LmRaptorActually its silly to use the data link in the terminal phase. The radar that is feeding the datalink with updates are generally not the type that can provide the continuous high resolution and data track rate used for the terminal endgame.
Yet surely its good enough to put the seeker back in the basket if lock was ever lost….?
________
HOW TO ROLL BLUNTS
LmRaptorSo there is a fighter that can out-turn MiG-25 at 2.8M ?
That is irrelavent – a Mig 28 can only fly that fast in a straight line. While modern fighters will out maneuver it at the relavent BVR speeds of Mach 1.3 – Mach 2.
________
Ipad guides
LmRaptorTo quote the Spartans: “If”
Of course, and perhaps to a lesser extent however, it applies to the NG aswell. The funny thing is a lot of the negative predictions with regard to the F-35s technical merits come from people who really don’t know the first thing about the design of aircraft, and its related aspects such as aerodyanmics. I believe the F-35 is going to become the David Beckham of aircraft… Overestimated by the general public and underestimated by its analysts and observers.
Cheers.
________
The toyota way specifications
LmRaptorYou have to believe SAAB, that they never delivered the information needed for a simulation, nor did the swedish goverment. You can read that in news and in pressreleases. The economics part is not based on the knowlege of the gripen platform or the information given by saab and the swedish goverment.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm
The Norwegian goverment wont release the information used in the simulation to any swedish counterpart(or any one else). Thats in the news.
Yes its very unfortunate the way SAAB have been reportedly treated over the false economics & conclusion that the NG is insufficient for Norwegian operations – if SAAB is to be believed.
But I still see no requirement specification and as such my point still stands – you can’t make the claim that the JSF didn’t win because of technical merits. Especially if you are not privy to the legally binding requirement specification that transcends mere speculation. Additionally, in general terms the JSF, if delievered with all its promises seems to be the superior technical solution by a margin. So while politics seem to have been a decisive factor in the decision, one can not claim F-35 wouldn’t have won without the grey haired men in suits…. It is unfair on the F-35 as a product and unfair on Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors….
Instead blame the Norwegian government for making the Gripen seem like a fraud.
________
Shemale Tube
LmRaptorAbout the datalink, it is a mid-course update, and is irrelevant in terminal phase, so losing lock is not changed, regardless of AWAC.
Really, do you have a source for that? It seems fairly silly not to provide an option to use the data link in the terminal phase.
Agree on all your takes of the importance of speed and altitude, but believe maneuverbility depends more on TVC or delta wing configuration, + large control surfaces, ( and naturally unstable design) rather then large wings.
I wasn’t going into the specifics of maneuverability…
But wing size is vital. Wing area is an important factor creating high in lift which turns the jet – TVC/Control Surfaces/Instability are devices by which we changes the wings AoA – which changes the lift and hence the turning ability of the jet.
Not sure what you mean with “get that missile on your tail with a simple energy retaining maneuver”, does it mean you will defeat the threat, or does it mean you will get it up the sun-don’t-shine-ova-here ?
It means what I said….. if you can get the missile on your tail – you are moving away from the missile. Therefore increasing the range of the intercept which degrades the missiles performance, as the longer the intercept – the less end game energy the missile has….. Thats why fighter pilots try to defeat missiles kinematically rather than with sudden maneuvers…..
Considering MiG-25, it has nothing to worry about, just switch on the afterburner and warp back to base, tho it didnt nail the opponent.
Incorrect – if a fighter fires a missile at a Mig-25 in a head on intercept the Mig is going to need to turn around or fly directly into it…. Flying at Mach 2.8 your Mig-25 is going to turn slower than oil tanker and lose a lot of that speed. Thats the difference in performance we get with modern day fighters – theyr not designed for just subsonic agility – they can maneuver at high speed.
________
Lovely Wendie99
LmRaptorIt all over the thread, should i highlight the hole thread? 🙂
Do you know what a req spec is? I am not looking for ‘hear say’, journalists opinions or what forumers think are the requirements – I want to see the official document stating what the exact performance parameters are…..
