OooShinyExhaust underneath rather than on top?
OooShinyI am even less of a fan of Putin and Co, and that statement is still ridiculous.
One has to only look at electoral success of the Commies, the only thing they drop dead from is age.
I did say “2” or 3.
OooShinyRussia has more political freedom than the US has. Russia has 4 parties covering far left to far right. The US has 2 parties covering center left to center right.
…. with the caveat that for 2 or 3 of those Russian parties, gaining popularity is punishable by death.
OooShinyNot sure that it is that one. If memory serves that was some time ago. This I believe is more recent.
Edit: Found it, the submission was made in Dec 2015, the software used was this: H3MilSim software
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/02/australia-should-buy-f-22s-not-f-35s-says-retired-raaf-wing-commander/
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=cb696c8f-26b1-494c-ab8e-0555ef0fd7b4&subId=407251The document makes interesting reading. He argues for a re-instating of F-22 production, unlikely I’d say! That aside there’s some excellent points made in my opinion. The simulation does actually date from 2010, if I’m reading it correctly, and compares that with the LM claims and submission to the Oz committee.
H3milsim is Harpoon 3, the predecessor to Command which was widely put down by the anti f-35 crowd here a while ago when it showed that Su-35s get eaten for breakfast by the f-35.
I guess this makes the command simulations valid again.
In networked, manned simulations between Raaf lightning pilots and US aggressor pilots flying simulated Su-35s, the f-35s came out on top 8:1 even when outnumbered 2:1.
OooShinyRussia missiles can reach Middleast and Norway oil fields much faster and without any hinderence. there goes your EU oil supply. wars are fought with logistics and oil. Countries like Ukraine are too corrupt to be trusted and will need constant feeding.
And 21st century “conventional” wars which don’t require occupation are decided rather quickly with missiles.
One thing I enjoy about Russian state media is that you can alway tell what the Russian government fears on any given week by what their media is reporting on… Missile shield, fracking…cruise missile numbers…
OooShinyMaybe this is why Russia is asserting itself lately and why they felt they “needed” to invade Crimea, and go all out to secure alliances and bases abroad. With the loss of Ukraine to the west, this is how NATO’s reach into Russia looks with just medium range, fighter launched cruise missiles, but more importantly, inexpensive decoy drones.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244059[/ATTACH]
The range of the ADM-160B and J is roughly 920km, similar to the JASSM-ER, so this is NATO’s range into Russia today with fighter launched missiles combined with decoy swarms assuming S-400 battalions are located close to Russia’s borders. The threatened area covers a large number of key Russian airbases as well as Moscow and many of Russia’s OTH early warning radars.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244060[/ATTACH]
In a few years, with the F-35 and the same weapons it’ll be the bomber bases to the east and around 70% of all of Russia’s airforces under NATOs umbrella.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244061[/ATTACH]
It’s not hard to understand the Russian desperation to form remote enclaves to try and limit or at least momentarily stall access to airspace approaching their borders. This reality also might explain why the NATO states bordering Russia are on edge at the moment and why NATO is taking their concern seriously. Cornered snakes can be unpredictable.
With the loss of Ukraine support, I think Russia will be realizing its no longer viable to increase anti-air system density in the entire west and south western region. They are literally doing anything they can to extend their military outward away from their borders.
OooShinyDo you think Russia is going with the approach of putting the T-50 into service with only external weapons carriage capability, then will design and test the internal carriage solution at a later date?
This would explain why there’s no photos of weapon bays being opened yet so close to serial production. (None that I’ve seen anyway).
OooShinyGreat work and excellent contribution!
The pattern with the F-35’s unit pricing, except for FY11 where there’s an anomaly in the airframe cost for 25 units (some black project funding being obfuscated?) is that its inversely relative to the size of the production run. Production run size has more impact on pricing than process maturity as you can see in the FY13 and FY14 unit costs.
If they are doing 44 per year at $102 a piece, you would expect a significant price drop at FRP of 200 per year. A further $25-35m unit cost reduction is not out of the question.
Another interesting metric to track would be the difference between weapon system cost and the URF costs as well. Obviously they’ll be more variable, but there should be a trend by now.
OooShinyF-22 is almost twice as fast in combat zone, F-15 etc does it best going supersonic momentarily to shoot or when shot at.
at first i found this “only for ferrying” funny, but now its just depressing to see these arguments
Now from someone who is not just guessing….
the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane…. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis…. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God’s-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter – and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements
Air Marshal Geoff Brown, Aggressor Pilot
OooShinyPerhaps, but LM was part of the losing bid, and LM is not known for being loose with their source codes, and will hardly give up their proprietry software to a competitor. Integrating software from another program is not just plug and play. N
.
