hopsalotI found this point #2 surprisingly honest, especially from you. It is exactly how you have described it, I only wonder why not name the powers that be simply what they are, the LMA?. What we are seeing is how a company holds the whole Pentagon and the whole Senate by their balls – dictating what will be procured and in what numbers, not according to what USAF say they need, but according to what LMA find more profitable.
Insulting another poster for no reason, and then a hilarious conspiracy theory.
More or less a typical post around here… 😎
hopsalotIf you thought that was amusing, wait till you read this
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126978-How-many-F-22-would-it-take-to-shutdown-MiG-25RBS-reconn-flights&p=2079626#post2079626
and that, among other similar gospel, was what prompted me to the topic
I see it is time for our bi-weekly exercise in disproving the “theory” that missiles work. :very_drunk:
Here is something that might help this thread grow to be something other than completely useless…
hopsalotIf the target is pulling 5g on an inside turn from running directly away at V = 1, and the missile is doing V=2, then the missile must turn at 20g to maintain the turn radius. Otherwise it will start to overshoot.
Nothing changes that maxim.
g = V^2/R
This is a classic case of knowing just enough to get it really wrong. A complete amateur would consider that military forces all around the world rely on missiles as the principal means of air to air and surface to air warfare, based on this one might be led to conclude that missiles are probably capable of intercepting aircraft.
Now, here we are on the internet and someone has once again discovered that with a little physics they can determine that missiles can’t actually hit maneuvering aircraft. (or not while moving fast anyway…) :eagerness:
Now, you are correct in a sense, for a missile to achieve the same turn radius at much higher speeds it would need a much higher G-load. Where the whole thing falls apart is in assuming that a missile needs to achieve the same turn radius to successfully intercept a maneuvering target, it doesn’t.
Modern missiles use sophisticated guidance algorithms that are capable of calculating an intercept point for even a maneuvering target. The missile will then fly to this intercept point making only small corrections late in its flight rather than stupidly trying to pursue its target in a tail chase scenario.
Behold! The impossible!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222179[/ATTACH]
(Still taken from this video of a real live missile intercepting a maneuvering target without violating your maxim: http://youtu.be/4g4_jzqBJnA?t=28s )
Take careful note of what happened in this scenario. The missile turned hard initially, a product of the HOBS scenario, but then proceeded to a predicted intercept point with very little maneuvering required in the terminal phase (essentially a straight line), despite the fact that the target was in a hard turn at the time of intercept.
It is of course possible to dodge missiles under some circumstances, but it is much more difficult than simply going into a hard turn/barrel roll/etc and counting on the missile to be too dumb to compensate intelligently. In that scenario it wouldn’t much matter whether you were pulling 2 Gs or 10 Gs, the missile will simply shift its aim point to compensate for any sustained turn.
An effective attempt to dodge a missile requires the ability to execute a sudden high-G maneuver in the moments before missile impact. Too late and obviously the missile will win, too early and the missile will need only adjust its aim slightly. The ability to visually acquire an incoming missile is a key part of this strategy, and of course a missile warning system would also be a significant advantage.
It the missile is one of the latest generation of highly maneuverable air to air missiles and the shot is WVR then it likely won’t matter what maneuver you might attempt. Your odds of dodging such a shot are not going to be favorable.
That is one of two ways of “dodging” a missile. [which I think confusion is arising on]
The way you’ve outlined, which is classical turn inside the missile, the 2nd, which is really only available to high speed aircraft, is to present a very adverse pursuit curve and go up against the missile motor, rather than the missile fins.
Yes, by far the most preferable means of defeating a missile is simply out distancing it by executing a large change of course that takes your aircraft outside of its effective range, but I don’t considering this to be “dodging” a missile. This is also not a tactic that is only available to high-speed aircraft. Any aircraft with sufficient warning can defeat a long range shot just by changing course. In an extreme case (that being a shot taken at the absolute limit of the missile’s kinematic range) even a small course change would cause the missile to fall short.
