dark light

mig-31bm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,486 through 1,500 (of 1,759 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Best Russian heavy weight fighter #2228858
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Su-35 duh, its newer
    its designed to fight more types of air threats and even air to ground threats than mig-31.
    probably cheaper to operate and maintain too.

    with their powerful radar and high RCS they can see the other from very far
    mig-31 can see su-35 from 200 km
    su-35 can see mig-31 from over 400 km
    however R-37 max range is 400 km while R-77 max range is 110 km so if mig-31 attack at distance 120 to 200 km then su-35 can’t fight back, at distance 50 to 110 km the R-37 will have a lot more fuel and energy to strike target while R-77 already burn out
    so mig-31 will have significant advantage in Birmingham compared to su-35

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2228860
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    It shows no such thing. The article based on the Hostage interview that I have seen says that “critics” make this claim. It does not attribute this opinion to Hostage.

    probably, but isn’t this part kind of obvious •? , I mean it alway well known that stealth not working at VHF frequency

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2228976
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Means the pak-fa can exceed 34mbs. This is also the equipment we know about. Its probably just the bottom ability. The article says this can be expanded or made greater by more channels. How much more is probably the secret we would love to know. They are giving out details which gives comfort to opponent’s, with surprises when its needed.

    well that can just be said about anything western or estern system, we may not actually know anything
    Meteor may have 300 km range
    F-35 may be super agile
    T-90 ERA may not be effected by tandem warhead
    S-400 may have 100 % hit rate
    ….. etc

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2229007
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    don’t really get what are you trying to say with word scalability

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2229009
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Bm, you don’t know what you’re talking about:

    https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/415307

    …and before you get too excited about Gb/s, note the preceding word “scalability”.

    MADL is on f-35,B-2 for super LPI+ high speed data link
    L-3 is basically upgrade for all AESA equip fighter for high speed data link(it have lpi too but less advance compared to MADL)

    basically when trying to talk to other fighter f-35, b-2 use L-3 ( AESA data link) when it between themselves ( stealth asset) they use MADL)

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229012
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    The plane would take a bit more time to turn but can accelerate away faster. And Mach 1.2 is not mach 2, the plane still has a significant maneuvrability.

    With SC, the plane stays in enemy airpace a shorter time so is less likely to be engaged. With its good SA the F-35 will avoid flying within SAM range as much as possible. SC is also useful against fighters flying CAP, and it leaves less time for fighters on the ground to take off and make an interception.

    it true that high speed is lot more useful for stealth aircraft than a non stealth one
    but it may take alot of time to turn , depend on speed ( if iam not wrong at mach 2 fighter like F-14 and Mig-31 have turn radius about 40-60 km and remember they are optimum to operate at high speed , they can turn better at mach 2 than most fighter ) , not to mention , it really hard to avoid pop up threat when you flying fast

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2229019
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    These are lab tests. But actual equipment used on current planes such as f-18, f-35 not using asea but normal communication. Im assuming the Pak-fa asea will have similar function to those tests. But standard data communication. I know western fighters talk of 16 bit link but what is this in transfer rates

    no they are starting to use AESA to transfer data because it use directional beam that very narrow thus harder to detect , all US fighter that have AESA radar will have that ability in future
    the 34 mb/s data transfer rate on PAK-FA likely use the same method too ( ie : data link by AESA )
    technically you can say the result of PAK-FA is lab test too
    f-18 E/F, f-35 , F-22 all going to use datalink by AESA radar , f-35 and B-2 will have MADL as well

    MiG-31bm, you’re talking about using AESA radar transmission. The two are very different:

    In the same vein the PAK-FA could use it’s AESA X and possibly L-band.