You’ll find that LM does not own the software, the DOD does. They’ll do what they like with it.
OooShinyhow about the 2nd man remote pilot various UAV,
i think a multi-fold of MALD offsprings will become standard armament
Why would you bother adding the weight to the aircraft to support a second meatbag for uav piloting when you could just use the aircraft as a jam resistant Comms node for uav pilots stationed back at home.
Having the uav controller in the airplane only creates disadvantage to both the plane and uavs. Really poorly though out.
OooShinyNew Airstrike footage not from a UAV this time :eagerness:
Apart from the very last bomb, it looks a lot like all of those strikes missed their mark. Given they’re striking near civilian areas in these clips (judging by the traffic on nearby roads), is anyone else unimpressed with the PGM (and IR camera) performance being demonstrated by the campaign?
Given the amount of aerial shots being released, its obvious Russia is try to use the footage to demonstrate capability, but IMHO its really just shown a number of technology shortcomings.
OooShinyPrecisely, Sintra. The issue for the U.S. is that the biggest single piece of the acquisition budget is something that adds no value over cheaper alternatives in Afghanistan-type conflicts and hasn’t got the range for China.
While on that subject, I checked this one out for myself.
F-35C’s operating off carriers outside DF-21 range with a fuel top-up half way to firing point.
White square = CBG
Blue Circle = F-35C combat radius with fuel top-ups on the way out and back from KC-135’s operating from Guam. Required KC-135’s roughly 7 per CBG.
Dotted Blue Circle = F-35C weapons range. Assumed weapons load-outs of JASSM-ER and MALD-Js (similar range) to overwhelm air defences with swarms of jammers
Red Circles = DF-21C range launched from mainland (assume man-made islands will last less than 20 minutes)
Green Circle = KC-135 reach when operating from Guam. 150,000lbs fuel available for refueling fighters.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241020[/ATTACH]
or
F-35B’s with no tanker support operating from hidden locations within various US aligned countries:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241021[/ATTACH]
From this old map you can see that both aircraft have the legs to reach most of China’s military infrastructure. All Naval bases and a vast majority of the airforce bases.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241022[/ATTACH]
OooShinyIs what we’re seeing in the bombing videos a series of really bad misses and/or collateral damage?
http://www.rt.com/news/317068-russia-isis-islamic-syria/
It seems the spotting aircraft was focusing on a very particular building in the last part, but the bomb actually landed a hundred or more meters from it.
OooShinyBear in mind 8-13dB equates to a 5-25m^2 increase in RCS – over and above the expert consensus
Do you mind showing me your working on this? I’m interested in seeing which equation you used to calculate these figures, and the assumptions used. 8dB increase equates to 5m^2, 13dB equates to 25m^2?
Also I don’t believe you have proven the impact of RCS changes at L-band radar vs stealth sufficiently enough to be able to conclude there is an “expert consensus”, not even close in fact. You have not produced any equations to support the statement (Amiga tried but bungled the math), and the overwhelming majority of the RCS diagrams comparing 10GHz vs 1GHz with the same target have so far proven otherwise.
In your analysis of the RCS diagrams I sourced, you focused on the isolated high RCS aspects at 1GHz which were the wing leading edges, then made a blanket statement that the rest of the aircraft had a 10X RCS increase at 1GHz, which is actually very incorrect.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240776[/ATTACH]
The smaller lines between each major unit are actually the minor units, so .2, .3….. and so on. Using the B-2 diagram as an example, we get the following increases when going from 10GHz to 1GHz.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240777[/ATTACH]
Apart from the large increase in detection range at a normal to the wing leading and trailing edges (Fine, they’d be an issue if the enemy had as many AEW aircraft as it had fighters and if the super-loud emissions of an AEW aircraft were LPI which they are not, but nobody has enough of these to achieve a high density), generally the detection range increase going from x-band to l-band is limited to less than a 50% and averages just 27%, hardly the 600%+ required to consider l-band a silver bullet vs stealth.
If we look at the cruise missile graph, which is probably more representative of a stealth fighter, or maybe even the legacy fighters with no weapons attached, we see the impact of low frequency is far lower.
Maybe some people misunderstand (or are just unaware of) the other properties of low frequency radar that gives it improved performance over longer distance vs smaller objects and they just assumed RCS growth was the source of the improved efficiency.
Sign In
