. Again, you better hope the modern day ASQ-239 beats the Eagles ancient ALQ-135. Unless active jamming outside the frontal area is required, ALQ-135 still has the edge there
ASQ-239 can perform jamming independent of APG-81, it has its own antenna for that task (they came from 2 different manufacturer, APG-81 came from Northrop while ASQ-239 is made by BAE)
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system
F-35 can also carry fiber optic towed decoy. In short, it should be more than capable of jamming outside frontal area.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260786[/ATTACH]
Given that a f-15C could surpass mach 2,5 while F-35 just get mach 1,6 in an interception run I would claim a No contest there.
F-15 with 4 missiles is limited to Mach 2.1 at max thrust and Mach 2.2 with V-max.
What’s the diameter of RBE-2 ?
Several RBE2 mock up including the one in Thales product card have 838 T/R modules
RBE2 product card
And Rafale nose cone is similar to F-16 in size. Slightly narrower but it is a round shape while F-16 nose is more oval. Don’t forget that the cone is in front of the IRST.
probably that the 40km range is what you should look for: it might describe the maximum theoretical range at max theoretical alt, hence the one where the booster is fully expended to gain some altitude before the internal engine of the missile take-over
Comparing their relative length with the AIM-120, the air launched version of stunner seem to be 20% longer than the second stage of ground launched version. As it doesn’t have a warhead i think it could approach the range of AIM-120, may be equal to MICA ?
Obviously, we are designing a fighter not a passenger plane. If we are to replicate supercruise at altitude, the point Sprey is making is a Turbojet can do it (just like the engines of the F-22 which are very low bypass engines).
Low bypass turbofan is not the same as turbo jet engine.
Turbo jet are generally better optimized for high Mach speed, however, at low/medium altitude, subsonic they often have much lower thrust than turbofan engine. Which means the acceleration in dogfight regime isn’t as good. Moreover, because turbo jet is less fuel efficient, to reach the same combat radius requirements, you need more fuel and therfore a bigger, less agile aircraft. Experience have shown that aircraft spend very little time at supersonic so turbofan engine becomes the first choice for modern fighters with these following advantages: heavier weapons load, better subsonic acceleration, better take off characteristics, better fuel consumption, lower IR signature, longer flight hours. In short, Sprey is dead wrong.
The point being made is that your eyes don’t have to be attached to your fists.
No they don’t, distributed aperture is good. Not the whole squadron have to transmit all the time. However, if you designed your modern fighter so that they have to totally rely on AWACs and CGI like 1950s Mig-17 then you gonna have a bad time. Which is why design a fighter without a radar is dumb. Imagine playing soccer with 10/11 players in your team blind.
Agreed. However, you will always find that going slow and going low helps in CAS and in tactical bombing. This is a well established principle. No CAS platform is designed as a supersonic aircraft, if it is designed for that particular purpose.
Unfortunately, CAS and tactical bombing doesn’t happen in vaccum, your enemies won’t be so kind to wait until you finished CAS before dispatching their own fighters. SAM won’t to so kind to ignore pure fighters.
Yes, but the NEZ (No escape zone) shrinks depending on the speed and altitude of the incoming aircraft. Which was the point being made. This is why the PAKFA is fundamentally a superior platform for taking out SAM sites than the F-35 can be
You are missing various important details:
_ Most threats are pop up threats, in other words, you don’t know their position before hand.
_ The faster you go the bigger your turn radius will be which means even if you detect threat at the same time you will go much closer to threats area before you can turn back if you fly fast (Mig-31, F-14 turn radius at Mach 2.2 is about 34 km and 54 km respectively )
_ The faster you go, the higher the closure rate therefore the smaller reaction time if something being launched toward your direction.
_The higher you fly, the more missiles will have to climb to reach you, however the air is also much thinner, which reduces your STR and ITR significantly.
_ The faster you go the higher IR signature you will generate, and therefore the easier it would be to detect you, and you will be attacked earlier.
_ Every design has trade offs, features that better for high speed such as variable intake is not as good for VLO characteristics.
_ Modern air to ground missiles like JSM, JSOW-ER and what ever the Russian equivalent is, can be launched from outside the engagement range of all SAM, the hard job is actually to locate these SAM.
So no, faster is not away better, just think about why the B-52 still here but XB-70 didn’t go into production.
The rest of your post destroyed my argument so i will leave a short remark pretend like it doesn’t bother me
FTFY
Sign In
