MM11http://www.spacewar.com/reports/F-35_Jet_Designed_To_Take_Out_The_S-300_Battery_999.html
-I suspect that LM/USAF has a pretty good handle on how low the RCS is, and how close it should be able to get to a foe, without being detected. The F-35 pilot will have a pretty good understanding too, as its onboard systems will give it the threat radii of emitting systems. I guarantee, the F-35 has a higher likelihood of getting well within its weapons NEZ vs. another fighter, before detection, than anything else(in the next 10-20yrs) aside from the F-22.
I basically agree but LM can’t handle the sensors other nations will develope over the years and stealth is nothing which can be easily adjusted to counter threat A today and threat B tomorrow.
-The F-35 exceeds the F-16s performance in a number of kinematic areas, and has vastly superior sensor capabilities/situational awareness. When you combine this with HOBS/LOAL, it should do just fine in WVR, especially if the wingman hasn’t been detected.
All fine, but the F-16 is no longer the benchmark in dogfight performance and agility. I don’t doubt that the overall combination will provide a respectable WVR capability. What I doubt are claims of superiority in THIS area over other types which can truely be considered as highly agile fighters.
MM11The Pattern here is very clear.
1. The Europeans don’t have stealth = they say stealth is not that important ‘ its just one part of a big puzzle ‘
2. The Europeans don’t have TVC equiped fighters operational (more because of added maintenance cost rather than the perceived worthlessness am sure) they say that TVC is not good or at best marginal. While many claim an increase in 10-15 % of combat lethality.
3. How can people here sitting infront of their computers judge the aerodynamic performances of F 35. Wait till at least it is in service. So far the pilot feed backs have been excellent.
‘ Please drop the ‘It must be **** if we don’t have it’ mentality, ty.
I think you draw very simplified conclusions of what others say!
1.) That’s untrue, but stealth is indeed just one factor, though it is one that is going to be more decisive than others. Yet stealth is no magic and it’s certainly not as perfect as some might try to tell us.
2.) TVC provides some advantages and it is better to have it than not to have it. Yet it’s advantages are not going to increase the overall combat lethality by 10-15%. This was true when aircraft were using boresight limited weapons only, but has become less relevant at times of HMS/HOBS AAMs.
3.) This is indeed true in general, but as I know that you mainly aim at those who are more critical grab your own nose as well. There are things which are related to physics and these won’t change as physics won’t change and by that you can draw some conclusions.
MM11The Ks added weight has to do with the carrier environment it operates in than anything else I believe.
Yes the aircraft received a strengthed airframe and landing gear, anti corrosion coating, folding wings and the arrestor hook. The old MiG-29K (9.31) featured larger wings and a refueling probe as well in comparison to the old MiG-29M (9.15). For the new MiG-29M (9.61) the refueling probe and larger wings are retained, though the flaperons are smaller.
MM11Thats based on it having boxy looks I take it?
No it’s more based on requirements and obvious visible/known design features.
MM11Yes, the lever on MiG and Yak aircraft operates the wheelbrakes. Sukhois (at least the more recent designs) have Western-style toebrakes.
I know at least for the older models (Su-27/Su-33 etc.) that the switch was present and used for the wheel brakes. Have flown in a Su-27 simulator on an airshow a couple of years ago.
MM11You go first with the non TVC equipped aircraft turn rate figures :diablo:
Seriously though, it is well known that TVC is very usefull for high alt high speed turning on the Raptor, hence my picking up on the statement by ‘Typhoon1’ as incorrect where he stated “firstly you have to assume its medium to low subsonic speeds as it wont have much effect on turn rate beyond that”
Answering a question by asking another question is no answer to that question ;). (What a sentence^^). But honestly the only thing you will find in the public are rough indications of the max. ITR/STR at optimal subsonic speeds. There is few to nothing known when it comes to TRs in general at supersonic speeds at least not for the latest generation fighters.
Your altitude claim is ofcourse true, though we still don’t know how much TVC is going to influence the manoeuvrability at altitudes, but it’s certainly better to have TVC than to lack it. Yet it neither contradics Typhoon1’s claim nor proves it wrong as he spoke about speeds and not altitudes. As said if TVC is well integrated with the FCS it will provide benefits at supersonic speeds as well by reducing trim drag, how much it will improve the turn rates is something you should ask the designers or someone with a really comprehensive and understanding of the matter. The fact remains that modern airframes can achieves manoeuver loads which far exceeds what a pilot could resist on aerodynamics alone. That’s the reason why even the latest most agile designs are usually limited to around 9 g. TVC won’t help you here! It could improve the performance, but no pilot could consume the additional load and would immediatley suffer G-LOC.
MM11There is a huge lever on the MiG-35 stick, just like a big bicycle brake lever.
Has this something got to do with TVC ?:confused:
There was a similar but smaller one on previous versions, also Flankers which acts as wheel brake switch (your bicycly brake lever is well thought ;)). I suppose this hasn’t changed.
MM11I have done waay too much research on this and believe me your sources are ridiculously generic or old to have anything worthwhile. Fas.org! for heavens sake man. That section of the site has not been updated for eons. Just remember this (as per the ACM Krishnaswami the MKI flew with loads of up to 39000kg!) Empty weight ~ 18400 (including TVC). Now do the math. Also engines are not what is available on open source, phil camp/simon watson’s latest book on the MKI is a good read to pick up on this.
Though OT, you mention the engines here, is there anything “new” about the AL-31FP? Or what are you talking about here?
Needless to say, your conclusions on both the flanker (MKI) and fulcrum (35) are wrong.
USS.
Remember that, I think I have saved the contends of that website somewhere on my HD.
