Tu22mThat would be wise
I just try to make a comparison of performance, I doubt that is being stuck in the cold war way of thinking.
But to attempt getting back on topic… you made a few points that are applicable for the F35.
No point in having a nose that can carry a 5000 tr mod AESA when that sort of BRUTE range and power is not going to be required / needed due to
A) Availability of other assets(some that can defend themselves, others requiring escorts) that are contributing to the C2C Picture and
B) You cannot use it at its FULL might due to LPI concerns….So use it , and you loose the 30-40 billion in development of VLO airframe and the setup to boot…
The same overkill in sensor performance held by Su35BM vs F15 can be translated to F35 vs future adversaries.
* The potential for a first shoot is greater in the F35, but will it even carry missiles internally that can perform at that range vs current fighters like the Rafale or Su35?
* The constraints in IRST-ranges are one sided, once you have a design its hard to make it colder but the sensors can always get better. The current baseline is target acquisition ranges over 50km (using the OLS35M).
* The current missile ranges are impressive but the effective range (up to 50% Pk) is closer to 40km because of the energy stored in the missiles. This can be increased by making the missiles have smaller electronic systems to fit maybe 20% more fuel or by making them slower to extend range.
So sure, the Su35 cant fully make use of the longer radar range vs an F15 due to the missiles limitations, but the same applies for the F35.
Those who see it as the bestest air-2-air platform are probably going to be very disapointed when the missiles aren’t good enough. And when the missiles are good enough against the threats of yesteryearthe radar systems and IRST-systems also will have improved. But if you have F35-style internal bays you have put a physical limit to keep the missiles in the amraam size and thus you have put a cap on the development there too.
So using your example of a super duper capable radar in a legacy jet you will, as the F15 today, spot the adversary before you are within their range. And if you have a kinematic advantage (or better missiles), despite finding the enemy later, you will be able to engage them first.
We know that the Flanker with Irbis E (using public figures) will be able to spot a F35 at 55km (highly speculative but its from public figures…) and passively get a target acquisition at 50km. We know that the missiles the F35 will carry at IOC will be most useful when the target is closer than 40-50km. But this is expected future capabilities vs passive systems of today that only are “good” and not the best on the market.
At least to me it looks pretty clear that it isnt designed to be a fighter and that its super duper capabalities in that role are exaggerated by the marketing, which raises the question why one should buy the F35 to replace the front line fighters (as most/many customers will).
Tu22mThe problem with that comparison is that you do not have Modernized F-15’s that are specificly designed by the US for air dominance over these flanker types. The US has moved on and in a sense given up on the F-15 platform, this discision was taken during the ATF phase whe proposals of super modified F-15’s were pitted against a clean sheet design (Various options like YF22, YF23 etc etc).
As always you have valid points. I have tried to make the comparison limited to actual performance och the jets themselves to isolate the comparisons to apples vs apples instead of fruitbasket vs something with apples in it.
Since the USAF moved over to the F22 they made a huge perfomance leap and untill the Russians field Pak FA it will remain as the best jet in the swipe and A2G-role. Thanks to the combination of stealth, MADL and impressive kinematic performance it will always be able to control the entry and exit of any BVR engagement.
Just a general claim without any idea about the importance for a typical mission. Some are wrong even like range and endurance: It honors you to realize that the F-15s has the better network to operate the F-15s and I have no problem to accept that it will till the balance into favor of the F-15 in most cases. To be outperformed in some areas does not mean to be outclassed. Similar situation of the F-15s versus the Euro-canards. That in mind the F-15 MISIP I/II/? are still useful in their intended roles till 2020 at least.
The Americans are no idiots in arial warfare and well informed about the capabilities of possible opponents. That in mind they did not opt for more F-22s but came to the solution that a SH or F-35 is still enough, when both do not offering more flying performance or nominal range compared to the last MSIP F-15s. If the Russians and Chinese will have a better solution for their demands can be much more questionable. Some still face the reality gap in not comparing practical=useful data and sticking to nominal ones from advertisement leaflets.
As stated before, I try to simplify it to make a comparison betwen to missile carriers and their individual performance, otherwise we are only moving the goal posts.
“But the F15 has AWACS-support”
– So does Russia, and Russia have MiG 31 with R37 that can kill the AWACS
“But USAF hae F22!”
– But RuAF will kill the air support
“but…”
-but…
and so on for eternity.
