aurcovIIRC the MKI were fully operation (based on their version) when they were inducted in Sept 2002. So either way you slice and dice it the MKI precedes the F22 in operational service.
MKI is operational in the Indian AF. I was talking about the experience of Russian/American manufacturers in TVC. The fact is that right now, there are 66 F 22 (67 delivered, one crashed) compared with 35-40 (different sources) MKIs. As I said in the previous post, in therm of R&D both countries started developning TVC almost in the same time.
I repeat, the perception of Russian being more advanced in TVC is due to the many appearence in air shows, while US did not show any of the TVC planes (experimental, development, of operational) until a week ago.
What’s the RCS of an F-22 from angles other than the front?
Here is a link http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ge/furt18quargeracao.html that shows (the last picture, in the bottom) the cockpit of an F 22. The MFD in the middle shows the RCS (in blue) of the Raptor relative to the angle. So, I guess that a F 22 pilot will be able to fly, so the lowest RCS will be presented towards an ennemy plane.
Quote:
JHMCS seized upon best technology available in early nineties to get a HMD into F-15, F/A-18 and F-16 in concert with arrival of AIM-9X. Speaking of Gs, JHMCS is only HMD flying that has a novel feature to deal with G. The toughest fight against a similarly equipped adversary such as a MiG-29 or Su-27 with HMS/AA-11(R-73) is a one circle knife fight. Each pilot is looking on the lift vector trying to target each other across the circle. The human head can only be raised so far, but the eyes can provide even more “up-look” so JHMCS has an option to use eyes to provide 20+ degrees of up-look with an alternate aiming reticlethis is what a member wrote on another forum bout the JHMCS I wonder how true this is. I have allready written to a navy pilot friend for clarification..
This function is called “up-look cursor” and will gain some extra ~ 30 deg.
Russia need India avionics to make a fighter super? I better not post there news item. new MIG-29OVT can take care of any export flanker in wvr. just the IRST is generation ahead.
That IRST might be generation ahead compared with other Russian ones, but is generationa behind US made.
aurcovUmm many moons ago I did get into an argument (why do I only get into arguments, why dont I seem to have discussion on the Oracle forum?) with some drone and during the requisite Fomin and Google research, it seems that the Russian TVC program predates VISTA/ACTIVE/HARV by a couple of years and even flight testing (by months or weeks).
The first US TVC plane was the NF 15 B “Agile Eagle”. It flew for the first time in May 1989http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f015.html#RTFToC24. It was indeed two month later than the Russians flew their for the first time the TVC-equiped Su 27.
As for 3D TVC, US pioneered them with VISTA/MATV in 1992 (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html)
The perception that the Russians are ahead the US regarding TVC is probably due to the fact that they (the Russians) displayed the Su3x at many public air shows (le Bourget, Farnborough), while US did so for the first time at Langley, a few days ago.
Also, there are ~ 40MKIs operational in IAF (Russian AF has does not posses any operational TVC fighter). USAF received 67 Raptors, ~ 40 being “combat-coded” at Tyndall AFB, Nellis AFB and Langley AFB
to make “the TVC/Sura-R73 come as close to perfection” as they can.the IAF has worked very hard since they got the MKI
If the TVC/Sura/R 73 is so “close to perfection” how come that the Indians intend to put French HMD made by Sagem on the future navalised MiG 29? I am just curios…
Only two (in my opinion) will work- the Meteor (lock on ~80 km) and the New R-172 under development or proposed (which Russians say should get a new much more powerful seeker)
IIRC, the long range missile made by Novator is KS 172 and not R 172 and this missile is supposed to be an AWACS killer.
Also, if by saying that a Meteor has a “lock-on” range of 80 km, do you mean that a Meteor radar could go active at 80 km, you are wrong. Most modern fighter radar can’t obtain a lock-on at 80 km with their 3-5 kW radar (weighting some 150-200 KG). How on earth a small radar in the tip of a 180 kg missile (Meteor) could detect a fighter at 80 km??? The latest AAMs (AIM 120, R 77, Mica) will go active at ~ 20 km.
aurcovAnd you are happy about that incident?Incident in result of a pilot mistake.