In this case its ‘whole’ not ‘hole’.
Cheers.
________
Motorcycle tires
LmRaptorEuropean military hardware is certainly not always behind the US….
________
VAPORIZER REVIEW
LmRaptorThe MAWs on the Typhoon are active so they might have some ranging capabilities – on the other hand this makes it very detectable by EW/ESM suites on board other fighters.
As far as I am aware the Typhoon’s DASS suggests the best possible maneuvers to the pilot for escaping a missile – its all fused with the MAWs.
You extend the NEZ by flying at high speed towards the target during launch to give it a healthy boost, not by flying away from it. But perhaps you meant that the other guy was chasing F-35 ?. If you mean the F-35 fire a over the shoulder shot, the kinetik energy of that poor sidewinder will be abysmal, it would force him to maneuver though, so it is probably worth the shot to buy time…
Please read what was said again – you don’t seem to understand.
Hmm, a still running engine will for sure help agility, but at the same time the very high speed of the meteor will demand it to be VERY agile to intercept an agile fighter. TVC would make a lot of sense on Meteor.
That is stating the obvious and its relative to any missile… TVC only has any significant effect when the motor still burns.
With regard to the analogy of the cheetha – you must remember that the cheetha in this case is more agile than the gazelle aswell and it has a computer processor making decisions based on the software – which processess things much faster than the brain does.
A missile follows the same path as a boy would when chasing a girl while playing touch – he (chaser) never runs the same path as girl kid as this doesn’t help close the distance – he rather sees the path of the girl (if she is maneuvering) and cuts corners or runs along the hypotenuse of her direction changes. Remember in this case – the missile the boy – has a lot more velocity and agility on tap than – the girl the plane – The missile also has another trick which makes last minute ultra high G maneuvers (if the plane has enough energy at the time) almost obsolete – a proximity fuse which detonates the missile within lethal radius. The missile is going so much faster by this time that even if the pilot pulls huge G (if that is possible) all the missile has to do is get into its general area to detonate and cause damage. Additionally the Amraam D is datalinked to the fighter radar – so losing lock is not as problematic as before – especially if one of the launch platforms or an AWACs is watching from a distance.
Tactics in aircombat don’t involve last minute TVC dodges – for the simple fact that missiles are a lot more agile, with higher velocity and have proximity fuses. Additionally for a pilot to pull off one of would be a lot more about luck than skill – ie hoping the fuse failed to detonate. What pilots do rely on is sustained high g supersonic performance and high altitude ability. You in the plane need to be high – i.e a lot of potential energy – the F-22 at 65 000 ft vs an Su-30 at 45 000ft. You need to have a lot of relative velocity without the need to accelerate to it – i.e the F-22 at Mach 1.5 vs an Mig 29 at Mach 0.9. The ability to maneuver with that speed and altitude without significant energy loss – i.e the F-22, EF or Rafale with their large wings – high TWR and unstable designs by pulling large Gs and still maintaining supersonic performance. The ability to accelerate quickly at high Mach No’s – i.e the F-22 destroys the F-15 and F-16 in supersonic acceleration. This all means you can get that missile on your tail with a simple energy retaining maneuver while you are at much higher velocity and altitude than say if a legacy jet or a Mig-25 attempted it – then all you can do is hope to evade it by it running out of energy.
________
Zx14 Vs Hayabusa
LmRaptorJSF didn’t win because of technical or economical merits. It won by politics. That won’t be forgotten in the country of Sweden for sure and I do believe that the Eurofighter nations are pretty much up for some sour grapes as well.
For all you hard systems engineers….
Could you please link us to the Norwegian customer requirement specification for replacing the F-16s. Additionally could you please highlight the entries that are tasked at evaluating its technical merits. Other than that I’m not convinced you can reasonably make the claim above.
________
Chevrolet corvette
LmRaptorThis is one of the funniest threads I’ve ever read – it is so full of ignornant one dimensional analysis that it’s laughable; and sad at the same time as it scares away the decent posters.