As a missile carrying platform the F15 is, in general performance, lower performing than the modern Flankers when we talk about air dominance fighters. In a standard airforce they will be limited by the weapon load, by the support elements and the actual performance of their weapons.
The F15 in a mixed fleet will lmost likely be a pretty equal match to the Su35BM, in a jet vs jet comparison it’s pretty obvious which has had the most new gadgets.
My response was to this quote from spud:
Hell even the F-15 still dominates
Which it only does in a mixed fleet. Compared to the modern Flankers it is very inferior in pretty much every way. (Just compare the public data)
I would like to leave it at that as this is an F35 debate thread.
The only relevance this has is that it discousses the same limitations. And those are missile performance + kinematic performance and sensor capabilities. The F15 will detect the Flankers before either one is within range of the enemies missiles so the actual difference in performance is very small despite the large differences in other fields (like actual detection range, combat radius etc.).
If we where to compare cars it is like me calling a Gt40 inferior to the Koenigsegg Agera R, but as there are speed limits on public roads they would still do the same job with a very similar performance if you aren’t breaking any laws.
Tu22mAMX and Gripen are too small to hold internal bays.
as for your design, you need space for the air intake, engine, bays, fuel, and avionics.
if your plane is a modern day Me-163, a country would find it more cheaper and efficient to rely on S-300 instead
You can fit it on the Gripen and even smaller ac if you really want it. The cost is usually less fuel unless its a conformal bay that is added on the outside of the body.
Tu22mA nonsense claim to stay polite. The P-42 was a striped T-10 and had nothing in common with a front-line Flanker to stay polite. A frontline F-15 and a frontline Su-27 are very close in their flying performance.
Yes, they are close but the Flanker family has always had better performance in kinematics. With thrust vectoring this advantage is even greater today than it was in the past.
Depending on fuel and weapon load this can even tilt the advantage to the F15 but with all else equal the F15 has lower performance as a platform in kinematics (like turning etc). Thats just facts and not my opinions. Sure, the margin isnt large but there is a margin that gnerally points to the advantage of the vanilla Su27, with TVC in the Su35BM the small part of high alt/high speed maneuvering advantage held by the F15 is gone.
But does this kinematic performance really matter? Not really since the difference is so tiny, but it still exists. What matters is radar performance, IRST (if present), nose pointability and missile performance.
Since the last point (missile performance) is so limiting they will still be closely matched in engagements with equal support. My comparison is about the airframe performance and the known avionics performance. Are you telling me that the F15 has a more capable radar, better IRST and better maneuverability than the late Flankers?
EDIT: And this is related to the thread because the same limiting factors apply to the F35 and F22. If the missile range is the limiting factor it wont matter how super stealth you are, the kills against a modern enemy wont happen outside the effective missile ranges that usually tops at <50km. If the “certain” killzone (where the pk gets close to 0,5) is less than the distance from where the enemy can perform a passive missile lock on the stealth jet then it wont matter if you are super stealthy. Getting the kills will be hard and it wont be risk free as it is in the advertising.
Tu22mHere you lost your temper doing such questionable claims. None F-15 with MISIP is hopelessly inferior to a modern Flanker ignoring all your other claims. 😡
I can agree that i lost my temper, but as a weapon platform the late F15 is, with a large margin, inferior to the Flanker.
The limiting factor today is the missiles.
But we can look at actual public information and take it form there.
Radar: Irbis E has roughly a 80-100% range advantage vs Apg63v2 (the latest AESA in the F15). If we assume the older N011M Bars we “only” get an AESA with 30% longer range in the Flankers.
IRST: OLS35M offers passive target acquisition at 50-90km. Is the IRST-pod even fielded for the F15?
Rear facing radar: Only the Flankers have this.
Kinematic performance: The Flankers excel.
Range: The Flankers excel.
RCS: Both have had substantial RCS-reduction.
So I’m sorry. One of my fav jets (the F15 family) can be called hopelessly inferior when you just compare the platforms as they are by themselves.
As a platform the F15 can be inferior by a large margin but in real situations pretty equal or even superior depending on the missiles and support. In the situation where the F15 has an entire air force behind it with AWACS, ground support, complementary FA18s/F16s etc it will fulfill its role and unless the enemy has an air force that can match the individual components it will keep its “undefeated in air combat”-status.
But i admit that calling it hopelessly inferior might have been harsh since the F15s never are used in such a way.
