RadDisconnectThey also apply in BVR combat as well. Larger number of fighter means that you can leave some to go after enemy’s tankers, AWACS etc.; easy maintenance means better trained pilots (typically a decisive factor in BVR as well as in WVR); high cruise speed, as stated, prevents a rear quadrant approach by the enemy and reduces enemy’s missile range in the rear 180*, as well as helping in engagement geometry setup; passive sensors maintain surprise; maneuverability is required to avoid enemy missiles; and reliable weapons are self-explanatory.
Within a few years I’m pretty sure the F-35 holds the numerical advantage. And yes, high speed decreases missile Pk from the rear, but it doesn’t prevent a rear attack, and you can better set up a geometry advantage by being stealthy and undetected. Not to mention that if you’re turning around and running, you’re not fighting (mission kill). And the F-35 is not lacking in passive sensors by any means. And frankly, energy-maneuverability is needed to have a chance at evading missiles, since missiles are frankly not impressed by slow and sluggish post stall maneuvers.
Increased response time. To use either missiles or gun, F-35 has to open bay doors, which in case of gun takes around half a second, likely more in case of missiles.
And how much longer to actually matter? You think the Russians and the Chinese are stupid for pursuing internal weapon bays?
Operational tests before Vietnam achieved 60% Pk for radar-guided missiles, which turned out to be 6-10% in the actual war. So allow me to be sceptical.
Wow, okay. You’re talking about using missiles that aren’t designed for dogfighting, and many are fired out of parameter. And what about the ones that are ripple fired? And what about advances in missile and seeker technology? Being skeptical is one thing, being outright dismissive and being quick to draw parallels is another.
Number of Gs by itself says nothing. Missiles cannot achieve maximum number of Gs most of the time, and even when they can, radius of turn is greater than that for aircraft:
Mach 1 at 30.000 feet = 303,1 m/s
IRIS-T: 60 g, Mach 3 (909,3 m/s)
AIM-120D: 40 g, Mach 4 (1212,4 m/s)
Dassault Rafale: 9 g, 360 kts (185,2 m/s) sustaineda = acceleration due to gravity
g = g force
v = speed
r = radius of turna = v2 / r
g = 9,82 m/s2So, radius of turn goes like this:
IRIS-T: 60 g = (909,3 m/s)^2 / r; 589,2 m/s2 = 826.826,49 m2/s2 / r; r = 826.826,49 m2/s2 / 589 m/s2; r = 1.403,78 m
AIM-120D: 40 g = (1212,4 m/s)^2 / r; 392,8 m/s2 = 1.469.913,76 m2/s2 / r; r = 1.469.913,76 m2/s2 / 392,8 m/s2 = 3.742,14 m
Rafale: 9 g = (185,2 m/s)^2 / r; 88,38 m/s2 = 34299,04 m2/s2 / r; r = 34299,04 m2/s2 / 88,38 m/s2; r = 388 mAnd this is assuming that missiles can achieve both maximum speed and maximum g capability. At low altitude they can, but at high altitude their g capability will fall off far more rapidly than that of fighter aircraft.
Oh man, why would a missile need to follow an aircraft’s flight path and match it’s turn radius? I mean, how many g’s does a beam of laser need to pull?
Point is that RCS reduction is ineffective against VHF radars for reasons of physics.
VHF radars? You want B-2 sized fighters to accommodate those arrays then? I’m pretty sure any assets big enough to haul those things, and ground installations, will be targeted by standoff weaponry. And why is Russia and China pursuing stealth fighters? And why does EADS like to tout the Typhoon’s RCS reduction features?
Modern VHF radars can pack up and leave in several minutes. As for jamming, VHF radars can also be frequency-agile, but you need a very large antenna to jam them.
Source? And when they’re moving, they’re not emitting.
Pierre Sprey went over that fact a long time ago, in fact his ideal fighter has 360* situational awareness with IR sensors, RWR capable of providing a firing solution at long ranges, and BVR IR/anti-radiation missiles. That “Pierre Sprey only wants visual-range dogfighters” BS started in the first place because some people can’t wrap their heads around the fact that radar is not required for BVR capability.
So why does he decry the F-22 so much and favors his F-16? Especially since F-22s wax F-16s on a daily basis? And your RWR sounds awfully like the AN/ALR-94 of the F-22 and the AN/ASQ-239. All around SA with IR sensors? Say hello to the EODAS. BVR anti-radiation missile? You know the AMRAAM has the ability to home-on-jame right? And why do the Russians are pursuing an AESA for the PAK FA and EADS is investing in the Captor-E?
