Scorpion82It may indeed offer a greater SA, at the end it’s the overall information superiority which would provide the F-35 with a general advantage over non stealthy platforms with current technology levels.
If it’s flying CAP, why would it start out at 30k ft though? Don’t confuse the flight profiles for a strike mission, with those of a CAP.
Your average F-16/18 don’t operate at much higher altitudes either, not even on CAP, because their performance shrinks enormously at higher altitudes. A Raptor or Typhoon are aircraft regularly operating at higher altitudes f.e. The majority of AA tasked fighters is operating somewhere between 30-35k ft on average for performance reasons.
Scorpion82Yes, just like most every other modern fighter. Granted that’s not where it’ll spend a great deal of time, but certainly not unrealistic to get max missile range.
Whether the performance margin is great enough is to be proven. An aircraft regularly operating somewhere around 30k+/- ft won’t climb to high alt on short notice to launch its missiles at longer range. I don’t doubt that the F-35 can reach such altitudes, but whether it can do so quickly enough and whether it offers a certain performance margin there is what I don’t think will be a regular tactic.
the missile will be getting info via datalink from the plane too, along with its own seeker, etc… which is why it’s not as easy to spoof as you’re trying to make it seem.
I’m not claiming it’s easy, but it’s not impossible and not everything may work out as perfect as the sales brochures want to make you believe.
Scorpion82F-35s can easily fly at 50k+ feet for A2A, meaning that you’re looking at a roughly co-altitude situation.
It can “easily” fly sure.:rolleyes:
Not in and of themselves, but they will make it more difficult to make the missile think the target is elsewhere.
Well if the seeker gets no valid contact anymore it’s going to miss, INS/GPS or not.
Here’s a rough comparison between the APG-81 and the CAESAR.
Neither of these data is available, let alone that CAESAR was just a demonstrator. Real performance specifications aren’t known for any of these radars, the same is true for RCS figures and it’s not like the aircraft are automatically showing their chocolate side under all conditions.
Scorpion82Whether that performance (hundreds of miles away) can be achieved is yet another question and even if, what is it worth if you can’t identify the source or know the exact location, except for a rough bearing.
Scorpion82@djcross,
I suppose I should have added more smilies to make clear that this statement was more ironic. But you also make the same error as others here, you compare tomorrows technology with today’s technology. I admittedly made the same error several years ago when comparing the proposed technology/capability of future fighters such as the F-22, Eurofighter or Rafale to that employed by fighters already in service. At the time these new aircraft finally met their brochure capabilities the legacy fighters had evolved and the technology/capability gap was much smaller than anticipated during the earlier comparisons. The same will most likely be true for the F-35. By the time it will finally meet the brochure claims, other aircraft will have evolved and the difference might be much smaller in many areas than its supporters/fans assume now.
The F-35 is definitely more survivable in contested airspace than non stealthy platforms and it will hold an edge in BVR as well due the combination of VLO and its sensors, but it would be foolish to assume that the Lightning II is invincible, let alone invulnerable! And the aircraft will be more limited wrt aircombat performance/effectiveness in comparison to the F-22. It won’t hold a massive performance advantage and it’s supposed to be less stealthy as well. It may offer certain advantages wrt situational awareness, but that won’t neglect its shortcomings vis a vis the F-22.
An F-35 vs EF scenario is unlikely anyway and they will most likely be fighting together rather than against each other.
Some of claims are nonetheless dubious, even by todays standards. Good luck in detecting, let alone tracking and identifying the comms hundreds of miles away! And good luck in relying on “it can’t be detected anyway”.
Scorpion82Perhaps, perhaps not. (L(ow) probability of intercept)
Even if the Typhoon eventually detects the LPI signal, the question then is whether it can be done in a tactically useful time period. The emitter still need not be the shooter though.
Correct, but if the sensor is jammed he can not forward data to he shooter.
The F-35 will be flying at high altitudes for A2A missions to maximize sensor/weapon ranges, so the mounting location won’t be an issue
Depends on how high both aircraft are flying. And what altitudes are F-35s supposed to operate in the AA role?
AMRAAMS don’t go active till in the terminal phase(if at all, depending on the mode)
Unless the missile launch is detected, the Typhoon won’t be aware that it needs to avoid it, until it is pretty close. At this point the AMRAAM will have its own sensors, datalinks, INS/GPS, and HOJ providing guidance.
