aurcovhere we go again…
Don’t make believe the F-35A is going to be much cheaper than F-22A when it is ready for fight 2014-18! It will be; don’t be confused the the price of the first batch of f 35; that’s indeed more expensive, but the price of following batches will be lower.
In a new debate, after that F-15 have been grounded due a longeron fail, USAF says it can afford $47.3 million to repair all its F-15s and do them operative in several year (perhaps 30) but some instead want to buy more F-22s at $339 million a pop. That’ the same crap again; any new f 22 over the 183 number will cost ~ 130 mil.The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, the new jet fighters that will supplant the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon, have drastically higher price tags than their predecessors and require a bigger chunk of the defense budget. Nope! In real terms the effort the US taxpayers will make for F 22/F 35 it will be far less compared with the F 15/F 16 in ’70/’80… What is happen in America?
Is USAF overplaying its hand?
Speak about cost efficiency!
Something must have been wrong in America! There are many thing wrong there, especially dumb politicians (but this is not confined only tu US, dumb politicians are everywhere); however, that’ nothing wrong with F 22
aurcovSo if agility is not an issue why not convert some An-124s to increase their “combat radius” to 15,000km and arm them with 500 or so long range AAMs?
Why have a fast fighter when missiles are faster, why have an agile plane when missiles are more agile… why have a plane at all when missiles can be launched from the ground… trucks are much cheaper than planes.
I think he meant that increasing the agility over what fighters such the EF, F 16, Rafale, Su 27/30, Grippen already have, won’t bring to much benefit.
aurcov:p :p
Of note, before continuing, J-9’s required empty weight was 6400 kg. And that’s the ancestor of J-10. In fact, you can get an idea of the requirements by looking at CAC’s earlier projects.
Wrong analogy: YF 17 was the ancestor of F 18 and this didn’t stop the f 18 to be 3 tons heavier.
JF-17 is 6320 kg and J-8II is 9230 kg. If you ever looked at their photos, you’d see J-10 is closer in size to JF-17 than J-8II. It’s in fact not much larger than JF-17. On top of that, it uses more modern material than both, far more composite. As for composites/titanium, you should first lower the weight of the aircraft by good design and that’s what J-10 has. It achieved all weight requirements by being designed well and with increased composite usage in the future, it will only help with the weight situation.
J10 has a better design than Grippen? Because with a heavier engine, the common sense tell us that the J 10 must weight a little more; also a heavier engine requires a heavier structure (remember the F 15 E vs. F 15 C?)
Is it J-10’s fault that F-16E and F-2 are such overweight designs?
Rather than using Chinese fighters JF-17 and J-8II as the basis of comparison, you pop up overweight fighters like F-2 and F-16E. The F 16E is heavier than the basic F 16 because it can carry 9 tons of weapons an fuel tanks, it has a engine of 145 kn (vs. 125 in J 10), while the F 2 has a larger wing than the basic f 16.yet, J-10 has a far better safety record than flankers. Says something about the quality of its FBW. :p :p :p :p That the funniest nationalistic remark so far: it’s just normal that a plane just entering in service to have a better safety record than a plane that entered in operational sevices in mid ’80 and was that accumulated millions of hours flying
nope, all interviews conducted point to J-10 having visibly better maneuverability than flankers. let me guess — those pilots weren’t by any chance Chinese?:p
aurcovJ-10 is suppose to be around 7000 to 8000 kg (closer to 7000) and according to an article, actually ended up 27 kg under the required weight. In a typical configuration, it carries 2 PL-8 + 2 PL-12 + 3 EFT or 2 PL-8 + 4 PL-12 + 1 EFT, so no where near the outrageous weight that you claim. It’s often believed to be around 11 to 12 tonne in A2A configuration.
The J 10 weights only 7000 in your imagination? :p
The Grippen is 6800 and has a smaller angines that, OTOH, has one of the best TW ratio; the Chinese thing has a more powerfull engine (with a worst TW ratio compared with the f 404); the structure of J 10 must be stronger to carry the 1.7 t engine, and the chinese are far from being world champions at composites and titanium (both are the ones that lower weight)
The same can be said of F-15 vs. F-16 DACT, but as you can see the F-16s have often more than hold off on their own.