There is a long history of aircraft AAMs not having the Pks their manufacturers would have you believe.
There is a long history of every weapon falling short of its theoretical performance in combat.
hopsalotHowever for sake of argument, another point; a 9G fighter in a good energy state has no problems evading (by outmaneuvering) a 30G missile. If same ratio holds, a MiG-25 pulling 3.8Gs could out-maneuver a missile pulling 12Gs. Can AIM-120C pull 12Gs at 75k feet? If yes, for how long?
I don’t have time at the moment to go through everything in this post, but the above is not true.
The ability to pull 9Gs or more is not by itself much of a defense against an AMRAAM due to the way its guidance algorithms work. It is a pro-nav type system and will intelligently lead its target. The way to dodge a missile is to change course very suddenly very late in the missile’s flight. This requires knowledge of the missile’s location relative to the fighter (the same reason visually acquiring SAMs was/is so important in order to evade them) and of course the ability to execute such a turn suddenly.
Bottom line, this is not easily done in practice and no pilot would claim that it is “no problem” to dodge AMRAAMs.
hopsalotNow that statement is, at best, idiotic.
If the Foxbat was so vulnerable, how come one beat overwhelming numerical odds to nail a Hornet back in GW1?
If you really want to know that shoot-down was primarily a product of miscommunication/ poor coordination on the allied side. Besides, nobody ever said the Mig-25 was incapable of shooting down a target.
How come there are recorded examples of a Foxbat evading up to 8 F-15s?
It all depends how you define “evading.” Nobody questions whether a Mig-25 is fast and if allowed to turn tail will likely escape. We could also point to the Mig-25s that -didn’t- get away, including a couple during the Gulf War and the first AMRAAM kill back in 1992. (not to mention a number of Mig-25s lost during the Iran-Iraq War)
hopsalotAnd there we go again.
Facts regarding previous tenders is smearing mud or trusting conspiracy theories.
The only negative thing I’ve said about the F35 is that it is too expensive for about 90% of the airforces around the world and that it hasnt always won in fair competition. Thats just facts. If the F35 fanboys arent mature enough to cope with that then so be it.
I find it pretty amusing that you see fit to appoint yourself the spokesman of “90% of the world’s air forces” so casually… and yet you can’t even seem to make up your mind about what you are trying to argue. Here you were just a few posts ago in this same thread, once again speaking for “90% of the world’s air forces.”
Funny, since I’m not in the anti F35 crowd. I just dont like dishonesty. For the american requirements the F35 is a good design, for 90% of all airforces it’s not
:stupid:
I can’t speak for 90% of the world’s air forces, I will leave that to you, but what I can say is that the F-35 has already captured a huge portion of the world’s most capable and professional air forces with more to come.
The rest is also facts about LM touting imaginary capabilities (and making equally propostrous claims about the alternatives) while they keep missing deadlines and failing to meet spec.
Imaginary capabilities? Like what?
We are talking about a jet in the weight class of an F15. Not all airforces can afford to operate a jet that size in large enough numbers (especially as the sole fighter jet), most airforces dont even need the capabilities it offers and in several countries the F35 will make a worse job than their current fleets for the tasks they have to solve.
I’m sorry if I struck a nerve but this is just how things are. No amount of straw man arguments will change that.
US, UK, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Israel, Italy, and Turkey (so far) disagree with you. :eagerness:
That should give you pause don’t you think? Nah… full speed ahead! You have clearly figured things out that they don’t know!
And Tomcat. That comparison is bad, even for you. If we do a quick fact check on how important generations are we get the answer 0%. Generations doesnt matter. Tactics do. Heck, we still see the F-4 pulling the biggest weight in many airforces today, like we did in Libya (F-4 and Tornado replaced Eurofighter), the Turks used the F-4 to do recce missions over Syria (resulting in one loss) etc. Just because an aircraft is old doesnt mean it cant perform the tasks at hand.
