aurcovIntercepting a Mig-35 flying at mach 2.2, from a distance of 50km?
A MiG 35 will fly ~ 3 minutes at 2.2M…
aurcovTC 12F – It’s all vewwy vewwy secret, but in fact all sensors miraculously work much better when installed in a fat, slow 5genTM airplane, not to mention that a 1995 computer architecture derived from a 1985 predecessor will be the optimal way to perform sensor fusion and EMCON in 2020 and beyond.
If the “fat, slow 5 gen” airplane you mention is the F 35, this one uses militarised commercial computing technology with GigaHertz clock speed processors (PowerPC). BTW, the same processors are used on the latter tranches of EF & Rafale.
aurcovNot true – today fighter such as F-22A, EF-2000 can go around 1,8 Mach in high altitude ( 40-50k ft ) in BVR engagement. Both of them can supercruise unlike F-15C and has better acceleration and performance than older US types, and probably won’t have a problem to exceed 1,6 Mach with air-air weapons.
EF-2000 with 4 AMRAAM and 2 IRIS-T/ASRAAM combo :
“A typical BVR engagement would involve the positive identification of targets over 70 miles away, using the CAPTOR Radar, and data link systems to automatically assess and prioritise the threat.
Eurofighter Typhoon will then use the high excess power of the two EJ200 engines to accelerate to around Mach 1.8, to close in on its target and maximum energy to its active missiles on release. Eurofighter Typhoon will then utilise its high supersonic turn rate to escape from the threat zone, or re-attack if necessary. DASS counter-measures and exceptional agility would be used to deny any enemy the successful use of his weapons.”http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/swing-role/air-superiority/beyond-visual-range.html
F-22A, Flight International:
“I had to perform a missile [AIM-120] shot at 40.000ft, M1.6 and 7g” and later “entering a split-S with full a/b at 53.000ft and M1.98”.
You can see that new types ( PAK-FA, Su-35, EF-2000, F-22A, Rafale ) will perform better than old teens in this area.
Except for the F 22 which is always “clean” no othar A/C can sustain 2M armed.
aurcovNo, max speed in real wars was Mach 3.2
On 6 November 1971, an Egyptian MiG-25 flying at Mach 2.5 was met by Israeli F-4Es and fired upon unsuccessfully.[24] A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 during this period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25Whats the difference between a real & a unreal war btw ?
I was talking about the max. speed reached by US-buil fighters. And it was 1.4M.
The impressive speed of the MiG 25 did not stop US/Israel to shot down this type.
aurcov@ aurcov
“should at least” is far from being a step forward, especially when one takes into account how all these today’s platforms are considered useless by the F-35 defenders
“Today’s platforms” will constitute the core of USAF/USN at least 10 years from now on, until F 35 will be fielded in numbers.
djcross just said that it is about delivering a bomb load on some remote bad guy, but months ago when others pointed out that it was basically a modern version of the F-105 (meaning, a bombtruck), all fanboys were out there explaining that it was a modern version of what the F-22 was supposed to be: doing absolutely everything better than today’s platforms.
I am tired of posters quoting Carlo with its F 35 = F105 stupidity. First, if someone picks up F 105 as a bad airplane, he is ignorant. Used in totally different ways than its original goal (flying low to deliver 1 nuke), and being far from a true dogfighter, he got its share of MiGs kills in Vietnam.
BTW, the fact that, for the same weight, the F 35 engine has twice the thrust of an F 105 did not give APA “experts” a clue about the perfomances of the F 35.
It was pointed out that its sensor suite will make it a whole league above the others.. but what prevents you from strapping the same electronics into fighters like the F-15 or the F/A -18? electrical power? come on, unless you need a nuclear powerplant onboard, you can either implement new generating system on existing engines or upgrade these (less costly to upgrade an engine than to build a whole new fighter).
Putting an AESA radar, an advanced IRST and a digital EW systems (as Boeing and LM already did on F 15 SG/SA or F 16 blk. 60) is for sure, a big step. How about integrating all of those systems (sensor fusion) and putting them on a VLO platform ? What would you pick?
aurcovNo joke, you can’t reach VLO while at the same time having maneuverability,
😮 😮 So in your opinion, F 22 is not VLO, or is not maneuvrable?
ps: Nothing beats the concept of dispersed air fields, high sortie rate & investment in NCW, (for the underdog)
that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact
Dispersed airfield were OK for Sweden durring the Cold War. Today sensors and long range weapons (cruise missiles, or even ballistic such as Iskender) make the concept far less valuable.
Edit: Sintra beats me with 7 min.
aurcov2] F-35 is not VLO, it is MLO, mediocre low observable
You are joking, right?
3] Range may very well be an issue if you have to fly circles around SAM sites
on your way to and from a target, as well as avoiding patrols & AWAC’s.
Why would anyone fly circles around SAM sites, instead of bombing them?
From everyone elses standpoint: dispersed airfields is a given,
pop up and harass the incoming bombers, force a massive air cover,
and cheap enough for training to make your pilots highly skilled.
Hmmm…sound like a Gripen :p Why didn’t you name it? It’s OK to be a fanboy, even a gripen fanboy.
aurcovAre you even reading the comments?
You did not read his. He said that the F 35 can perform at least like F 16/18, i.e. the fighters that will replace.
For interception you need to be fast, preferrably over mach 2 and supercruise capable. The Eurocanards delivers in this area, the F22 delivers and the Su35 sort of delivers (still no info about the supercruise), the F16 doesnt officially supercruise (but the F 35 does at 1.2M). All with top speeds lightly armed that are above mach 2, all with cruise speeds above mach 1,2.