The thing is that we see this MANY times allready so nobody is impressed with that 40 MEGS OF GOOOODNESS!!!
I can’t imagine someone being happy about this type of incident. But it was only one of 3 or 4 incidents involving Russian planes in air shows.
It`s pitty that the weather didn`t play with, the video quality might be definitely better. Pilots need to get hours to get familiar with that plane, no question about it. No worrying about angle of attack and loosing speed, someone had to rewrite the pilot training procedures in the USAF. We`ll see what happen next, but please no more those high-alpha-circus-sitting-duck-stunts, we were used to see them with the Su-37 Terminator.
The Su 37 isn’t more than a prototype.
US produce TV prototypes/technology demonstrators long time ago.
Actually the TV concept was first studied in US by NASA on an unmanned plane in 1985. Manned TV (2D) aircrafts flew in 1989 almost in the same time in the former USSR and US (Su 27 and F 15). 3D TV nozzles were introduced in US in 1993 (F-16 Multi-Axis Thrust-Vectoring – MATV) program). This F 16 performed all sorts of stunts (AoA controllable up to 86 deg. and 180 deg. transients).
If we are talking about operational aircrafts there are some 40 Su 30 MKI delivered to India and some 67 F 22 delivered (so far) to US. Except this, there are nothing else (including Russian AF).
It is true, OTOH, that it was the first time an American made TV plane apperas in a public show.
aurcovIf the propulsion enhancement could only be speculated, what is sure is that it has a new seeker, a GPS aided INS and a two-way datalink.
The GPS will improve the accuracy and (I guess) would allow the missile to turn active later, thus delaying evasive action–if you can get the missile close enough to the target, there is no need to turn active 20 km from the target. It is possible that the increased range may come from this (if the target has less time to react, it could be considrered almost a slow-maneuvring target, so the NEZ could increase accordingly)
aurcovOf course, when you are talking about su-27 vs F-16, the size difference is not as large.
It is quite large: depending of variant the Su weights between 17.5 and 18.5 tons, while the blk. 50 Viper is 8.5 tons. The Viper agility is better, with half the weight of the Su, with one engine of 13,500 kgf, compared to 2 X 12,500 kgf, and better FCS. OTOH, the Su is better at high AoA, the Viper being limmited to 25 deg.
aurcovMy (partially) mistake 😮 I was thinking at F 4 loses (offical numbers) … However, what is the source of the list?
aurcovVietnam, Israel, Eritrea vs Ethiopia, ex-CIS wars… I would estimate something around 120… Vietnam alone was slightly over 80.
Nope!
First, we were talking about AA missiles. Regarding SAMs, the Soviet ones clearly score more, since in various conflicts, US made planes fought against inferior AFs that rely mainly SAMs for air defense.
Now, about AA: 120 kills for Soviet/Russian missiles is not a plausible figure. In Vietnam and Israeli-Arab conlicts most of the US made aircrafts were shot down by guns. The Soviet made AAs of the time simply sucked. In Vietnam, for example the official number of USAF/USN/USMC fighters lost in AA is ~ 40, mostly to gun kills.
I would agree to the figure for R 27 in Eritreea.
So we have some 200 kills by US made missiles (Phoenix not included since the number of Iranian kills in Iran-Iraq war is not well documented), compared with, what? 10-15 kills by Russian missiles.
So, based on the past performances, what missiles would you buy, if you are going to go to war? Russians? :p
aurcovYou know what, let’s get out of the armchair QB situation. How about finding a real world example where a long ranged AAM like KS-172 managed to down a plane that can make 9G maneuvers from 100 KM or more out.
Amen to that… I will go further: how many Russian missiles scored until now in various conflicts? How this number compares with the total kills of Sidewinder (arguably the # 1missile 1 in terms of downed planes) or to the ~70 Sparrow kills (Vietnam, Middle East and Gulf War of 1991), or the 9-12 (various sources) of AMRAAM kills?
aurcovOne assumes the purpose of a radar putting out 20kws is to detect stealth targets. Compared to a real stealth target like an F-22 or B-2 an AMRAAM is not going to be hard to spot and track.