J 10 vs J 11 isn’t the same as F 16 vs F 15; the reason that most of the 1:1 DACT are won by f 16 is because the fly by wire allows a carefree handling of the f 16., while the pilot ofn the f 15 must be carrefull not to exist the enveloppe. that’s not the case with the J10 and J 11. they are more or less in the same class regarding carefree handling.
aurcovRaptor doesn’t need any sales pitch. Japan, for example, would buy it tomorow.
aurcovSending an F-15 would be a great mistake..
An USAF F 15 C yes, but an F 15 SG, with APG 63 (V)4, powered by a pair of 129, or why not 232, and armed with 120Ds, would level the chances.
aurcovADV with AMRAAM is a smashing combination! Throw in AWAACS and………..
The ADV can’t fully exploit the AMRRAM because of datalink uncompatible; so, only pitbull mode. Theu use the mighty AMRAAM as a sort of longer range Sidewinder…
aurcovNice camo!
I wonder if only the D will have conformals, or the Cs will be have too.
aurcovAIM-54 was active radar.
terminal guidance was active; midcourse was semi-active.
aurcovNone.. There is no and was no European design that would require such engine, so why would you want us to develop that?
This engine family is a proof that engines is not a field where the Russians are far behind Europeans.
You mean E-3 with AN/APY series radar? The max range for the APY is given 250 miles and 200 miles against low flying targets, I think it will definitely have diffuculty in tracking the Su when proper tactics is used.
Well according to this (I know that’s a double standard; why should you trust US brochures when I’m not trusting Russian ones 🙂 but nevertheless): http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/brochures/airborne/AWACS.pdf at page 5/12 it says that after the RSIP programm, the AWACS can “detect and track targets at up twice the range of the original AWACS” while the original AWACS can detect at more than 400 km (page 3/12). So, unless they achieved a dramatic RCS reduction, it’s hard to believe that the Su can sneak unnoticed under the nose of an AWACS.
Also if the Su fly low the kinematic range of the 172 will decrease. The Su should be, at least, at the same flying level with the AWACS, in order to maximize the range. Even better if it will fly above the AWACS. But in this case, the AWACS detection range is the longest.
aurcovI think that the situation in avionics is completely different from Cold War era where both sides had to rely on domestic R&D. Soviets were lagging behind in semiconductor technology so they were forced to use cores with far less computing power than the US. But today, every civilian has a processor comparable or even surpassing the ones installed in F/A-18F or F/A-22. Russians have absolutely no problem to access COTS systems and merely do the modifications for MilSpec requirements. Still takes a lot of work but is definitely doable. The rest is about software and that is where Russians are particularly good at.
That the processors used on your computer is more advanced that in a F2/EF/rafale/SH (derivatives of PowerPC made by Motorola/IBM) that’s no secret; however a COTS system based on power PC is not so easy to rugedize. In fact, in the western world thre are only a couple of them capable to do this.
I would say that Russians are closer to the US or Euros in terms of avionics than in terms of engines, for example. BTW, note that I am speaking about their top-line models, not about those actually being in service.
That’s disputable. I’m not a big Russian fan, but in some fields there are good. Name me one EU engine comparable (in terms of pure perfomance not MTBF, serviceability, easy mainetnance) to AF 31 family.
That largely depends on whether RAM on intake blades is an efficient tool to reduce the frontal aspect RCS or not. Hard to say.
For sure, they manage to reduce the RCS on the 35. But in the described scenario, the Su get close to some 300 km to an AWACS. do you really think that an AWACS will have any difficulty in tracking the Su?
aurcovNot to mention F-4s have been used to fire just about everything at one time or another.
It even fired AGM-78 Standard ARM. Too bad they didn’t go on with that. With present MK 104 engine, it would probably kill a SAM site at 200 km.
aurcovNot being able to supercruise, not being stealth etc. has nothing to do with a systems capability, but shows a certain delay compared to US. And if you look back, you will see that the Russians are more close to US, in many field, such aerodynamics, engines, bu not in avionics.
