Presumably if the S-300/400 it’s defending is stationary, the the Pantsir will also be stationary. If they are on the move, they’re likely not firing(or reloading). The SDB II can engage moving targets.

CIWS is designed to cope with multiple high-subsonic/supersonic, threats.
If it can’t, it isn’t a CIWS then.
How many slow SDBs will it take until they saturate a single Pantsyr (and there will probably be more, defending high priority target)?
…and once they’re through the CIWS’ screen, SDBs still need to hit, which may be impossible, if the bomb is damaged when passing through the screen, or just simply miss, or…

The point was that at some point, the number of incoming bombs is > than the available number of outgoing missiles. This works in pretty much whatever scenario you want to use, where tactical aircraft are performing SEAD/DEAD missions.

Yes well, at some point you get to sink a CVN with enough kamikaze Mig21s attacking from opposite directions…the question is where will you find enough “volunteers”? 😀
If you need to use an entire squadron each time you go for a double digit SAM battery, you won’t get very far fighting that way…especially if some of the planes get shot down.

So, once you start to use saturated attacks, the point of “cheap” fighting (using SDBs) goes down the drain and a few well placed high-speed ARMs, would probably do a job much quicker, cheaper and with much less resources invested in the sense of flight hours (no. of planes) and all following expenses.

On the other hand, those point defenses will become quickly overwhelmed, as they-
A- don’t have a 100% PK

And bombs have?

C- have a finite number of missiles vs. much cheaper SDBs

And strike wing has infinite weapons?

What i’m not sure about is if this is a ‘Sustained turn rate’ or not..?
By your definition, its not..

It’s not my definition, but aeronautical.
You’re right and many planes don’t do sustained, but instantaneous, winding down to sustained.

John Fairley, a british test pilot discribe this at Paris airshow years back, when Viktor Pugoshev did a 360 in 10 seconds= an average 360 turn rate at 35 deg.
I don’t know.. if this is real the G-limiter must be turned off..

I’m assuming you’re talking about post stall turn performed by V.P.?
The point is, the plane didn’t do 360° turn, but moved its nose by 360° and there’s a difference.
You can point your nose anywhere you like providing you have some sort of control authority and you don’t need a lift for that, at all.
Cobra is done at 3-4g.
To actually turn the plane, you need to change the velocity vector of your aircraft and to do that you need a lift and a lot of it.

If you examine the case when F22 performs 360° post-stall (J-turn, IIRC), you’ll see it does 360, but with its nose, while the actual plane does mere 270° and the plane exits the maneuver at ~90° alpha.
This is because the plane can’t generate any more lift to turn better.

The good Colonel does simplify every thing he says in that vid.

Actually no and he makes false claims, which is very easily provable.

If ANY aircraft does a ‘sustain’ 28°/sec at 20k, it would have to trade a lot of altitude. Which is excactly what the F-22 must do in a merge, just like any other fighter.

Well, by definition a sustained turn is a turn which maintains the altitude.
So, in order to do that, the F22 must do a 360° turn in ~13 sec, while it can’t do under 20 second on SL?!

Now can the F-22 do 28°/sec at 20k.. my guess is it is not far from the real deal.

It’s theoretically possible of course, but the plane would immediately stall after that.

But just how sustained is that turn, thats my question?;)

It isn’t.

Do you think that most dogfights occur at airshow altitudes, and speeds? I’m not saying the F-22 doesn’t use afterburners at all. Just that it isn’t as reliant.

Ww, at higher altitudes, there’s even less thrust and the weight remains the same, so F22 can only use AB more frequently.

There is no need to invoke WrightWing. I have already had a ‘first cut’ at answering your question in postings 291 and 299 in the current thread.

TWT has about >60% on the array compared to amplifier power output, while AESA has about 25-40%, depending on TR modules technology and that’s docummented.
There’s what?, 10m of cable from amplifier to array and actual phase shifters in PESA are analogue LC circuits (IIRC), so I can’t tell where did you find those “lossy” wiring, but someone obviously documented that wrong??

The fact that the paths from the transmitter to the antenna and from the antenna to the receiver are relatively lossy in a mechanically scanned radar compared to those in an AESA radar is well documented in the literature. So like the PESA set, the mechanically scanned radar has a ‘built-in headwind’ in comparison with its AESA counterpart. Some of the transmitter energy is lost before it reaches the antenna feed, while some of the reflected energy is lost along the path from the feed to the receiver.

Yes well, but even if you somehow have a wiring with enormous dissipation (??), you can always stick a stronger amplifier to the backend of MSA or PESA.
With AESA, there’s only as much power as your T/R modules can produce and you can’t stick 2000 TRs in a 1000 TRs space, can you?

If the mechanically scanned antenna has larger sidelobes than an AESA array of the same physical size, that is another performance penalty. Transmitter power being radiated in the sidelobes reduces the energy available in the main beam.

That’s true, but PESA doesn’t have that problem.
Besides sidelobes or not, your power output and gain go down the drain at off bore angles, AESA or PESA.
So, you see MSA isn’t so hopelessly out classed by AESA as you think.

And the AESA radar’s ability to tailor its scan pattern (lingering on targets of interest, for example) is a performance enhancing technique not available to the mechanically scanned radar.

That’s true as well, but then again everyone in the 300km radius will know you’re there. There’s a reason, there are numerous teams devising so called LPI techniques, to bring down AESA’s emissions to MSA levels first. 😉

Hope this answers your questions and puts things into a bit more realistic perspective.

You make up some preposterous statement, as if it were what I was claiming, and then proceed to attack it.

Ww, you came here countless times with F22’s 1XX:1 kill ratio and used that as an argument to prove F22’s superiority.

I’d love for you to show me the quotes where I’ve suggested that 2 Raptors could shoot down 20 Hornets(or anything) in a single sortie.

Where did I say, you said that??
The trouble is you’re taking such fairytales, as “anecdotal” evidence.

If that happened in the exercise, it was only due to aircraft being regenerated. The thing is, Blue Force aircraft don’t get notional reloads, when Red Force planes are regenerated. This means the Raptors would’ve been Red Force, if they were getting notional reloads.

A pair of F22 doesn’t have enough weapons to take out even a squadron of F18s, let alone 20+.
The problem starts when some clerk adds several sorties together and all of a sudden we have figures, disconnected from brain, which guys like you read as gospel.

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make with regards to the F-16.

Unfortunately…