Extrapolating from here, PIRATE can detect a Mach 4 missile from a distance of 135 km, and a missile launch from a distance of 150 km. So the pilot has >80 seconds to evade the missile.
I like to see more sources to back up your claim.
Wrong and wrong. OSF has a laser rangefinder with 33 km range, true, but passive ranging (by flying in zig-zag pattern, or by datalinking several fighters together and triangulating target’s 3D position, range included, from that) is possible at far greater distances. IRST can also provide velocity by measuring angular change between fighter and target as well as Doppler shift. By using these two characteristics, astrophysicists can see down velocity of star down to 1 meter per second. Fighter flying at 450 meters per second should not be too much of a problem, then.
Such maneuvering will likely make you much more visible to radar. Not to mention that it’s hard to ID friend or foe using IR due to resolution. Doppler shift of a moving aircraft? I’m pretty sure astrophysicists determine start velocity using aspect and red/blue shift, and I don’t see how that’s applicable to air combat speeds.
Are you the same picard as this? https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/
RadDisconnectHow accurate is Wikipedia on the TVC system used by Sukhoi? Here’s how it’s currently described (from Su-35S article):
Each thrust vectoring (TVC) nozzle has its rotational axis canted at an angle, similar to the configuration on the Su-30MKI. Thrust vectoring nozzles themselves operate in only one plane, but the canting allows the aircraft to produce both roll and yaw by vectoring each engine nozzle differently; this allows the aircraft to create thrust vectoring moments about all three rotational axes, pitch, yaw and roll. A similar thrust vectoring system is also implemented on the PAK FA.
It would seem that the Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM, Su-35S, and T-50 all use similar TVC arrangement.
RadDisconnectWhen they say that the aircraft have not been grounded, they mean that it’s still OK for them to go to the mall with Lyndsey or have a sleepover at Madison’s as long as that’s fine with her Mom. Just no flying!
//> sticks another pin into wax model of PTMS
That statement makes no sense. So are you saying that no F-35s are flying currently? I’d like a source for that…
RadDisconnectCongrats lukos, you are now in the same league as JSR.
RadDisconnectCaptor-E and Meteor are well known programe but they are decade away from operational squardons if you can find money for them. even the Saudis with 5 year pricing dispute have not ordered this two things and if ordered it is post 2020.
Uh, the RAF is planning on full Meteor clearance in 2016. Captor-E has been flight tested in March of this year. And how many Su-35S and Su-27SM will be operational by then?
Perfectly capabable. based from where? neither is older F-16 nor F-15C can take the heavier newer engine with out extensive tests. and they are practically under G limitations.
Dude what are you talking about? The F-15A engine bays can’t take the -229, and needed modifications for the -220, but the F-15C can accommodate it. Where are your sources that suggest otherwise? Both the F-16A/B/C/D and F-15C are good to 9 g maneuvering. And don’t bother bringing up the 2007 F-15 accident, as that was due to a manufacturing defect on that particular airframe.
Key word is plans to have. it does not mean that 160 typhoons will be operational at single point of time nor they will be AESA capable. MIG-31 already upgraded with lighter avionics, electronic scanning radar and longer range missile system. this is simply no comparision.
This statement makes no sense. Once the RAF get 160 Typhoons how will they not all be operational? Granted, they won’t all have AESA, but the entire MiG-31 fleet won’t be upgraded to the BM standard either.
RadDisconnectJSR, the Captor-E AESA (CAESAR) is a well known program, and the Meteor is quite close to induction, so you frankly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
And what do you mean you can’t put the -229 on the F-15C? It’s perfectly capable of accommodating that engine, it’s just a matter of USAF not considering it necessary.
The RAF alone plans to have a total of 160 Typhoons, so how is that a small fleet? It’s more than the VVS has flyable MiG-31s.
I’m frankly tempted to report you for your relentless stupidity.
RadDisconnectEF cannot exceed Flanker in single performance parameter. Su-27 can be upgraded to Su-27SM with more powerfull engines, lighter avionics, new FBW, longer range AAM etc.
EF is un upgradable at this point.
Nonsense. At comparable fuel percentages the Typhoon smokes the Su-27S in T/W, acceleration, and most other performance parameters. Not to mention superior avionics and better weapons. The Su-27SM closes the gap, but the Typhoon is perfectly capable of accommodating uprated EJ-200 engines, it’s just a matter of operators not deeming that essential. Similar to how the F-15C can accommodate the F100-PW-229 engines, but USAF doesn’t feel that is necessary. There’s also the AESA Captor-E and the MBDA Meteor. Claiming that the Typhoon can’t be upgraded is laughably ignorant.