    If the above quote is accurate then Link-16 has a data transfer rate of 163.84Kb/s (kilobits per second). Which makes 34Mb/s pretty impressive (i.e. >200x faster):

    http://vpk.name/news/116510_opk_sozdala_novyie_radioelektronnyie_sistemyi_dlya_istrebitelya_5_pokoleniya.html

    you cannot compare them like that Link-16 is quite old and it equivalent is not PAK-FA’s data link ( very different time period ) , PAK-FA go into service very far in future , as a matter of fact USA are changing from Link 16 to L-3 data link ( AESA radar data link ) with 274 megabytes a second , so in future that what PAK-FA datalink have to compare to
    ( it like no one going to compare T-90 with Panther tank because they are from really different time period )

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229033
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    yes, because thrust goes down as alt goes up,

    drag go down too

    its likely that climb acceleration, return & reserve is included in that 150 miles declaration

    i dont really get this part

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2229035
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Report in Russian military website. Pak-fa has the ability to communicate with other planes, ground etc at 34Mb a second. But this can be improved by increasing channels. How does this compare with western fighters.

    western datalink is 8 times faster

    . They then demonstrated the transfer of a 72 MB synthetic aperture radar image in 3.5 seconds at a data rate of 274 Mbps

    During the mission, the team transmitted and received in full duplex at 274-megabits per second burst rate.

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/elec-tricks-turning-aesa-radars-into-broadband-comlinks-01629/

    Raytheon has demonstrated the system can transmit data at rates of 274 megabytes a second — “a speed that starts to approach instantaneous –

    http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/AESAs-Advantages_25395.html#.U__3v8VdWbM

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229048
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    ditto, but i can believe that it has to return to base after ~50% afterburner for 150 miles

    fuel consume depend alot on altitude though
    even sth like Mig-29 and F-16 can go on full afterburner for along time at very high altitude

    Fuel flow depends HEAVILY on speed and altitude. Take F-16 with 7000 pounds of fuel.

    For example an F-16 blk50 flying an MIL power will consume 17000 lb/h at M0,9 and Sea Level.

    Yet very same F-16 blk50 flying at MAX AB power will consume only 4000 lb/h at M0,6 and 60k feet. (less than 25% of the previous dry thrust condition)

    On max consumption F-16 blk50 flying at MAX AB will consume 96000lb/h at M1,3 and Sea Level.

    Lowest possible consumption at max MIL power is 1000 lb/h at M0,6 and 60k feet.

    If you are looking for max possible time, 1 hours 45 minutes for little F-16 which will not take you anywhere. However minimum time is somewhat useful for a S/L dogfight that is 4 minutes 22 seconds.

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2229067
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Thanks for all the fascinating (and entertaining) replies so far, sorry mine has been so delayed. For clarification the ‘hero’ will definitely not be piloting – at this point in the book he/she is a relatively unwilling but more or less cooperative civilian scientist with little or no idea why the USAF is so keen for them to get to Alaska without delay, so if any kind of specialised outfitting, training or prior experience is essential (as opposed to preferred) to just sit in the aircraft it probably won’t work.

    To go into a little bit more detail, time and therefore speed is absolutely crucial to this portion of the plot. The main character is being flown likely from somewhere in Pasadena, probably by an LAPD AS350, to Edwards – a flight of roughly twenty minutes as best I can tell. Assuming Edwards are alerted at the same time while adding in the time it takes for the USAF to contact the LAPD, get the AS350 airborne, fly to Pasadena, land and pick up the confused main character, Edwards likely have about half an hour to get something ready to fly within a couple of minutes of the AS350 touching down. Alternatively if there’s ultimately not much difference in sustainable speed I may just have the AS350 drop the main character off at a commercial airfield next to a Cessna Citation X or Gulfstream G650 the USAF have commandeered for the occasion.

    Roughly what kind of speed could the B-1B and F-15D/E maintain for the entire flight beyond their official cruising speeds? As previously mentioned neither aircraft can sustain supersonic speeds for the whole flight – but what speed might they be able to attain and maintain (assuming ideal altitude and performance and that it doesn’t really matter if the aircraft collapses into a pile of burning wreckage after it lands so long as the scientist character arrives as quickly and safely as possible)? Aside from dramatic impact the main reason I am looking at using a military jet is because I am assuming that combat aircraft and crews are inherently better equipped for being rapidly prepped for flight as well as being pushed beyond their normal performance envelope.