The diammeter of the AMRAAM is 7 inches. Good lock in spoting & tracking” it. Especially tracking…
What do you mean where to go? It detects an AMRAAM with its radar and with that information can fire an R-77 to intercept it.
Yeah, sure…
Why? Is the AMRAAM some sort of super weapon that can’t be shot down, can’t be jammed or fooled and can’t be outmanouvered? I think not. Detecting its launch would mean unless it was fired from very close range the target would have plenty of time to evade.
Even if the AMRAAM is probably the best operational BVR, it is not a “super weapon”. But, if the Su is counting on detecting the AMRAAM in order to shot down a Raptor, it is a lost bet. First, if the AMRAAM is fired, the chances are that the Su is already in the its NEZ. This means 1) that whatever maneuver the Su would do, it won’t escape and 2) by the time the Su fires back, the Raptor is already puting plenty of separation between itself and the Su.
R-27P and R-27EPs can home in on an enemy fighters radar that is guiding a SARH missile, why couldn’t the R-77 do the equivelent to a missile that generates its own SARH tracking beam on the target?
The AMRAAM has a monopulse radar; it does not generates a SARH beam.
KS-172 is a two stage missile with a range of 400 km. Firing a couple can change the balance of a fight by removing AEW and AWACs, and jammers and other large aircraft assets.
Anti radar missiles are over estimated. They were not particulary effective againt ground radars (fixed targets) even if fired from shorter distances (30-50 km). But some people really believe that the Russian super missile would score against a moving target (8-900km/h) at 400 km…
You are assuming the Russians are thinking the way the west thinks. A short transmission might be jamming or it might be noise, but it also might be a signal from a LPI radar, or a datalink between aircraft or to a missile that has just been launched. The former should certainly be ignored but the latter you ignore at your peril. Do you really think the Russians will be ignoring all short signals?
No, I didn’t assume that those clever Russians could be as stupids as those idiots Americans…But a short transmission is simply not enough for a passive system (even for the best of it: RC 135) to detect/locat the emmiter. Russians do have RWRs on their planes, and the new “Pastel” is quite good, but it is designed to detect radars not datalinks…
Hey, thats not fair… the B-1B had really good ESM and EW systems when it first came out. Equally the AEGIS system is so sophisticated it can distinguish a climbing civilian airbus from a descending Iranian F-14…
Let’s not forget the only “victory” that the mighty R 77 scored: during trials it shot down a AN 26 airliner, flying dozens of miles from that testing ground…
If the F-22s choose to zip around at mach 1.7 then the Mig-31s can zip around faster…
The MiG 31 can’t zip around; it is true that it can fly faster than the F 22, but its maneuvrability (not so great even at subsonic speeds) at supersonic speeds is non-existant…
One of the main reasons the Soviets and now Russians like IRSTs is because of their angular accuracy. If you detect a target with an IRST you can use it to point your radar and a short ranging pulse will give you a precise range. You don’t need to scan the sky for the target… the IRST has its position and with a milisecond burst from your radar you have range and speed as well.
And what is the range that a Russian IRST can detect a Raptor?
Minor difference between an accident during an exercise, and a deliberate act of war. And of course it was a Ukrainian missile hitting a plane full of Israelis from memory.
:p You are contradicting yourself: it if really was an act of war (i e they knew that it was a civilian plane), than the AEGIS system worked perfectly 😀
The UN is a forum for nations to discuss and resolve.
Like they “resolved” the Ruandan conflicts and those of the former Yougoslavia.
If the UN is a joke then it is because the US has made it so.
