In a BVR engagement detection range & ID are the most important factors while agility is the least. The F-35 excels at both primary factors and can still launch it’s missiles at m1.6+ if needed while planes like the F-18E cannot ever get that fast while carrying AAMs.

What do you mean by “planes like FA18E”? Do you mean planes with a thrust/weight ratio below 1, fighters of same weight with a top speed of m1,8+, 4,5 gen fighters?

The weight increase is insignificant, 8 kg ?
volume increase is none as far as i can tell without having dimensions,
and i’m convinced i can make it strong enough, or i would not suggest it.

I just remembered the comments in the US DoD report that stated extremely tight margins for weight and space.

This is how it looks today…

And judging by this pic: http://www.radschool.org.au/magazines/Vol38/images/f35.jpg
we also see how the end part could be troublesome to extend enough (because of the Y shape). My belief is that a mix of your solution along with moving the joint further back is necessary (so it will swing ~110 degrees or so instead of around 60 or 70, so the joint will be very close to the engine.). Can you land with the config above (in the pic)? Yes, you just need a higher alpha than others and more skill. Changing how the hook looks might help a bit but as you see that can only have a marginal impact.

I’m impressed that the pilot got any success with this at all.

EDIT: not that it came as a surprise… the FA18 has the hook assembly in a similar way as I described it, and with a longer arm.

LmRaptor. Absolutely. But the thing is that the cat and mouse game goes both ways. For every mean to track a target there is another to counter it. Head to head with the latest countermeasures and the latest missiles the countermeasures will most likely win. And that is because the countermeasures can be made larger and with less demand on extreme G-load + speed capabilities.

So the missiles are more silent now, and MAWS with better range have improved as well and are now standard.

And with the IRIS-T we have entered the era of hardkill countermissiles for fighters.

What do you think will be the next step? BVR missiles will always be superior against enemies with old defensive systems and they will be handicapped against anyone with up to date systems. Against those you need to get close and use short range missiles, as has been the case thus far.

What i dont understand is why they want the F22?

According to APAs own logic the only thing needed to win a fight is superiority in numbers and weapons load… and preferrably smaller RCS and or better agility/speed.

The Su35 can carry up to 14 missiles with twin pylons, the F15E has 11 hardpoints + space for 4 AMRAAMs in the CFT-bays. That means that APA actually want an F15SE according to their own logic.

Maybe they could opt for Gripen NG because of the cost aspect and the fact that it has a surpsising weapons load of up to 12 AA missiles. (Payload options from unofficial source: http://www.aviationinsurors.com/images/load/gripen.jpg )

The basic numbers (T/Weight and wing loading) for the two airframes are almost identical, not much to choose between the two, throw the Raptors LO and sensors advantage to the “bin”, take the fight into WVR and the outcome is heavily dependent on pilot skill´s.

Not only that. The Raptor has one set of sensors and the Eurofighter has another. The F22 lacks an IRST like the Pirate so without radars turned on the Eurofighter should be able to plan the entry in the dogfight better than the F22. And from then on it’s all about pilot skills.

The quote was “650 parameters” and can be described as different aspects/modes of multiple systems. For example, instead of just an A2G mode for the radar, it has SAR, ISAR, etc.

The largest of these is the ESM. The F-22’s ALR-94 took a huge leap in capability and the F-35’s ASQ-239 takes it to the next level.

As I said, advanced 4th gen systems will pull in more than the ~6 in the quote. I think that applies to basic, radar, IFF, etc.

I think we understand each other.

Noticed a funny thing about the AN/ALR-94…
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html

The F-22 has no dedicated jamming systems. However, the APG-77 array can be used to generate powerful jamming beams over a certain frequency range.

So once the missile is chasing it from behind cant be jammed by the F22?

Topic just got interesting again.

So… back to topic, how would a stealth fighter manage against a BVR missile?
The answer is better in theory because the target is smaller, in practice however current stealth fighters have less countermeasures than the older fighters. So I think its about the same once the missile is fired.

The old F15 radars (APG-63/70) could track fighter sized targets at over 110 km, but yet the BVR kills have been at less than 20 km with rare exceptions (even though tracking might have started at almost 60km). So engagement ranges are usually closer than advertised. And how come the Iraqi MiG29s that should be detected at some 160km+ only where found at <60km and engaged at <17km? Well, it is because in reality there is friction. Friction in the form of high noise levels, clutter, good use of tactics, confusion regarding ROE/IFF etc and of course assymetric movement of the enemy.