Let me get this straight, you don’t see a difference between a F-4 and a F-35? Nobody questions whether there are still old planes flying. There are still old cars on the road too, but that doesn’t mean there is no difference between a plane/car from 50 years ago and one from today.
hopsalotSure about that list of orders?
IIRC, Italy has placed an order – for three.
My mistake, it gets hard to keep them all straight…
Make that “US, UK, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Israel, Italy, and Turkey with Denmark, S, Korea, Singapore, Belgium, and Canada likely to place orders in the next few years.”
hopsalotTrue, yet SR-71 had little to no means of detecting GCI directed MiG-25Bs either. The tactic was to be fast in the first place, and simply accelerate and outrun if they see any missile. It worked back then, and should work for MiG-25R too. IMHO, it should work even better, as MiG-25R has at least some agility to evade missiles.
I think you are setting the bar for “some” agility very low. 4.5 Gs is the best it could do and this wouldn’t have been at high altitude.
The Mig-25 was also a pretty short ranged aircraft and unlike an SR-71 couldn’t cruise for long periods of time at Mach 3+ speeds. It could get there, but only at the cost of trashing its engines. An SR-71 for comparison would routinely operate at mach 3+. (The point is that even if the Foxbat was flying “fast” by its standards that would likely translate into something much closer to M2 than M3. It would only be in an extreme situation that the pilot would push the plane near M3.)
Question comes to this: Can F-22 (or AIM-120 should I say) succesfully hit a target flying at M2.5+ and 75000+ feet? For example, what is the ceiling of AIM-120C? What is its kill range when fired to 25000+ feet elevation difference?
The altitude difference wouldn’t need to be that large given that the F-22 can exceed 50k ft and the Mig-25 would be a fairly cooperative target in terms of its ability to maneuver.
hopsalotRussia not only has larger economy than Germany but Russia economy is larger than whole of EU.
Wow!
:very_drunk:
Post of the year? :confused:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222100[/ATTACH]
hopsalotAre you saying the Blackbird operates over SU territory with support?
The US stopped flying over the Soviet Union years before the SR-71 went operational.
hopsalotTakes a mental note:*
‘Do Not Fly with Hopsalot’s Airline nor rely on his Air Force!’
Or anyone else’s!
hopsalotAnd again proving my point. The Gripen that won the competition was the Gripen E, not Gripen C. Gripen C did not meet the criterias, Gripen E did.
The Gripen E has not even flown, let alone been delivered, and so has no relevance in a discussion about what Saab has delivered.
Do I have to remind you of the trick competitions the JSF is involved in?
Norway is one prime example (EADS left because it wasnt even a real competitive tender, but SAAB stayed because after all, Norway is a neighboor). http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=305
Canada is the second country where there wont be a real tender (so SAAB didnt even bother responding to the questionare) http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/05/20130531-120613.htmlMany of the bids where the F35 win are either very questionable in nature, not actual tenders or tenders based on utterly deflated cost projections (just look at ROK, the F15SE wins, then the tender is restarted with new demands that only can be met by the worlds only 5th gen fighter on the market).
In all fairness, if the F35 actually would cost less than Gripen (as was the case in Norway) then I would support it for Norway as well, without question. The problem is that it isnt, but still LM offers it at those non binding cost projections. Ie, lies and political pressure. Most airforces wouldn’t need anything more than F16s, or Mirages for that matter.
These are just a few examples. But pls, go ahead and say that it is what the airforces want. All you do is proving that you are biased beyond saving and thus deserving a spot on my ignore list.
Ah yes, the usual fallback of the defeated… conspiracy theories.
The very most basic principal of scientific thought is that theories must be supported by evidence.
The F-35 has been ordered by the US, UK, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Israel and Turkey with Denmark, S, Korea, Singapore, Italy, Belgium, and Canada likely to place orders in the next few years.