In all honesty, given the amount of sheer stupidity you spew out, how did you manage to post 1,767 times and not get banned? Does moderation not exist on this forum?
RadDisconnectrather they are not capable of designing fighter that can beat flanker.
that will be some underdeveloped protoypes weights. As I said EF is already overweight. it cannot be developed into a carrier fighter and its external load capacity development is very slow process. Flanker could life 8 tons in 1993 that despite Soviet Avionics and construction. Now TVC is introduced and airfame designed from ground up for high performance. EF is only paper projects.
You are way off. Typhoon doesn’t have the Flanker’s endurance, but it will eat the Flanker alive in most performance parameters.
RadDisconnectInterestingly, the tires appear to be quite intact, so heat damage may not be all that extensive. Though the hanging fibers look quite troubling. It’s hard to really gauge the damage from these photos.
RadDisconnectyour comparing unequal fuel levels and Su-27SK has IRST and much heavier soviet avionics. Su-27SK carries 9400kg fuel for 3530km range with 2 R73/ 2 R27.
2 R27 weight is almost 4 AIM-120.Su-27SK easily transform into strike aircraft like Su-27SM with digital fbw, light weight avionics, more powerful engines etc. so it means airframe was designed from ground up for larger loads on weopon stations.
You have to be kidding me. Even with the same fuel load, the Su-27 has a loaded weight of 24,260 kg, which would give a T/W of 1.031. But with that fuel load the Su-27’s range won’t match the F-15’s, since the AL-31’s specific fuel consumption is higher than even the F100-PW-229, which is thirstier than the -100 and -220.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Su-27SM is heavier than the Su-27S. Hell, I think even the F-15C with AESA is heavier than the ones with mechanical radars.
RadDisconnectSu-27S has best TWR. It is F-15C with less powerfull engines that have 14.3 tons weight. F-15E/K are in 18 to 20 ton class.
T-50 is all composite airframe. its MTOW is only 5 ton more than MIG-35.
JSR, what the hell are you talking about?
F-15C has 14,370 kg empty weight, and 2*105.7 kN thrust. It’s loaded weight is 21,090 kg with full fuel and 4 AMRAAMs. This gives a T/W of 1.022. Su-27 has 16,380 kg empty weight, and 2*122.5 kN thrust. It’s weight with full fuel and no missiles is 25,780 kg. This is a T/W of 0.970. So no, the claim that the Su-27 has the best T/W is untrue.
T-50 is not all composite. It’s a mix of composite and traditional aircraft materials like titanium and aluminum. In fact, I think the stated goal for composites in T-50 is something like 25% of structural weight and 70% of outer surface.
RadDisconnectTrue. Doing a bit of reading on Secret Projects, I also noticed that normal loaded weight given for Soviet/Russian aircraft is typically not at full internal fuel. Take the Su-27, for instance. It’s normal loaded weight is at roughly 56% fuel. I suppose this makes sense since the Su-27 was allegedly designed to have massive internal fuel capacity for both range (Russia is large) and to get rid of the need for external fuel tanks. The Flanker is apparently a poor dogfighter at higher fuel loads, and I’ve heard that certain fuel tanks aren’t rated at 9 g. Only when those tanks are empty and fuel loads are at 50% or lower does it become quite an animal. Again, makes sense since the Su-27 can act as a long range fighter interceptor and by the time it arrived at combat it would’ve burned enough fuel to be at its cited normal loaded weight. I’m wondering if the T-50 has the same philosophy in its design, and if so, certainly structures and fuel tanks don’t have to be designed for 9 g, which can save some weight in structure.
Out of curiosity, I’m wondering how fast the T-50 will be at sea level. Panavia Tornado and F-111 were quite the aircraft at low altitude, and the F-22 is apparently quite a speedster and can do Mach 1.4 on the deck.
RadDisconnectSo the max. take-off weight of T-50 is 34-35t 🙂
If that is true, and the PAK FA empty weight really is 18,000 kg as per PiBu, then the T-50 is dimensionally larger than the F-22 but is structurally lighter and also carries 1.3 tons less weight.
F-22:
MTOW: 38,000 kg
Empty: 19,700 kg
Total load: 18,300 kg
T-50:
MTOW: 35,000 kg
Empty: 18,000 kg
Total load: 17,000 kg
What gives?
RadDisconnectI saw this posted over in the F-35 thread, and it seemed to have originated from Saab. Is this legit?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228911[/ATTACH]
RadDisconnectNot to nitpick, but it’s 1500lbs.
Also, the original JSF program only called for the Naval version to carry a 2k bomb while the USAF and USMC versions only wanted a 2k bomb.
Huh?
Sign In