Just because the human eye can see a candle at 48 km at night doesnt mean you can see scheiße at 10 km during daylight or on a rainy evening. And this has been proven in real wars (when it comes to sensors).

aim-132 reached mach 3 but still almost impossible to outmaneuver , remember
1-missiles do not fly at top speed all the time
2-missiles do not perform exactly the maneuver the aircraft do but rather trying to intercept them
3-maneuver make aircraft lose speed , and it not very easy to evade salvo of missiles

Its all about circumstances.

The below is from the Rand study.

*Note: In addition to kills listed above,
on 24 March 1999 an F-16AM of the Dutch
Air Force damaged a Serb MiG-29 with a
single AIM-120A. Also on 24 March
another Serb MiG-29 was engaged by 2
or more US fighters and successfully
evaded 3 AIM-120Cs.

And this is pretty recent stuff…

U.S. has recorded ten AIM-120 kills
– Four not Beyond Visual Range
– Fired 13 missiles to achieve 6 BVR kills Pk = 0.46*
– Iraqi MiGs were fleeing and non-maneuvering
– Serb J-21 had no radar or Electronic
Countermeasures (ECM)
– US Army UH-60 not expecting attack; no radar or
ECM
– Serb MiG-29 FULCRUMS had inoperative radars
– No reports of ECM use by any victim
– No victim had comparable BVR weapon
– Fights involved numerical parity or US numerical
superiority

http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

Just to prove my point, if you know the missile is coming then maneuvering will help a bit. If the Pk under these circumstances is 0,46, what do you think it would be if they used ECM? If they had RWR? If they had chaffs/flairs?

I think modern history speaks for itself. BVR domination still has a long way to go and current fighters are protected enough to have a high survivability. Assuming 10% Pk against fighters with up to date EWS-systems (that are used) is optimistic.

The PK of aim-120 were in real combat , and how we know the target were trying to evade or not if that were BVR ?? , even if target dont have RWR the pilot still have eye you know , moreover it was quite long time ago now the missile is much more advance ( in Vietnam War the SAM only achieve PK of 2% but no one think s-300/400 are not dangerous )
And IIR missile actually always reject flares
About the tatic : you donot always have mountain to hide , but the tatic i mention is not very depend on the environment

And the Pantsir S1 has a 100% killrate in real combat. Problem was that the F4 didnt use countermeasures. And neither has any other fighter that has been shoot down in BVR.

Against SAMs the situation is different because the missiles come from below. To trick them you need to get them in a tail chase outside the ground radars reach and then you can use the chaffs and jammers efficiently. And many ground based fire controls have 2 radars + optic scanning so its sort of difficult to trick them with jamming alone. And you will probably be targeted by a really strong radar for the SARH, and that means you have to foil the ground radar and not the missile. But thats another story.

The discussion is BVR, and in BVR its pretty fair to say that the AAM arent that dangerous if the pilot has warning systems, jammers, countermeasures, agility and buddies that can jam.

And about agility…
Try calculating with this to see how many G forces a misisle needs to handle to follow a slower airplane in a steep turn…

It is applied like this:

a = accelleration = gravitational force, gravity has the accelleration speed of 9,8m/s², thats the constant for a. If the pilot can take 9 G then a = 9*9,8m/s².
v = speed in m/s. To simplify it is [mach speed * 340m/s], and this is squared
r = turn radius in meters.

For a eurocanard that gets chased they will slow down briefly and to a split S sustaining 9 G going downward, this is the approximate turn radius and d = turn diameter for for the full 180.
9G*9,8m/s = (0,8mach*340m/s)²/r | 88,2m/s (felt gravity) = 73’984ms/r | r = 839 | d = r * 2 = 1’678 m
In mach 2 the radius is 5,2 km with the same G. (to perform the same turn (5,2km r) in mach 4 the G loading is over 36..)

How many G does the missile need to handle to be able to follow the fighter? (it can make a short cut thanks to the distance so it might be tricky to calculate but give it a shoot).
How many G can the AMRAAM cope with?
Can the AMRAAM decelerate fast enough?

EDIT: This is to simplify and let you come to your own conclusions.