Tu22mEven with airframe limits that come with an older frame, you can still match or be a superior weapons system as legacy jets kitted to the max prove against younger not yet fully capable modern fighters…The point is a Super eagle with Signficant RCS reduction, a dedicated brand new AESA, FBW, 3 D TVC , Sniper XR (or better) etc could be made (hypothetically) with significant improvements to the engines and be a very capable craft compared to Su30’s , 35’s .. It might not be an outright turner compared to them but as a weapons system it can potentially be made better given a gazillion dollars to do so .. However it wont…because the US went in for the F-22 which was operational at roughly the same time the Su-30MKI was inducted (2-3 years apart)….
Yet again you are correct. But with a better starting point its easier to maintain that gap in the next iteration… In the case of the Flankers they hade to make more serious modifications than a Silent Eagel style makover. But it still is built on very similar principles as the old Flanker (lifting body, separated engines, same engine family, similar size…).
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/25/su27t50f22comp.jpg
It actually looks a lot smaller…
Tu22mAs for the F-15, if it’s so outmatched then why is Saudi Arabia buying it and South Korea considering it?
It is kinematically inferior and has lower performing radar and IRST (if any IRST). Thats just facts. Same for the Irbis E vs Apg63, OLS35 vs nothing…
Here are the 41 new class world records set by the Su27 before it enterd service (beating all F15 records) http://www.aviastar.org/russian-aircraft/flanker/flanker_2.html
Are you so biased that you seriously ask why two western allies won’t by Russian or Chinese jets? Jebus christ, whats next? Will you ask why the UK didnt ask to buy Pak FA or Russian nuclear subs?
It seems you still have some demons of stupidity that haven’t left you head.
@bring_it_on; You are absolutely spot on. But the Su27 platform is also a more modern design where more emphasis was put on the lifting body concept. It’s first with the Su47 and Pak FA that Russia actually have started to care about stealth more than just RCS-reduction.
By that standard the J20 is already obsolete since the raptor has been in operation since 2005, and a 2025 IOC in numbers for the J20 would mean a 15-20 year delay hence TOTALLY obsolete…You have to get out of the “COLD WAR” mode, the F-35 is not designed to fight the USSR, the F-22 was and even it had capability scaled back post cold war…
I think its hard to say that a mechanical platform is obsolete when its the avionics and basic performance that are key. If the J20 is stealthy and flies well then its the avionics and weapons that are limiting. Just the same way that they are for the F22 or Pak FA.
Just because a wheel looks the same as it has the last 50 years doesnt mean it is outdated as long as it performs mechanically. 😉
But I get your point and thats the direction I try to send the debate. The fanboys say that the F35 will be the killer of all other jets, and in some sence they are correct as it has killed the future aviation projects in Europe. My argument is that the BVR-fantasy of invisible 150km kills against modern adversaries (like the latest Flankers, Eurocanards etc) is nothing but a dream with the current missiles.
I just want to show how todays technology actually makes the claimed gap smaller than advertised. And the gap between… say a Rafale and an F35 isnt that humongus. It’s quite possible that the Raffie of today might spot the F35 before its too late. Not the future Rafale but the ones already flying. To, as the fanboys do, totally dismiss that without even considering the weak links (the missile range, number of jets and passive sensor first shot capability) is just utterly dishonest and biased. We have also seen how jammers with short time to market consistently prove to be hard to beat for the older radar systems and how the airforce with the latest toy tends to be superior.
Tu22mNot all IRSTs are born equal as using publically available info from the both manufacturers puts the EOTS at an advantage vs Russian systems.
Current Russian systems:
The OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation with a target acquisition range for non-afterburning aerial targets of 50 km facing up to target’s front hemisphere and 90 km facing up to rear hemisphere.
That has been on the market since 2008, it is expected that the performance will increase a lot the next years. Stealth might help but it’s not a silver bullet as all statistics show.
Um, if that were so, where is the countermove to the F-117, F-22, B-2? Hell even the F-15 still dominates.
You and hopsalot are the worst trolls on the forum.
You still wont remember that 2 F117 where engaged (one crashed) and that the modern F15 is hopelessly inferior to the modern Flankers (in basically all performance) and that since the era of the T10 the F15 has been kinematically inferior (with similar weapon and fuel load).
During the same misison (Operation Allied Force) where two F117 where damaged/shoot down only one F16 got shoot down and 2 A10 where damaged. According to statistics stealth might have helped but not much.