UN is a joke because, except the Korean war it was never able to make herself usefull. Also because of the corruption inside (oil for food is just one of the many exemples). Not to mention Libya as chairman of the Human Rights body…
Why do we assume a Su 35 force would have to ALL be radiating at 20kw? Would not just one make itself visible to the Raptors whilst others remain emmission silent and datalinked, lobbing off missiles (which they have more of) at extreme range possibly beyond Rators radar range or certainly its missile engagement range into a 2-4 sq km area provided by coordinating several VLF radars to say nothing of “silent” LPI S 400 missile launches. One on one Raptor vs Su 35 maybe a no brainer but at Raptors cost we have to assume there will be more Su 35s than Raptors in a combat situation and that this will be exploited to mob Raptors using traditional combined arms tactics (S400s, passive Kolchuga receivers, Su 35s, VLF radars linked together).
You forget the Death Ray and photonic torpedos…
they may not have the need to develop it untill this point unless there future rivals have sufficient strenght of airforce just like they didnot develope Brahmos/Krypton like anti-ship missiles. and cost of building new system in west is very expensive proposition.
It is from russian airforce commander.
Had the US believe that an ultra long range missile would work, they would have developped them… After all, the R 77 is just a (not so succesfull ) copy of the AMRAAM, the Atoll a pale copy of the Sidewinder, and so on… It is US that leads the way and others just copy…
aurcovAn AMRAAM missile itself is not stealthy. An F-22 would certainly never fire one from 50km range… much more likely from 30-20km range. At such a range I would expect a radar putting out 20kw would be able to detect an AMRAAM at such a range… not to mention the F-22 itself when it has its weapons doors open…
And, in your opinion, the AMRAAM has such a big RCS that it would be detected by fighter radar… And by the way, a Su must know were to go, in order to launch its own missile…Not to mention that even if the Su detects the missile launch, it’s already to late. A Raptor would simply turn and burn (wait a minute; it isn’t even obliged to burn…)
The R-77 is supposed to have a home on jam capability as well. Why shouldn’t it be able to home in on the active radar signal from an AMRAAM?
Because a missile likes the AMRAAM or the R 77 can only home to an aircraft jamming it. It simply can’t home to monopulse radar…
The KS-172 is not a passive only missile. A large aircraft like an RC-135 could be detected at very long range and engaged with long range ARH missiles like KS-172.
You said the “western emitter” which implies something like an AWACS, not a passive intelligence collector such the RC 135. But, let’s say that such a missile would make the final step from a paper project to operational duty; what makes you think that an RC 135 would stay in its NEZ? As a passive sensor, the RC 135 can detect radar emissions from ~ 500 km
But the new Su-35 will not only be broadcasting 24/7 with its powerful radar it will have no EW equipment at all and its IRST will be firmly switched off.
Again I don’ understand your logic. You raised doubts about the ability of a modern RWR to calculate the range of an emitter, and you added that an IRST can’t calculate range. My answer was that a modern RWR can calculate (or at least estimate) the range because it analyzes more parameters of the incoming signal.
With nothing on the radar screen a half second datatransmission tells you someone is there and they only emit when they are hunting…
Even the most sophisticated RWR need a few seconds of continuous transmission in order to detect (not to mention locate) the emitter. A short signal is simply ignored
Yeah, like the F-22 is an Su-35s dream with that big powerful AESA radar operating all the time…
The “big powerful AESA radar” of the F 22, unlike the SU radar, will not be so easy to detect. Also, the IFDL allow one Raptor to receive data from another Raptor that uses its radar at max. output.
…hell what is that doing to the pilot of the target aircraft… my microwave is 600watts and it cooks things!!!!
Becase your microwave is a close cavity; if it woudn’t be, you won’t even be able to light a cigarette with it. And using the same logic, an AWACS (radar output ~ 150 kW) would fry the opponents. And USAF didn’t think about this :p Not to mention the AEGIS class ships — US Navy could use thier SPY radar (~4MW) as a sort of death ray :diablo:
aurcovAnd an AIM-120 cannot be defeated? Considering it is an active homing missile that is not stealthy as soon as it is launched the target with such a large and powerful radar that is searching will spot it very quickly.
