LMFS[USER=”58228″]mig-31bm[/USER], [USER=”20936″]SpudmanWP[/USER]
It is only normal and representative of military professionals with levelled heads to develop stand-off weapons for the F-35, all you say is ok but fact is there is an increasing interest in such long range weapons in US military too. They will be way more expensive and have smaller warheads than their shorter range equivalents, so there must be important imperatives that lead to their development.
I assume it is common knowledge that modern IADs use a very ample variety of overlapping sensors and means of EW, detection and targeting, that cannot be overcome simply by throwing VLO planes at them. What started as “one stealth plane will need no support or stand-off weapons” has changed due to technical advances and it is now “stealth plane, with support and stand-off weapons, may be successful where other assets would stand no chance” I see nothing highly surprising here to be honest.
LMFSFor a country hosting some of the most appraised Automotive brands, it’s a bit funny to see them applying socialism to their Defense industry.
Ask P&W and Lockheed what they think about the price negotiation about the last F-35 LRIPs. Forcing a price on the supplier is 200% free market, yes. Not to talk about the huge pressures US exerts on foreign countries and the industrial returns to participate in F-35. Don’t lie to yourself and don’t insult our intelligence. Defence industry and other high tech ones are strategic sectors and are ALWAYS controlled by the state in any country, US first amongst them
A great example of lack of understanding of “deterrence”…
South Korea and Japan did not buy F-35s because they want to become aggressors. They bought them as deterrence against a neighbor who might start to believe that it could hide behind hundreds SAMs and AIs and dictate its will, with no recourse but submission by South Korea and Japan. Stealthy F-35 changes that dynamic since it provides a measure of immunity against the SAMs and AIs, while providing the ability to prosecute heavily defended targets using conventional munitions. Stealthy F-35 is a deterrent capability.
XB-70 is spot on, don’t know how you manage to criticise him in this issue. Some western mentality seems so terminally off the mark that claims that hiding behind SAMs and powerful defence capabilities is aggressive behaviour (read yourself above and let sink all your are implying with that), probably to justify constant Western wars of aggression, they even came to the point of naming those defences with a pretentious, falsely technical name (A2/AD) to obfuscate that the matter of their relentless studies is how to violate the sovereignty of other states. And the best known about those offensive technologies destined to attack other countries with impunity is stealth. You are either disingenuously confusing aggression with deterrence or you really are living in other planet man. SAMs are defensive weapons, without use unless you attack the country protected by them. Stealth planes are offensive ones. One would expect somebody interested in military issues would know that at least.
EDIT: BTW, look at the development of stand-off weapons for F-35 and tell me more about that stealth immunity against IADS… deeds matter, not only empty words.
LMFSNo, the plane could probably reach more than 2.83 M if it REALLY had to (as MiG-25 could). But it is officially cleared for reaching that speed:
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/mig-31e-fighter?limit=1&start=2
LMFSWith the failure of the Su-57. I see few other options for the Russian Air Force and Navy but the J-31. That said, any Russian Version of the J-31. Could easily include a fair number of Russian Components like the RD-93’s (turbofans) along with Avionics and Weapons. This should make it far more palatable to Russian Pride.
Honestly, while some think the idea in crazy! Yet, when asked for a plausible alternative. The response is usually silence…..:eek:
Different thread, same stunt :applause::applause::applause:
The silence is due to stupor my friend. For you insisting in not seeing the obvious and keeping your J-31 running gag going. Again: noooooo, they will not buy a crappy Chinese medium fighter, they will buy their heavy, supercruising, long range, manoeuvrable high-payload fighter in which they have invested billions and 20 years of work. But this, when they deem it is the right time, not when US zealots order it. :rolleyes:
LMFSThose pods under the wings, couldn’t they be some kind of range-finding IRST? This would be a very interesting development in order to passively target other planes beyond the reach of laser range-finder…
LMFS[USER=”39911″]TomcatViP[/USER]
The Su-27 had clearly an order to guarantee the safety of the VIP flight and certainly found the Eagle being too close, then he simply showed him the way. Not saying this is not daily business in airspace control but also I am not the one raising this topic to decry a certain country. It could happen to US VIP flights too and would be taken as hostile and intimidatory activities, you can bet your last penny on that. And I am sure US fighters would proceed similarly.
Regarding those other cases you mention, it is in reality just the same thing: hide the provocation and amplify the response, lest anyone would realize where those intercepts and buzzings took place and figure out what would be the US response if the situation was inverted.
LMFS[USER=”39911″]TomcatViP[/USER]
Fine then, time for Russian fighters to start escorting Air Force One in international airspace without invitation, wouldn’t that be considered as “harassment” in the Western media?
Sometimes you guys sound really off the mark. That plane should never have come that close to a Russian VIP flight in the first place. Provocation avoided and no Russian answer needed. But I guess is more responsible and “professional” to keep ramping tensions, what could go wrong?
LMFSThanks SpudmanWP, I thought this was something new and not a know issue…
LMFSJust for my understanding, would this reduced life expectancy write off those airframes or can they be overhauled? Will they have a big impact in the current planed concurrency costs or will they be reported otherwise?
LMFS[USER=”64730″]Marcellogo[/USER]
And in line with what you say they indeed seem to be pursuing another supersonic drone for deep strike, as linked some posts above.