It’s INS/GPS won’t help it to hit the target and have fun to HOJ on the jammer. First and foremost the seeker must be able to distinguish between his own radar returns and deception jamming, which is not the same as noise jamming. And for the matter you don’t need to detect the launch in order to detect the missile before it goes active.
Please bear in mind that the F-35 has as much range on internal fuel, as the Typhoon with internal fuel and EFTs.
Well the data available suggest that the Typhoon has an even greater range despite 3 tanks, which will still keep the aircraft’s fuel load (internal+external) below what the F-35 carries internally.
Considering that clean, the Typhoon is ~.5m2 RCS, and with missiles and EFTs, would be over 1m2, which would be detectable at 100nm by the APG-81.
And from where does the range data for the AN/APG-81 come from?
In a head on launch, a C7/D could be fired at >100km.
Well if the conditions are right maybe, but who says they will be?
Scorpion82Not likely.:rolleyes:
Dito :rolleyes:
Scorpion82F-35’s radar and radio comms will provide the Typhoon’s ESM a bearing from hundreds of miles away 😮 :p
Scorpion82What are we looking at in that video? They’re not all modernized Su-33s. I saw what looked like an Su-30 on that factory floor. And was that cockpit only equipped with one MFD? Which fighter was that? Surely it’d get three like the Su-27SMs.
It shows Su-30s, Su-27SM and Su-33s. Btw the cockpit shows 2 MFDs, you can see the buttons from the left hand MFD in the shot, but not the display itself. Looks to me like these Su-30s could be the Su-30M2 4 of which were ordered by the RuAF.
Scorpion82Dear sir,
I must agree to disagree The marines will require that the F-35b demonstrate 7g and 55 degree AOA before IOC.
Would you be so kind to provide a source about the 55° AoA requirement? Thanks.
Scorpion82There is a difference between requirements and actual performance, sometimes they are met or even exceeded in other cases they aren’t reached. And who says that the 55° AoA was a requirement? It is the computed performance for the 240-3 model and that’s it.
Scorpion82@netta,
you should first read what I quoted and then read my reply! You obviously missed the point.
Scorpion8255 deg AoA trimmed flight; >50 deg/s pitch rate; 1.67 M; 50.000 fts; 9G;
Caution: the plane that achieved those was the AA; the present AF performs better.
The F-35 hasn’t demonstrated any of these performance figures! Just computer models of an older design (240-3). The demonstrated performance so far is a fair deal away from these figures.
Scorpion82ES DAS (AN/AAQ-37) for starters
And how does it help to increase the F-35’s survivability in comparison to the AN/AAR-56 of the F-22?
Most of any penalty the Lightning carries is “Fuel”. Which, in can exchange for energy! The other cannot or at best are very limited as compared to the F-35.
And you are going to tell us that all the internal structures required to accommodate internal weapons are going to weight zilch and occupy no space at all huh?:rolleyes:
I basically agree with you that the internal carriage offers advantages in a combat configuration, though it is necessary to take into account the exact configurations as well. Comparing an F-35 with 4 internal AAMs vs. an aircraft carrying 8 AAMs external is as much apples and oranges as what you suggested. The performance will certainly degrade with external carriage of stores, but in a light AA configuration fighters relying on external stores may still outperform the F-35. I’m sure the Lightning II will be a solid performer, but it’s simply not the high performance aircraft the F-22 and others like the Eurofighter are.
Scorpion82The F-35 has better odds of surviving against an Advance Air Defense Network than even the F-22.
By what flying lower, slower and being less stealthy?
For exampe the F-35 Wing Loading would stay pretty much the same.
You don’t even know what wing loading is!:eek:
I simply stated that the Typhoon (and other types) pay a penalty for carrying External Stores. (HARD FACT)
Like the F-35 paying a permanent penalty wrt drag and weight for carrying so much fuel and weapons internal, whether it carries any weapons or much fuel at all or not.
Plus, we know how the F-35 performs as it compares to the F-16 Blk 50 and F-22 doing very similar acrobatics.
Yeah in a few selected areas which are translated by you as same performance in all areas. So far the F-35 hasn’t demonstrated much at all! Turning as good at high subsonic speeds is not a great deal at all. What’s the highest AoA, speed, altitude, g-load etc. the F-35 has achieved yet?
Sign In