The max. speed ever used in real wars was something like 1.4M. And BTW, at a max. speed of over 2M (that any of the euros can’t reach, since max. speed is 2M) an fighter isn’t even lightly armed, is no armed at all.
aurcovThese new generation glide bombs, be it SDB, JDAM-ER, or JSOW, all have ranges exceeding 100 km. Since the modern SAMs have an effective max range of 150 km, these strike jets could safely release their weapons and escape on afterburner.
The stealth infiltration is not only not necessary, but inefficient against the enemies like China or North Korea, because you can carry 3 times as many SDBs on a 4th gen jet as you can do with F-35s carrying them internally.
You probably don’t know that the F 35 has 6 external stations: 2×2265 kg, 2 X1135 kg and 2 x 135 kg (wingtips). This means that you can carry 6 X 4 SDB (2 X 4 interanlly). That’s 24 PGMs…
No one’s asking the F-35 to do A2A;
The USAF isn’t(It’s F-22 + F-15C AESA).
The UK isn’t(Typhoon is UK’s primary A2A fighter).
Turkey isn’t(Turkey is looking for an A2A fighter to provide a cover for its F-35s).
The USN isn’t(The Super Hornet is the USN’s A2A fighter).
Israel isn’t(F-15I is the IAF’s primary air-defense fighter).
Japan isn’t(F-35 replaces the F-4EJ in strike roles. F-15J will be upgraded for the A2A roles into 2030s until the F-3 is ready to take over).The F-35 is really the A-35, a strike aircraft with minimal self-defensive A2A capability like the Harrier, and must operate under the protection of dedicated A2A jets like the F-15C, the Typhoon, the F-22, the Super Hornet, and even the F-16.
If an F 22 is for sure better than the F 35 in A-A and an EF comparable, I doubt that an F 15 (even with AESA) or an F 16, not to menation an F18E/F can be a better A-A than an F 35.
aurcovI don’t think that in high g WVR fights the F-35 could shot Aim-120D over the shoulder from internal weapon bays. Even when sensor could track the bandit behind Lighting II , the missile has it’s own limitations , and couldn’t be lunch in high -g , high AoA situation to the target behind lunching platform.
The Mica EM missile with TVC shoot down drone behind Rafale , but it wasn’t WVR , and the target was several NM from the lunching fighter this time. I think that even most maneuverabe short range AAM will have problem in this kind of situation ( AIM-9X , IRIS-T ). Heavy and less maneuverabe AIM-120 will have much more trouble than this missile ( 40g limit vs 60g limit , TVC vs no TVC). Maybe this is future LM concept for NG AAM , and not for first F-35 blocks. Also this is new , immature concept in WVR combat , and we don’t know any detail about it. LM even didn’t test F-35 with AMRAAM in this kind of situation – it is only their idea to make WVR fight easier.
Probably the F-35 will do WVR with two AIM-9X blk II under wing station with conjuction of HMD in its early stage , and probably fighting like any other fighter in this arena – catch your enemy on HMD , than fire short range AAM in best possible position to achieve kill ( no way over the shoulder shot ). Probably it won’t be any better in WVR than 4.5 generation fighter , and the pilot experience in this situation will stay very important factor and I hope that new system didn’t replace the fighter pilot in classic WVR fights ( like in BVR ) in the near future.
This is only my 2 cents.
Maybe the concept presented by LM will help. It’s called CUDA: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2012/November%202012/1112expo.pdf, page 6/6 top of the page.
It seems a AA missile of the size of a SDB:
a small AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile could triple the air-to-air internal
loadout on an F-35. The missile is about the size of a Small Diameter
Bomb and fits on an SDB-style rack.
aurcovJust like Boeing is proposing conformals for the SH, so is Eurofighter, and while no SH has any modification to carry them, the first T3A Phoon is already on the production line and, told by someone who saw it, the fittings for CFT´s are clearly visible on that particular airframe.
Cheers
Well, the SH has a bigger combat radius than an EF, both planes in similar configuration (internal only, 1 EFT, 2 EFTs, 3 EFTs, internal + future conformals).
My post was for Jaidyn24 that said that the Hornet has a terrible range on internal fuel. I assume he was reffering to SH. The vanilla Horneat, OTOH has indeed a smaller radius.
aurcovSH does not have any conformals.
Yes, but I meant the porposed version for the SH International roadmap, or what Tu22m calls the Silent hornet. The mockup was presented at AeroIndia.
aurcovBut to be fair, isn’t that true of all the 4 or 4 1/2 generation competitors. Ever seen an F-15E used without conformal tanks, for example?
The conformals do not deteriorate too much the flying performances of the E. And with no EFTs, just the conformals an E has a combat radius of 900 Nmiles.
aurcovTo make matters worse the Hornet has a terrible range on internal fuel compared to a F-35. If you Add tanks, then you add drag. Its already a sluggish bird. Now you want to add conformal tanks and clumsy Missile pods to the plane? There is No way this thing will have a kinematic advantage over anything with all of those pods hanging.
Than the Eurofighter is even worse, since it has a smaller radius than the SH. And, with conformals and no EFTs, the SH has about the range of the EF with 3 EFTs.
aurcovTo the best of my knowledge, they tested Gripen to 100-110 degree AoA,
and Demo Gripen to 70-80 degree AoA.
But for regular pilots it’s FCS is limited to 26 degree AoA.
Here’s on Demo Gripen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OXKvNe2VWt4
Transient not sustained.To my knowledge, except for the TV fighters, only the Superhornt can do the same 50 deg..
Sign In
