alone adds 50% greater range to the C7 which added range compared to the Standard AMRAAM. Reduce that range and you have greater UMPH at the end…Not all missile launches would be out at maximum ranges…but a non VLO target would be detected from much farther out, meaning that the VLO fighter can position himself in an EXTREMELY ADVANTAGEOUS POSITION while having the freedom due to its VLO design of being able to do so… Heck you could set up a few decoy F-35’s to take HARRASMENT shots at legacy crafts just to keep them busy while others get into kill positions for more meaningful kill solutions…Such flexibility in tactics is available in 5th vs 4th gen BVR engagements…Hence every one with the resources is trying to reduce RCS and IR by as much as they can…
It still is solid rocket fuel with a limited amount of stored energy. You can’t fit more than 50% more fuel physically than in the older Aim120B. The biggest range increases are from new flight profiles where one part usually is to sacrifice speed to gain range. In these type of systems we still have had basically the same rocket fuel for the past 40 years. And you cant fit more than 50% additional fuel compared to today.
The only other option to extend range is to make the missiles larger (but then they wont fit) or make air breathing missiles (like meteor) that currently don’t fit in the F35.
So the maximum range will without a doubt increase with the newer Aim120 but the actual NEZ against a 4th gen mach 2 capable target wont increase by much.
Modern 5th generation crafts specifically designed for Low Visibility have quite a bit of IR reduction measures, and definitly more so then 4 or 4.5 fighters..As demonstrated the standard Sniperx can do well at 35-40 nautical miles , for fighters operating in the sky it should do even better (Engine heat + Less disturbance compared to multiple ground targets) .. The EOTS is one step Higher compared to the Sniper X already in operation. For 360 degrees protection you have the DAS , which is less quality but MACRO in scope…
IR signature management and RAM are pretty widely spread on 4,5 gen fighters. Just look at WISCOM for instance. Without debating classified data this is what we (hopefully) can agree upon.
Heat signature is based on skin friction, engine heat + exhaust, size of the ac, avionics heat and signature management. I wont debate wether or not Rafale/Gripen etc have better signature management when we know they are lower drag and smaller desgins than the F35 with lower fuel burn.
Do you know the performance of the Aim-120D specific to your claims that it would only be effective at 25-30 miles against 4-4.5 generation targets? If so kindly share with me.
Here you go: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?97983-AIM-120-range-questions&p=1534761#post1534761
Fuel = 132lbs in Aim120A
Acceleration gain can be expected to stay at ~ Δ mach 2,7 to 3,25 (meaning if you fire it at m 1,3 or m 0,8 it will accelerate to mach 4) and it will spend 99-116lbs of fuel in the acceleration phase that is only a couple of seconds. Distance traveled ~4km (slight differences depending on V0 and acceleration speed).
So now we have to assume the amount of fuel in the missile. Let’s say the electronics unit size is cut in half as well as the target detection system. This will give you ~15% more fuel compared to the Aim120A. Aka 152lbs.
So you have 36-53 lbs fuel left for sustaining the speed after the missile has reached 2 km.
Drag force @30Kft in mach 4 = 5800N or 1303lbs. @40kft in mach 4 its about 656 lbs.
This equals to 6,8s @30k ft or 13,5s @ 40k ft up to 10s @ 30kft or 20s @ 40k ft. Rough ranges give us a travel distance (powered) of up to 34km. (Assuming acceleration of m 2,7, flight at 40k ft, 25% more fuel and NO turning). This would look different at say 50k ft (an elliptic curve, no penalty for climbing) where it would have up to 65 km of powered flight. It will still have 70 seconds @ 40k ft with an airspeed above mach 3 for around 65 km. So its still good enough to get a kill on a supersonic (mach 2) target as far out as 120 km or more if they dont maneuver.
But keep in mind that we have assumed 0G in turn performance. As soon as it has to track the target it will have to fight the force of the turn (G-forces * 9,8m/s). And what apears to be an easy curve in mach 4 is very heavy in G-forces. So actual range will be shorter than what the numbers say.
So in order to get longer range kills the missile will have to climb to altitude (if its rocket propelled as the Aim120D is) to be able to get a kill at 100 km. The problem is that it wont have any energy left for maneuvering when it finds the target. So the 40-50 km likely kill distance still holds up because the missile will have to endure G-forces that destroy the kinetic energy, it will have to get down to lower altitudes to hit the intended targets.
Meteor might change this but as far as the Aim120D goes it will stay in this ballpark. (unless it uses a new fuel with higher energy density which would be able to give up to 20% more stored energy). But most of the range gains will come from flight profile. But a jet staing at say 20k ft at mach 1,6 will make sure the missile bleeds out its energy and cant keep up if its fired at 50km since the air density is almost 3 times higher than at 40k ft.
The way to get around it is to use a larger missile (cant), a hit to kill missile (longer range but lower Pk) or a ramjet (like Meteor that might end up in a modified version for the F35). But currently we are where we are and the jets of today have good enough sensors to detect a F35 before they are inside the killzone of the powered flight regime. Most likely even if the F35 fields the Aim120D on time.
If the Aim120D flies at a lower speed the range will increase, but so will the time the enemy has to evade it.
Is that good enough for you?
EDIT: Some weights might be wrong but in general it’s just colas excellent calculations. It is all estimates but I think they give a rough picture of what can be expected.
Sign In