Empty weights weren’t given if I recall right. The old MiG-29Ms empty weight was given with 11.5 t, that of the MiG-29K with 12.7 t. So ~12 t is not unrealistic for the MiG-35.
MM11You need to go find out more about the Raptor and TVC at high alt (60k) before you go and make another statement saying TVC is no use out of the subsonic region.
It wasn’t me who claimed that and I indeed told you that TVC is still useful at higher speeds and ofcourse altitudes (the latter one I didn’t mention in the last post), but not to the same extend as at lower speeds. So tell me what are the turn rates of the F-22 or basically other TVC equipped fighters at subsonic and supersonic speeds in comparison to non TVC equipped designs!
MM11Maybe you could enlighten us and explain the numerous advantages of the Eurocanards over the F-35 in air to air combat. (Is that specific enough? Wouldn’t want to confuse you.)
I think no one suggests that the ECDs will match the F-35s BVR performance, though not everyone apart of the JSF fanboys/supporters would bet his a$$ on the F-35 being able to safely penetrate well into an enemies NEZ envelope. It remains yet to be seen how stealthy the F-35 will be in reality and how well sensors will perform in the future. ECM is another factor which has to be considered and in certain circumstances the F-35 might find itself quicker into a WVR engagment than some here aren’t even willed to think off.
The assertion is that the F-35 with F-16 like performance is not going to outperform a high performance fighter like the Eurofighter or Rafale. The F-35s requirement was for at least matching the performance of its predecessors the Typhoon’s or Rafale’s (and the F-22’s BTW) requirements were to exceed the performance of their predecessors by a fair margin!
MM11You appear to have no clue what you talk about from that statement inplying that TVC is of little to no use beyond subsonic turn rates.
Because at higher speeds the g-load a human could handle is easily achieved aerodynamically without TVC. These aircraft are g-limited for pilot limitations mainly! So TVC is not going to improve your turn rates at all. The STR might benefit a bit if TVC is integrated well enough and reduces trim drag by minimising control surface deflections.
MM11Ahh, tankes mate. No I didnt realisee we were talking of MTOW here. But why is the F-16 Block 60 som much hevier than the A/B then? Just the conformal fuel tanks, ore something else?
The F-16 has been strengthed over the years to carry a heavier payload as AG became much more important. A lot of additional stuff had to be integrated, the new engines are much more powerful but also larger and heavier etc. Empty weight of the first F-16 blk 1 was about 6.6 t with a MTOW of about 12 t. It continuesly raised in both areas and the blk 60 weights in at ~9.5 t empty and 20.5+ t MTOW.
MM11That is all true, but……if the Raptor gets within WVR undetected, it won’t matter if you have a HMS/HOBS advantage. Even without the HMS on the Raptor, the AIM-9M/X are still dangerous weapons.
The great question is if the Raptor gets WVR without being detected and the closer it comes the higher the risk!
MM11And yet the BIG issue you have is the apparent similarity of the results EVEN THOUGH YOU DON”T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RESULTS.
You don’t know them either, but unlike you I’m not uncritically swalloing that stuff, but think about it and raise questions.
Historical fact.
RIGHT NOW, today, Eurofighter is more than happy to provide the necessary model data & has been ACTIVELY marketing it for quite some time. The F-22 OTOH…only a comparatively small number of people have even seen (much less studied) the still VERY MUCH CLASSIFIED data on it.
Agreed on that to a certain degree, the “much longer around” argument isn’t really true however and while people might feel keen to know “everything” about the Eurofighter there are still a lot of areas, where they don’t know much or anything at all. Surprisingly those people who argue about the F-22 mean to “know” it however.
It indicates not such thing. ESPECIALLY since you don’t know how ‘similar’/UNSIMILAR the results actually are.
The point is that in both studies it is just said that the aircraft are inferior or equal at best. This is indeed a similarity! Though the details are unknown.
And the SIGNIFICANT disparity of the F-35 in the two studies DOES show quite a lot of difference!
Or the purpose of the publicated results. Because while one study was more mentioned to outline that the F-35 doesn’t make the F-22 obsolete, the other study aimed at “proving” the F-35 right to be vastly superior to anything out there, spare the F-22 which wasn’t even mentioned here.
ONCE AGAIN – DIFFERENT STUDIES, DIFFERENT PARAMETERS, DIFFERNET RESULTS.
And you know the details to say that for sure? I doubt so!
What study was that?
As far as I recall an USAF study using manned simulators, but it’s quite some time ago.
You are hopeless.
I’m not, but it is indeed hopeless for you to convince me by the lack of proper arguments. You claim I don’t know the details, but neither does you. Yet you give the impression of “knowing” what the details are, but except for denial you haven’t (and supposley can’t) come up with any specific details. As said I’m not uncritically swallowing that stuff, especially as it comes from the manufacturer/intended customer who want to make a point. You take it as gospel truth, fine. I raise questions as I think about what is reported. Fact is except for your own assumptions, you can not answer any question in a way which someone could take for granted.
MM11The relative advantage of stealth over non-stealth will be there even if anti stealth measures are successful. For example if a new anti stealth radar sees the raptor 100 kms away. it would probably see the typhoon 200-300 kms away. 🙂
That’s ofcourse true, but in such a condition BVR fighting would be possible, especially if you consider more advanced and significantly longer ranging missiles such as the Meteor. The chances would be more even.
Like I said only the Typhoon has HMS the Rafale do not. Are you saying that the Raptors super manaeuvarability will count for nothing against the HMS combo ?
But Rafale can get one as well and HOBS shots are possible with offboard data and by cueing the MICA IR with the sensors. It would be wrong to say that manoeuvrability and agility won’t be important, but it shouldn’t be overestimated, especially those fancy airshow manoeuvers.
Sign In