LMFS[USER=”64730″]Marcellogo[/USER]
Well, don’t forget that after releasing their ordnance the strike aircraft is supposed to egress. And of course is to expect that serious IADs will count with passive SAM launchers ready to ambush any attacking plane penetrating their air space, so rear aspect of course counts. Check this diagram by APA for a more complete information of what I say:
https://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/JSF-RCS-Angles-4.png
On the other hand, your reasoning regarding Doppler effect would make difficult to explain any aircraft having hidden nozzles, which is essentially all subsonic stealth designs. I don’t have numbers for this detection range loss due to to negative doppler shift, maybe you have a reference? The beam sharpening you mention applies to SAR as far as I know… Also curious how you know RCS of LO axisymmetrical nozzles and also how you compare them to the flat type used in supposedly stealthier designs? BTW I am considering the nozzle that I am seeing, not potential ones with LO design. IR stealth is also very relevant, and the fact that there are no tails to hide the nozzle only makes this issue more critical in flying wings.
Finally, the point you make regarding enemy fighters should consider also IRST and the increased detection ranges a nozzle like the present one would grant them, without any of the advantages supersonic fighters get from such nozzle design
[USER=”28771″]TR1[/USER]
Interesting thanks. I was thinking: maybe having TVC is a good way of exploring the flight envelope of the plane and recover it in case something goes wrong (as a sort of recovery chute)?? Who knows xD
[USER=”3598″]Austin[/USER]
Hunter may have capability to go supersonic if required
I think they refer to a different drone. Such role was covered specifically by swing-wing planes like F-111, Su-24 and Tornado. Supersonic flight at low altitudes is especially hard due the to massive drag to overcome.
LMFS[USER=”64730″]Marcellogo[/USER]
If the goal was the deep strike based on speed (as inferred from your bit: flight straight to its own objectives, drop bombs/missiles and came back a.s.a.p.), a supercruise capable plane as Su-57 would be much better. Without all-aspect LO (including IR) a slow plane like these flying wings would have no chance to escape SAMs, unless using expensive, very long range stand-off weapons which allow already existing fighters to strike safely. Of course an unmanned plane is much more expendable than a manned one, but the whole sense of flying wings is broad-band, all aspect stealth and huge persistence close to the battlefield, so they can spread, wait / watch undetected for many hours and be activated for a strike as needed. Otherwise the SAM crews have it too easy, knowing when the enemy planes come and how long can they stay in the area until they have to go back. But with planes that can stay undetected and on the watch relatively close to them almost 24/7, the scenario changes quite a bit.
LMFS[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER]
So let me summarize:
> Sukhoi is not a reliable source of information in what concerns PAK-FA
> PAK-FA is not stealth because Russia could not possibly come close to US… despite being the fathers of the theoretical foundations of stealth design, that US borrowed
> HAL and IAF commission were clear on pursuing FGFA as a historical opportunity, and official Indian position is that they have not left the project and consider buying the PAK-FA in the future with lesser modifications compared to what was originally foreseen in FGFA program. But thanks to the customary “unnamed sources” (more reliable to you than official ones) it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the plane is a dog. The fact that IAF is in dire need of funds for the Rafale so cant afford another big program and how notorious their political manoeuvring has been in the past is irrelevant.
That is what I would call having the head buried in the sand, thoroughly and willingly. Sadly for Russia this “blindness” (be it real or fake) is restricted to the media and internet, while US military planers are very aware of the reality, floating the idea of a F-22/F-35 hybrid and going ahead full steam with PCA/NGAD programs. Same old US duplicity is not fooling anyone now mister.
LMFS[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]
I’m sure pretty much everyone in the 5th gen game or trying to get in are attempting to model each other’s designs as best they can. But it is so easy to be off by well over an order of magnitude. I would bet the Russians learned a thing or two in Syria about that.
More than one order of magnitude error for the RCS average value seems a lot if one takes Russian estimations as valid (ca. 30 times less RCS for a VLO model than a conventional plane) but I have no way of assessing this. Claims were also that signatures from Syria were quite in line with the estimations… bluff or truth I guess we will never know.
Regarding your comment on the IRST, as far as I know the back side of the dome was also covered in RAM, given the size of the spot I guess the application can be generous. Also the geometry of the cavity could allow for several internal reflections to further weaken the signal. Question: do mirrors like the one IRST will use behave like simple glass or do they behave like reflectors at radio-frequency wavelengths? This would be important to understand the RCS contribution of the IRST I guess.
[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER]
The same sources Janes mention are saying the RCS of F-22 is 0.3 – 0.4 sqm and PAK-FA roughly the same. I am not talking about RT but of chief designer of the plane. And the patent value is broadly (within one order of magnitude) aligned with that. You can believe it or not, but Russian sources have always claimed similar RCS values for PAK-FA and F-22, nothing about it being some botched semi-stealth Flanker. If you go the lengths they have gone in terms of shaping, developing an specific engine, internal weapons bays, radar blockers, coatings etc., why would you screw it all because of some rivets or an IRST dome? That is simply implying they are truly retarded, without a clue about LO design and simply roughly tried to copy US designs. But them being the guys that created PTD, that sounds a bit off don’t you think?
About the libel you link, it is only that. And the guy behind it… an expert in fitness. Don’t you wonder why all these ridiculous pieces are never written by actual, career military experts but by random guys with degrees in subjects completely unrelated to the matter? This is PR not serious analysis man, thanks to god at Pentagon there are still people that know better.
LMFS[USER=”45638″]Dr.Snufflebug[/USER]
yes, this looks very interesting. IIRC they said the Su-57 could operate with up to 30 U(C)AV as “wingmen”, this looks definitively related.
Sign In