Look, no one knows for sure if the L 175 can do the ranging; maybe it can; what is questionable is the blind believe in some bruchures.
BTW, in that described scenario, it doesn’t matter if the L 175 has this capability. Even if the Su won’t use its Irbis and rely on L 175 for detection & tracking, it can’t escape undetected at 300 km from an AWCS; it may have some RAM applied in some places, but is a big fat target.
aurcovThey were fired at preprogrammed targets. That’s not same as seek & destroy wild-weasel mission.
The preprogramed mode is one of the many modes used by HARMs. Here are some educative ifo for you:
The HARM has four basic operating modes. The Pre-Brief, Pre-Emptive or Position-Known (PB/PE/POS) mode is a Lock On After Launch (LOAL) mode, and is used for standoff maximum range attacks on emitters of a known type and location, within several degrees of the missile boresight. This is the basic mode used by dedicated defence suppression (SEAD) aircraft such as the F-4G and Tornado ECR, or F-16CJ/HTS. In PB/PE/POS mode, as used by the Tornado ECR or F-4G, the aircraft’s Emitter Locating System (ELS) determines the identity and position of the target, which are downloaded to the missile. The launch aircraft will then toss the missile to impart the best possible range. The missile flies on inertial guidance until it acquires the target, and then homes to impact. The PB/PE/POS mode is essentially offensive and most commonly used when taking down an IADS.
A sub-mode of the PB/PE/POS mode is Equations-Of-Motion (EOM) mode which allows more precise selection of emitters at maximum range, in a high density environment. The EOM mode is more specific than PB mode in terms of target selection, and can engage off axis if required, but requires more precise target position information than the baseline PB mode. The target position data can be provided by an onboard receiver or datalinked from an external source (eg Rivet Joint to F-16CJ).
The Target Of Opportunity (TOO) mode, also termed the HARM as Sensor (HAS) or Direct Attack (DA) mode is a lock-on-before-launch (LOBL) mode in which the missile receiver is used before launch to acquire the target. This mode allows off axis attacks on emitters within the field of view of the seeker. It is typically used as an offensive mode by non-dedicated strike aircraft to suppress emitters.
The Self Protect or Launch Off RWR (SP/LOR) mode is a short to medium range mode used defensively to engage targets within 360 degrees of the launch aircraft. In SP mode the HARM is slaved to the aircraft’s RWR and given a prioritised list of threats. The highest priority threat will be engaged after launch. The SP/LOR mode is similar to the TOO/HAS/DA mode, but provides a larger search footprint.
Probably some HARMs were fired in pre-emtive mode, but is far from being the most used mode.
Yet, some other people don’t have problems believing AMRAAM’s allmightyness, even if it was only fired under total domination conditions, towards obsolete targets from maximum distance of not more than 30 km
No C was ever fired in combat; all rounds fired, so far, were A and B. Among those “obsolete’ targets were some miG 29 and Mig 25. While their EW systems were oudated, the speed (MiG 25) and maneuvrability (MiG 29) of these targets were real challenges.
And, BTW, I prefer to believe in a missile considered the benchmark in AA, that scored in battle, that was elected by 33 major Air Forces around the globe, instead of trusting a paper missile.
ALR-94 can range the threats, without radar pings. Fighter threats. Ok, i believe. Let’s say i do. Why wouldn’t L-175M be able to do the same?
Maybe because that F 22 is stealth, while no Russian plane is, because the F 22 can supercruise, while no Russian plane can’t, or because the F 22 has AESA, while no Russian plane has…
No, it’s going to hit 9G manuevering.
Pfft…it’s a bulky airplane which probably doesn’t even know of the missile.
An AWACS will travel some 70-80 km from ther moment the 172 will be fired until it arrives at the initial location of the AWACS.
aurcovAnd yes, i believe that Su-35BM can track Raptor at 50km of distance.
That what I’ve already said :p
Sign In