Good night.
PS Still amusing that you confuse detection and tracking. Its so cute. DS
Tu22mWill this guy ever be banned?
Try the link in my signature 😉
Tu22mThe APG-81 has much better signal processing and is tied directly to the ESM. Besides, EOTS ignores jamming and can track out to 50nm quite easily.
Are you baiting me?
If passive sensors in 2016 can track enemy jets “easily” at over 90 km then everyone will track everyone passively well outside the NEZ of the Amraams. Basically you are saying that the F35 is dead in every shape, way and form one can imagine since it has inferior kinematic performance (and thus shorter missile range), and it wont have the first shoot capability nor will it have more missiles than the opponents.
Considering the fact that the F35 only will manage <5G sustained turns and needs an eternity to accelerate to supersonic speeds it kind of sounds like you just killed the F35 in the A2A part of the debate.
That was with a much older AMRAAM and could only be guided by radar.
Did you notice that the jets didnt use ANY kind of ECM or RWR? None! Not even, for the time being, semi modern Soviet systems. They used nothing. Only one attempted evasive maneuvers.
We know that in tests modern ECM-systems have close to 100% succes rate against lock ons in trials. Assuming a one sided development is biased to say the least. Similarly we can say that against yesterdays decoys the latest missiles have almost 100% killrate in similar trials.
At the same pace the offensive systems develop we have a development on the defensive side. This is what development looks like. You make a move, the opponent makes a counter move. Usually the counter move is more efficient and puts the opponent slightly ahead of you. So in the long run it pays to be a slacker and waiting to see what the competition brings 😉
@bring_it_on
This is also the case in the succesful trials in red flag. USAF brings a mixed fleet and the guests usually bring their latest toys. Naturally obtaining radar lock on them will be difficult/impossible if the enemy has ECM-systems that are brand new, or at least newer than the design of your radar. I know the entire SwAF Gripen C-fleet got an EWS/ECM upgrade within 6 months from the latest red flag. Did USAF do the same? No. And that is key. If time to market is shorter for you than for the competitor then you will come out with a better product faster despite starting at the same time. F35 has long time to market, the radar is (in comparison) already old. The Apg 81 is basically half a generation beind it’s latest competitors that will enter service at the same time (only +/-60 degrees scan vs +/-100 degrees from the competitors etc…). And that is how it goes.
War is a game where the person with the shiniest and latest toys usually wins.
Btw. According to spud the track range for a modern Flir is “easily over 50nm”, so why even bother with trying to evade radar?
The MiG 21/Bis had superb jammers, and since it was supposed to “fight” older F16s the jamming worked excellent. But that just shows the point. The old MiG 21 with new ECM/Jammer was really hard to track in BVR because the jammer was so much more modern than the fitted radars in the F16s, of course the fairly good frontal aspect design of the MiG 21 also played a role.
Tu22mWait a minute…
Is spud really saying no official data has been released about the other jets like the Super Hornet or Gripen E?
I think, when it comes to Gripen, they have released the fixed price (more than can be said about the F35), they have stated supercruise at medium alt with AA config above mach 1,2, they have stated an actual operational range that isnt constantly being shortened etc etc. Similar things can be said about the Super Hornet that only has a small upgrade package in the new offers (like CFT, weapon pods, new engine etc).
And about the testimony in Australia…
They raised the exact same questions as the readers on the forum, none of which got decent answers.
Here is one of the funny chapters:
Dr JENSEN: Yes, but I put it to you that the reason they put a gun in the F22 was that the Americans learned
a very hard lesson in the 1960s with the F4 in Vietnam, where missiles and scenarios were not working the way
that they were supposed to perform. You had AIM9 missiles that were supposed to be shooting down 90 per cent
of their targets and they shot down 20-odd per cent; AIM7 Sparrows that were supposed to shoot down 75 per
cent to 80 per cent of their targets and they shot down 12 per cent. What happens if all of your electronic
countermeasures, with various manoeuvres and so on, the AMRAAM suddenly goes down to something like a 0.2
or 20 per cent probability of kill, so, therefore, even when you are shooting all four of your missiles with an eightversus-eight scenario,
you have quite a few of your enemy coming in at you to within visual range and fight first
of all by shooting their long-range missiles at you. I would agree that with a stealth aircraft the probability of a
radar-guided missile killing you would be somewhat less than the probability of a radar-guided missile killing a
non-stealthy target, but there are some long-range infrared guided missiles out there as well. What happens in that
scenario?
