I wouldn’t discount the F/A-18 E/F in WVR so easily – but discounting the performance of the platforms I do believe the ASRAAM + HMS combo is better than the 9X + JHMCS combo. I also don’t believe Captor E will add to much to the BVR exhange ratio’s either way.
________
FORD RIVER ROUGE COMPLEX

Making an assumption that the above is in response to my post! Please don’t think that i’m trying to say that stealth is not worth it, i just have an aversion to sweeping statements that “x will negate y or x is better than y, full stop.” There are far too many variables for such to be realistic.

Agreed.
________
NEXIUM LAWYER

Forgive me, but i have a problem with statements that claim that the F22 and F35 will be better air to air than the “current” generation merely due to stealth and “sensor fusion”, particularly in the case of an aircraft that is yet to enter real production!
In the 80’s few people were aware of the existence of stealth and so claimed that the F15 was the best air to air aircraft out there, i’d be interested to see what the F15’s results would have been against the F117 if the F117 had been capable of carrying a couple of AIM9’s. The point i’m attempting to make is that those of us on internet forums have no clue about the development of “anti” stealth systems be they defensive or offensive; thus it may be perfectly feasible that “current” aircraft will in the future be in a position to detect the F22 and F35 due to developments in the systems and computing. You then have a situation whereby you have paid a chunk of cash for expensive stealth features which are being defeated by a “legacy” fighter / system….
I’m not claiming that the above is going to happen or is even a likely scenario, however i do marvel at the conviction and certainty of some people when history shows us again and again that predictions and expectations are largely either marketing hype or history as told by the victor after the event…
Now awaiting the comments telling me how “unknowledgeable” and “fanboy” i am!:)

An interesting video highlighting how stealthy the F-117 was vs X-band radars is on youtube. Dogfights – Nightfighters – where Michael “Dozer” Shower fires an AIM-7 Sparrow in his F-15C at a Mig-29 over kosovo. Unknown to Dozer at the time – was that an F-117 was inbetween the Mig-29 and the F-15 – flying away from the F-15. Dozer didn’t pick him up on radar…. He almost hit the Nighthawk. That is pretty much within visual range had it been in the day.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tAwSk5JI1JQ
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2gsdTWOCKZs&feature=related
________
Medical marijuana

Don’t puff yourself up too much, this was a foregone conclusion much as the Norwegian result.

Too much? I’m just happy that the jets getting some good press – it definitely deserves some.
________
Conner avenue assembly

I thank you for your work LmRaptor, i’m interested, but would like to have them aligned from start, and after plot out time intervals for both of them in the diagram.
I would also like to see AMRAAM at Mach 4, as that is the general consensus when searching inet.

And by all means another diagram like it, but with an Mach 2.35 missile.
And perhaps a diagram with a fighter doing Mach 0.8 if you have any energy left.
My general impression is that instantanious turn will be more important.
Where did you find the radius for them btw ?

Regards

I calculated the turning circles with the centripetal acceleration equation – as shown in my earlier post. I then put them into CAD to superimpose the two turning cirlces.

If the AMRAAM does a MACH 4, 27G turn – keeping consistent with my earlier sea level speed of sound value – its turning radius will be 6983 m – while the Flanker that doing 9 G at Mach 1 will have a turning radius of 1309m. That means the missile has a turning cirlce 5.33 times as large as the aircraft – while the missile is only traveling 4 times as fast – therefore the aircraft would have the greater lateral translation – and have the ability with a 9 G turn to evade the missile. But remember thats assuming the Flanker can do Mach 1 and 9 G at the same time – which it can’t. It is also taking conservative maneuver estimates of the AMRAAM – and assuming it will have that Mach 4 speed when it is about to intercept – which from a legacy jet won’t really happen. If the AMRAAM does 35 G at Mach 4 – which it most probably can – the missile will have a turning radius of 5387 m – which is still 4.11 times that of the aircraft at Mach 1 and 9 G. Yet – no Flanker will be able to do a 9 G turn at Mach 1 – the G range will be much lower and the in reality the missile will probably have a much higher degree of lateral/vertical translation for the first set of turns than the aircraft. Additiomally the missile doesn’t need a direct hit to kill the jet.

In your case of a Mach 0.8 aircraft pulling 9 G and a Mach 2.35 missile pulling 27 G – the aircraft has a turning radius of 838 m while the missile turns with a radius of 2410 m. The missile has a turning radius that is 2.8-2.9 times larger than the radius of the aircraft. While the missile travels 2.9 times faster than the aircaft – therefore the missile will have equal or more lateral translation and therefore it will intercept the jet.

In conclusion is extremely difficult for an aircraft to evade a modern missile – Carlo Kopp talks rubbish.
________
Expert insurance

Yes yes , i got i bit confused because i was looking from other side 😀

Just try to put a bit closer both points (in the Y axis , no?), and you will find the missile cant catch the plane…the no return point

Yes such as when a missile is fired outside its envelope against an supersonic + agile fighter. Thats not when a missile is fired within its NEZ – which is the situation I am trying to describe.
________
Suzuki Gsx-R400 History

The picture is wrong and a bit biased, what you should do, is starting from the same line, one point of the target, another for the missile, and start to calculate, position, time, speed, and turn of the both curves

For the “target” in the picture you are asuming some part of it turn will be in the “negative” plane, wrong

………………….. Wow.

No mate I think your reading the picture incorrectly. There is no negative plane – those are dimensional lines in CAD – helping me get the exact pictures of the two arcs of the circle.The missile and the aircraft are represented by squares and they are totally lined up. It is not biased as you say. The square at the top is the missile and the bottom one is the aircraft. The square’s are the respective position at t = 0. The line of the missile is exactly 3 times the length of the line of the aircraft and at each instant in time the missile is eactly behind the aircraft and is reacting constantly to the aircrafts change in velocity – a vector including direction. Where the two lines cross is the time t where the impact occurs.
________
HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER FORUMS

LM, again, align the target to the missile trayectory, and then turn in the right moment, there is a “not return” point to the missile, and that is increased again , if the plane do some turns from one to other side

Over G look at the picture I posted, ok? It’s of an aircraft and a missile aligned – with the exact turning radius I calculated for both of them. At no distance or time is there a “not return” point as you put it. So theoretically if the missile and the plane could sustain their respective speed and G combo’s I listed above , indefinitely – it would be absolutely impossible for the aircraft to evade the missile. That is something you don’t seem to understand. There is never a point where the lateral/vertical translation of the Mach 3 + 27 G combo is defeated by the Mach 1 + 9 G combo.

What does make the case for maneuverability of the jet is – the missile cannot come close to sustaining those factors – nor can the jet – and agility is essential in reality when dealing with a missile – not for out performing or cutting within its turn radius with superior lateral translation as you make out – but in order to drain the missiles energy to a point where you can evade it by out running it or by draining it to the point where its potential lateral/vertical translation becomes lower than yours in the aircraft.

So my point is you can’t hope to outmaneuver an AMRAAM with a simple 2.2 G turn as Kopp is trying to make us believe – by cutting inside the AMRAAMs turn radius. But there are maneuvers that cost relatively little energy to you and can help drop the missiles energy state – but its not generally those big high G turns that you see in the movies – its rather that sustained high speed agility that the F-22/EF provide over jets like the Flanker series.
________
NEXIUM LAWYERS