A mature, reasonable, observer could only conclude that with such a reception by so many of the world’s most capable air forces that the F-35 offers capabilities that are in great demand. (indeed, most of what some around here perceive as “rigged” competitions are simply acknowledgements that the F-35 is so clearly the best option that an expensive and protracted contest would be a waste of money)
Instead of employing such a logical thought process message board kiddies would prefer to try to invent elaborate conspiracy theories where all the contests are rigged and nobody really wants the F-35… Take a look at that list and try actually thinking. Do you really think that list of highly capable forces would all be buying the F-35 if it didn’t offer something they wanted?
Since you brought up S. Korea, how do you explain the fact that the F-35 received the top scores in the evaluation over the F-15 and Eurofighter? (its second victory over the Eurofighter already) That is ultimately what the re-compete is about… a desire to buy the most capable possible aircraft even if it is more expensive.
hopsalotIn case you missed the actual results from Switzerland:
http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf
See the executive summary:
“Although the Gripen could be engaged in all type of Air-to-air, Recce or Strike Missions, there were several limiting factors affecting the overall mission success. Given by its design, the endurance, aircraft performances and aircraft weapon load were among the main limiting factors of the Gripen. For Recce missions, the RecceLite Pod was also used by the Gripen. Multiple targets were not able to be engaged during Strike missions. There was no sensor data fusion between the Radar and EW suite. Among the strong points, the Gripen had three large screens to display Situational Awareness and mission data. The EW suite can be mentioned among the strong points of the Gripen. The Gripen has been rated unsatisfactory in the accomplishment for Air-to-air and Strike missions. In the Recce domain the Gripen was assessed satisfactory with comments. The Gripen obtained the 3rd rank in the evaluation of the effectiveness. ”
This evaluation is of the original Gripen, the one that has been delivered, not the Gripen NG which has not yet flown.
The Gripen NG will improve the Gripen in a number of areas, but it will remain an extremely small airframe with some necessary compromises. I think the Swiss picked the right aircraft in the Gripen NG. I would have picked the same given what they are trying to do, but lets not pretend that the Gripen, even in its NG form, is a direct competitor for the Rafale, Eurofighter, Super Hornet, or certainly an F-35. The question for the Gripen isn’t one of being the best, it is one of being good enough while being cheaper. (which makes a lot of sense for many forces)
hopsalotIf you want to be taken seriously maybe you should stop coming with such rubbish claims all the time?
If you don’t understand you should start by asking questions.
“It is not the dearest or the best option but Gripen is a technically good plane that meets all our requirements,” said Swiss Defence Minister Ueli Maurer.
The Gripen NG is expected to meet their requirements, not the Gripen that has been delivered. That is what so many people around here don’t seem to understand.
The Gripen is a cool plane, a personal favorite of mine, and an excellent example of what can be done with an extremely low cost fighter, but it is not a head to head competitor with the Rafale, Eurofighter, etc. The Gripen NG will close some of that gap, but then it hasn’t been delivered yet so it isn’t applicable here.
About Rafale, read on what they asked for in 1975 and compare to what Rafale can deliver today.
Can’t support your claim I see? I guess you probably ought to retract it then huh?
The fact is that unlike the JSF/F-35 program France closely controlled the release of information about the Rafale through its development. Certainly it experienced issues as all planes do in development, but relatively few of these were splashed all over the internet as is the case with the F-35.
Funny, since I’m not in the anti F35 crowd. I just dont like dishonesty. For the american requirements the F35 is a good design, for 90% of all airforces it’s not.
:rolleyes:
Sure, whatever… oddly enough the world’s air forces don’t seem to much agree with you do they?
hopsalotIn all likelihood MiG-31 was able to fly out to an intercept point guided by off-board radars and the SR-71 would have no cause for alarm until it was too late, too.
next
Sure if you want to assume the SR-71 was operating without any support of its own… speed by itself is not safety.
Sign In