Air Vice Marshal Osley: At the unclassified level, I have explained how the F35—the concept—works. I have not gone into classified detail about the exact tactics that would be used. I have indicated that we would play to our strengths. I would like to leave it at that, if I could.
The classified thing was the DIRCM that will work on the old missiles, but with updated dynamic filters the IR-guided missiles can adapt, just like the AMRAAM, to a home on jam-mode. Sure, it requires new software but its a fairly cheap upgrade. And the F35 does not have flares afaik.
The Amraam has a Pk close to 50% on targets that
A Dont use jammers
B Dont have warning receivers
C Dont take evasive action
D Dont use dispensers with chaffs
E Dont shoot back
In one case the target used evasive maneuvers, well within the NEZ, and he evaded 3 Aim120 (still not jamming, only maneuvering according to RAND) and got hit by one but still stayed alive and landed safely. Very few engagements have been succesfully attempted close to the max range and the longest recorded BVR-kill (against a fighter jet) that I have found is <22nm or <41km. This is well within the detection range of passive systems and the range where a Su35 should detect an F35 head on.
When it comes to jamming though I always tend to remember Red Flag 2008 where Indian Su30MKI had such effective jamming that the Apg63v2, a radar with similar performance to the Apg81 and way larger than the seeker in the Amraam, could not obtain a radar lock on the Flanker. This was 5 years ago with 8 year old tech. When the F35 enters service that platform will be 16-20 years old.
In these circumstances, does anyone actually believe that a Pk, even remotely close to 50% at long range, is possible with the missiles? I think that before we buy the hype the least we can do is check our history.
Tu22mCanada flying the Hornet will not help them fly the Super Hornet. Infrastructure is different, engines are different, avionics, radar, handling, etc are different.
There are a lot of similarities. Like the engine…
GE successfully pitched the F414 as a low-risk derivative of the F404, rather than a riskier new engine. In fact, the F414 engine was originally envisioned as not using any materials or processes not used in the F404, and was designed to fit in the same footprint as the F404.
And then you have the same chaff/flare dispensers, same pylons (?), very similar ground equipment etc. Sure it will have more modern avionics but still, a lot is the same.
The Hornet and Super Hornet share many design and flight characteristics, including avionics, ejection seats, radar, armament, mission computer software, and maintenance/operating procedures. In particular the initial F/A-18E/F retained most of the avionics systems from the F/A-18C/D’s configuration at the time.
I want to think that Gripen E is a decent alternative since it shares the same family of the engine (F414), has the same dispensers and a lower logistics footprint. But probably the FA18E/F is a better fit despite the capability and price gap.
So while being different the Super Hornet also has a lot in common with its predecessor.
I would love to see the F414 + AESA + new airducts on the old FA18C…
Tu22mIt might be good to remember the initial estimates here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm
As of 2001 program estimates pegged the recurring JSF unit flyaway costs at $37 million for the Air Force conventional takeoff and landing variant, $46 million for the Marine Corps short takeoff vertical landing variant and $48 million for the Navy carrier version, in 2002 dollars.
Inflation since then (2001-2012 = 27,6%)
This is equivalent to about $75 million in 2012 dollars. That price includes the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.
So according to LM it is expected to “only” cost 60% more than advertised and “only” be 6 years late.
The Marine Corps, with an IOC planned for 2010, would be the first of the military services to operate a fleet of F-35s.
But then we have what has been delivered and we can compare how it fits the expectations this far.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/141238/**f_35-lot…
Average cost: $183.6m per aircraft without engine…
…Average cost: $223.03m per aircraft with engine
(Average last 3 years, should depending on purchase dates, be 133-156m$ or 88-100m$. It depends on how you read the charts. http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/1w4kar/JET2008.jpg)
So in the end (according to the trend) we might assume cost overruns by 100% or more based on what is promised vs what has been delivered to date (possibly 150% more).
Just to feed the debate with some “whats been promised” and “whats been delivered”.
Tu22mI would say contrast is a bit to low so its not as easy as it once was to read the topic titles
Tu22mNothing beats SSBN for strategic strike for decades to come,
how long will Tu-22M stay in service ?
My guess is a long time.
It is an exceptional carrier for heavy long range missiles, its fast and has decent range.
…or at least untill we actually see the Pak DA materialize.
Sign In