    The main focus of the book will push suspension of disbelief a bit far so I want to make as much of the rest as realistic, grounded and factually accurate as possible (or at least as realistic as the US government stuffing a terrified scientist into a fast jet and lobbing them towards Alaska at breakneck speed can ever be). That said, my one concession to my own “no proposed/retired/hypothetical aircraft” rule is that I am considering having a B-1 variant feature in a pivotal role later in the book (something extremely similar to the proposed B-1R with F119 engines so it is at least close to being a real world aircraft – also, I am working on the assumption that this would be capable of supercruise) but with a very different mission and only after the main character has arrived at Elmendorf as it is directly related to the nature and location of the crisis.

    Once again, thanks for any and all answers that have or will be provided, this is greatly appreciated.

    B-1 can maintain about mach 1.2 at altitude

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229090
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Supercruising reduces the time you are vulnerable to enemy SAMs and fighters. The F-35 can avoid most SAMs thanks to its stealth. Being faster surely can’t hurt. Being faster will help against fighters too, as the plane has more energy at the beginning of the fight, and can escape better. That’s the whole point of the SC on the F-22.

    that all true but
    1- Supercruise will reduce range significantly compared to subsonic cruise
    2- higher speed = less reaction time if enemy detect you and launch a missiles at you
    3- higher speed often mean turn radius wider so you come closer to SAM batteries when try to turn aways

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229092
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    I was not talking about attacking a ship. Against ground radar, you will note that not a single air force wants to shoot 24 missiles at once to destroy a radar. Just put a **** load of submunition in a large cruise missile if you want to achieve that kind of saturation effect.

    I really doubt the S400 RADAR costs 100-150 million. That price is probably with all the missile batteries.

    no they probably prefer 1 missiles per target but the more missiles you launch the higher PK you will get , and iam pretty sure they will launch far more missiles to protect their aircraft

    The fact that NATO forces were unable to quickly kill off the Serbian SAM batteries forced continuing and ongoing sorties by NATO support jamming and defence suppression aircraft, driving up the cost to drop each bomb delivered several-fold. NATO forces launched 743 AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile rounds for very little damage effect

    many submunition on a large missiles is not the same as many smaller missiles , because the SAM may just shot down that big missiles
    also a SAM batteries without radar is pretty useless and can be destroy by gun or sth like laser guider hydra 70

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229127
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    to be honest, supercruise is quite over rated, your aircraft cruise at mach 2 or even mach 3 not really help a lot again SAM that can easy intercept ballistic missiles (mach 8-15)

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2229133
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    This tactic of nap of the earth attack could well work against ground targets, radars or other.

    it work better again sea target because again ground target if you fly low, you will have trouble with short range AA, shoulders SAM, or flying into mountain,

    24 spears would cost a lot! Each would cost probably like 200k, so your attack would cost 4.8 million. Just launch like 8 regular spears straight to the target, one of them will surely hit. Possibly even the spears ( or any other missile ) could attack from different angle to have a better saturation effect. For instance 4 missiles attack from one side at 5 sec interval and at the same time 4 from the opposite direction at 180 degrees. The CIW will be unable to catch them all.

    even a short range SAM system like TOR-M1 cost about 15 millions,long range SAM like S-400 cost about 100-150 millions, a destroyer with decent anti air capability cost about 300-400 millions so an attack that cost 4.8 millions to take them out or neutralise them is pretty cheap ( about same cost as 4 aim-120)

    don’t know about US system but Russian ship have about 4-5 CIWS + Long and medium range SAM, so you probably need more than 8 SPEAR to penetrate them

Viewing 15 posts - 1,486 through 1,500 (of 1,759 total)