Whoever thought maneuverability/agility was obsolete might aswell study avionics and rely soley on electronics as an answer to air combat….. for they have clearly swallowed the PR pill that that most of this forum have. People that tell you manned fighter maneuverability/agile peaked in the 80’s and is now in an asymptote are the same people that have read a few books written by geriatrics in their glorius Mig 29s, Su-27s, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s.
Be very careful with what you read and believe in the aviation industry as its so full of erroneous propaganda its a joke – and the so called defense writers and analysts hardly understand much of what they write about themselves. Go and read up on the high altitude sustained supersonic agility of the F-22, EF and Rafale and you will start seeing the effect it has on the NEZ of the Amraam and R-77. Discounting VLO – the game is still not just about electonics + missile vs electronics + missile; the aerodynamics and engine of the launch platform still have a huge say.
What Irtusk says is correct in general. What you must remember is a non cooperating aircraft will lose speed and lose ability to turn high G after a series of maneuvers – and much quicker if its a the legacy jet. The missile has a lot more stored energy and it loses that energy slower as it is a lot less draggy. Don’t discount ProNav on the basis of silly claims like “Hmm, I for one wouldnt call the trigonometry and itegral calculations involved in this problem is THAT simple.”. There is a reason you don’t develop the software on a A-A missile for a ?1000…..
“It should also be noted that it is assumed the missile was launched from only 20 km, and it is assumed the missile will have optimum kinetik energy throughout the envelope as well as a seeker without a single msec. glitch. (meaning no countermeasures aswell)” Were you refering to Carlo’s site? If so read what was said again.
If Carlo’s source is correct on this: “Agat’s 9B-1103M-150 active radar guided seeker is a repackaged derivative of the 9B-1348/9B-1103M seeker family originally developed for the R-77 RVV-AE and R-27EA. It has been reduced in diameter to fit the R-73/74 Archer family of missiles, at some expense in acquisition range due to the ~2.5 dB reduction in antenna gain. It weights 8 kg and can acquire a 5 m2 target at 7 nautical miles (Agat).” That means the seeker will pick up a – 40dBsm target at a an extremely short distance of 0.8 km….
________
CherryCandy
LmRaptorIt’s fairly amusing to see the apparent anti-LM bias in many of the posts in this thread. There seems to be a real distrust, and it mainly comes from posters that probably don’t have sufficient technical insight.
The heavier F-16E obviously has to offset its associated weight penalities with regard to agility, especially if LMs claims are to be believed. Without an appreciable increase in lifting area its only logical to be a tad skeptical – and put it down to typical LM PR. But after analysis one shouldn’t be very suprised if the F-16E has the same level of agility as the older F-16A.
Those factors are the glaringly obvious issues that affect agility. But we have over simplified the issue. With regard to the wing, we know they have the same surface areas – but do they have the same thickness – do they have the same incidence relative to the fuselage? Do we know what addtional lifting devices have been added onto the F-16E – in the form vortex generators. Do we know the extent of lift force generated by the implementation of the CFTs (they obviously contribute to drag)?
The engines are massively important in determining the agility of a jet – we as members of the public have no access to ‘real’ jet engine performance figures – we get simplified/santised static sea level thrust figures. Yet we talk about this issue as if we were experts – treating it as if it were a linear affair – without taking into account the fact that thrust varies considerably with altitude – speed – AoA – wet vs dry. But what we can safely say is: there is no reason to believe that the newer engines on the F-16E are not significanlty ahead of the F-16As propulsion unit – in almost every performance parameter.
Pfcem summed it up quite well, and I was suprised nobody else touched on the difference between instantaneous and sustained agility. I was also suprised at the claim about the F-16 not producing body lift as it doesn’t have a flat belly – it’s simply not true – and if it were alot of aircraft wings would start falling out the sky :).