While an AMRAAM when turning active can be detected, I doubt that a radar (be it a Russian wonder one) would detect a missile “as soon as it is launched”.
… and even if it doesn’t the R-77 is supposed to have the ability to engage AMRAAM sized weapons.
Do you really believe this stuff :p ?
The question is is the no escape range of the AMRAAM greater than the range at which this new radar can detect the F-22…
:p :p
So the western emitter is a big slow flying aircraft that would be an excellent target for a long range shot from a KS-172, whereas the Flanker operating in the same role has the size and manouverability of a large fighter and therefore would be rather less vulnerable to a similar weapon?
An RC 135 does not emmit; is is a collection of passive sensors. So even a super/uber/hyper Ks 172 would be useless…
And how do you get range? If you can’t get range passively via an IRST how can you get it from a RHAW?
Older RWRs measure 3-4 parameters of the incomming signal; a modern EW system (ALR 94, as well as the Falcon Edge on the F 16 blk. 60, or the ALR 69 A(V) ) measures over 30 parameters.
You mean like it is common knowledge that Busche is an idiot and that America enjoys bombing countries just to test new weapons?
Bush may be an idiot and the Americans bloodthirsty morons; I can’t see though what this has to do with Su 35 or its radar…
The datalink between the F-22 and the Amraam could be detected at the very least
A midcourse correction between a launching aircraft and an AMRAAM would last a fraction of second; even the RC 135 (the king of passive detection) can’t help
aurcovA radar emitting (at 20 kW) is easy to locate unless we are talking about AESA (capable of using spread spectrum techniques). Since the Irbis is not an AESA, I can’t see way it would be harder to locate, whatever frequency hopping methods it would use. You don’t need the radar “codes” in order to locate it; you may need them if you own the radar and want to modify/upgrade/reprogam it.
aurcovThere is a BIG difference between detecting and locating an emitter and generating a firing solution for a Mach4-class missile, my dear. Don’t try these cheap games with me..
The idea is that US did not spent huge sums just to be able to fight its own made planes. Existent and future foreign planes (Russian in the first place) radars, EW systems were the ones that US fighters were and will be designed to fight against.
aurcovThat is purely hypothetical. As long as you are not familiar with the emitting system, it is hardly possible to exactly locate the emitting aircraft on several meters range..
I am sure that ALR-94 can precisely locate an F-15, F-16 or any other fighter that uses radar known to Lockheed experts. But that surely does not apply to latest generation of radars of foreign origin, don’t forget that..
🙂 I doubt that F 22 was designed to fight F 16 or f 15… :p Using this logic it results that a Russian “Pastel” won’t be able to locate anything elese but a Russian-made Bars or Zhuk, or that French Spectra will be useless against anything else except an Freanch-made RDY or RBE…
By the way the ALR 94 is made by US subsidiary of BAE Systems…
aurcovThere is an aspect that make me wonder:a few time ago, when discussing the performances of AESA radars, many people on this forum doubt the figures the aviation magazines mentioned regarding the APG 77 (120 Nmiles for a 1sqm target). Yet very few people doubt that the figures regarding the new Russian “super radar”. Wired… 🙂
And lets face it the weapons the F-22 can carry are a sidewinder and an AMRAAM. If you have a 20kw max power output I guess you have the power to jam any ARH AAM and an imaging IR guided missile probably wont have a range advantage over a radar with such a large power output
The supposed 20 kW radar jamming an incoming missile will be like a beacon in a clear night- -the AMRAAM has a home-on-jam mode that is triggered automatically in this situation.
An emission gives you a bearing, but not a range precise enough to fire a weapon based on that info. .
-An ALR 94 an the F 22 will give you a precise location at a target at AMRAAM range;
-If an RC 135 is supporting US fighters (as usual), enemy fighters will be located (azimuth, elevation and range) at hundreds of miles. Link 16 will disseminate the data to all US fighters equipped with MIDS terminals (practically all F 15C/E, F 16 C blk. 40, 42,50,52, F 18 C/D/E/F, F 22)
Sign In