The F-16E with significantly higher thrust levels and with slightly more drag in the horizontal, will most likely have slightly superior sustained turn performance by comparison to the F-16A. In the horizontal bank – it’s not so much the weight that degrades velocity but the drag force opposing the thrust – that generates the airflow over the wing. So with a substantially better thrust to drag ratio – the F-16E can fly at a higher AoA (lift increases almost proportionally with AoA up to a point) and a sustain a higher velocity (where lift force is proportional to V^2) before stalling. Therefore it will generate more sustained lift to offset its additional mass.
Where the F-16E might fall short is in instantaneous performance – it is probably less nimble than the F-16A despite having a new FBW control system. As instantaneous performance is more dependent on rate of change of AoA and is essentially measured when the aircraft is in an optimal cruise/lowest drag condition where thrust/drag ratio becomes less important (unless the AoAs are pushed to the limits). Since the F-16E has greater mass – but similar/identical sized control surfaces to the F-16A – the rate of change of AoA will be less than in an F-16A, as it would seem to have a smaller pitching moment – therefore one would think it has lesser instantaneous performance. But an important factor that was ignored by earlier posters is the relative instability of the two jets. The F-16E with a much heavier engine, most likely has a centre of gravity aft of the corresponding postion on the F-16A. This has a significant contribution to instantaneous performance as it will increases the jets pitching moment – aiding in rate of change of AoA. At higher altitudes and supersonic speeds this can become extremely useful as the control surfaces lose authority. But either way if the instantaneous performance of an F-16E is better, equal or worse than the F-16A – its rather irrelavent as instantaneous performance – unlike sustained performance – has become much less important in the world of HMS/HMD and HOB missiles.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss everything LM say as PR talk.
Cheers
________
party Cam
LmRaptorDoes anyone know how the A2A evaluation will be conducted? Will it involve DACT against a standard aggressor aircraft? Will there be ‘fly offs’ between the competeting jets?
LmRaptorTaking public figures on fighter radar systems and their related range is silly at best. Everyone does it though and so do I. But in reality most of the data is very much classified and the ball park figures they give through publications are more like “huge ball park” figures. In reality if we look at combat – the range at which fighters have been detected – its usually much lower than the brochure specs one finds in avionics magazines.
________
Free xxx streaming
LmRaptorDear Djcross,
You are very sadly mistaken about range of Irbis and APG-63 (early versions). Bars radar (predecessor of Irbis) was able to detect a Su-27 target at over 330 Km (range precision mention indicates RWS) and also retain scan, and tracking of targets. Hence statement of Irbis range of 350-400 Km vs “small fighter sized target” of 3Mtr square is very possible considering the power and signal processing improvement to Irbis.
APG-63 is according to several accounts << Bars radar on MKI. Latest AESA variant may be equal or better.
Second, comparing Tombstone radar to Irbis is also not logical. The key thing to realise is different kinds of radar systems and what mode Tombstone range refers to.
http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/Irbis_a001800001.aspx
Up to 400 km vs a 3 m^2 target – 90 km vs a 0.01 m^2 target – 50 km vs 0.001 m^2 target – 28 km vs a 0.0001 m^2 target. The point to take is that fighter radars like the APG-63 or the IRBIS asymptote around the F-22s frontal RCS – and that I believe is what djcross was alluding to.
________
Blood Disorders Forums
LmRaptorA-10, it is clear you either can not do mathematics or you don’t read what people have been saying. Claiming that the F-22 has an optimal RCS of 0.0000001 m^2 is just silly – that is 1/10 of a milimeter squared. The open source material puts the F-22s optimal RCS in the 0.0001 m^2 range while the F-35 falls in the 0.001 m^2 range.
So going on public sources.
Those figures translate to a +- 28 Km detection range against an F-22 – and a +- 50 Km detection range against an F-35 – using the IRBIS. This of course doesn’t take into account the fact that the radar won’t always have optimal performance characteristics. It also doesn’t factor in how well modern jamming will degrade those detection ranges. Nor does it take into account how a professional F-22/F-35 pilot can position their jet to be completely out of the IRBIS’ field of view.
Thus in summary – a proficient F-22 force has the capability of overwhelming a proficient Su-35 force – achieving huge kill ratios.
________
Boiling
Sign In
