dark light

mig-31bm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,516 through 1,530 (of 1,759 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2230020
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Right, but those radars are high value targets, you want to make sure they are completely destroyed. If the SPEAR 3 misses probably the antenna would be destroyed, but maybe not the vehicle. They can change the antenna. But I agree it would already be good.

    AESA , PESA radar have almost every thing inside the antenna so if you destroy it it pretty much over
    http://www.ausairpower.net/PLA/Type-305A-Antenna-Face-1S.jpg
    solid state Pulse-Doppler radar often have low performer so no needd to worry about
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Radar-hatzerim-1-1.jpg

    A mini cruise missile like an SDB missile woud have the ability to be launched at long range and to loiter to find its target. I like that capability also to search and destroy aircraft in the open.

    f-35 detection and targeting range again ground target is pretty much limited to about 80-100 km what why i dont really like long range missile ( unless you try to attack a ship )

    Sending planes in non stealth mode on the initial strikes doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me.

    Nap of the earth is more for anti ship mission , because ship often have really strong radar EX spy-1D , Smart-L , they also have very strong defense , not to mention modern ship even have stealth so harder to detect them from long range
    SPEAR have so many different sensor making jamming them almost impossible , engine mean they are lest affected by altitude droping , one f-35 can carry 24 of them
    24 stealth SPEAR will have better chance to penetrate the defense due to number alone , they will not sink the ship obviously , but if they managed to damage the Radar then it pretty much a mission kill , make the ship useless

    what i think idea is SPEAR with stealth airframe but a different warhead , instead of a single warhead like now , it can have warhead that contain many flechette that it will release when going close to the target kind of like Hydra 70 or 35mm AHEAD shell , that would be impossible for CIWS to intercept , although that not sink the ship it will damage all the radar , optic equipment , destroy the skin make the ship no longer stealth , and then when the ship is defenseless a GBU-12 can sink it
    http://www.mjsys.co.kr/images/product/weapon_system_orelikon-35mm-ahead-pmd062.gif
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1-140/Image113.gif

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2230047
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    I thought the F-35 was nearer 0.001m^2.

    Captor-E claims detection at 59km:
    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html

    So I’m pretty sure ship radar will reach out a lot further. The initial post also doesn’t allow for the affect of VHF frequencies and the like.

    F-35 are first declared to have frontal RCS of a golf ball , about 0.0015 m2 , F-22 are declared to have frontal RCS of a marble , about 0.0001 m2
    and that what the Captor-E claims detection based on
    However
    interview recently with gen Mike Hostage show that

    Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar. The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s

    “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.

    Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins

    so it really likely that F-35 RCS is closer or even lower than 0.0001 m2 ( better than F-22 ) probably due to improvement in material

    also detection range of fighter radar here probably based on a low volume cued search

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230280
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    If it leaves from the ramp at Edwards yes, in the 5 years I was at Edwards I never saw a X on the ramp. Plenty of Lear’s and Gulfstream’s but never a Citation. So, to get to the nearest Citation X you need to get to Mohave, or more likely Van Nuys. Either way you’ll eat up an hour or two getting to the jet. So, grabbing a Viper with two bags and stuffing the hero in the back is still viable subsonic with a refuel half way there because you cut ground travel time out. Door to door in 4 hours vice 5 or 6.

    can a f-15E with 3 fuel tank + 2 CFT do that
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tJzIR7Wp46s/Usx4v--OBHI/AAAAAAAABjM/YDjDiiEDqzQ/s1600/F15E6.jpg

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230283
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    [QUOTE=mkellytx;2162676]

    Mach 1.25
    Range: 6,478 nmi (7,456 mi (11,999 km))

    vs

    mach 0.94
    Range: 3,216 nmi (3,700 mi, 5,956 km)

    Yes Mig-31BM,

    I’m quite aware of the Bone’s capabilities and about 70% of my Air Force career involved that air frame, several at Edwards.

    Cheers

    honestly , i only do that caused i want to post a pic of the B-1 , probably the most beautiful thing that can fly

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2230333
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    The SDB2 variant would be used against radars that require long range. One shot would be enough to destroy it thanks to the relatively large warhead vs the small warhead of SPEAR 3.
    .

    i disagree with this , you really dont need a big warhead to destroy radar , in fact if you get close enough a RPG could destroy a radar too , it will mess up the electric and everything , SPEAR 3 warhead is about the same as Brimstone , more than enough to destroy any radar ( except the SBX may be )

    the reason why i like the SPEAR III is also the amount of weapon that f-35 can carry , 8 internal , and if you decide to use Nap of the earth tactic you can carry 24 , that very high potential to by pass enemy defense , even more if we can make them stealth

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230341
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    The only air frame out at Edwards these days that can go 2000 nm and fly supersonic is the B-1. That said, the difference between a Bone flying the route at 1.2M and a Citation X at 0.94M is only about an hour. Even still, don’t think the Bone can stay supersonic for the almost 3 hours required to make the trip.

    Cheers

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/B-1B_over_the_pacific_ocean.jpg/1024px-B-1B_over_the_pacific_ocean.jpg
    Mach 1.25
    Range: 6,478 nmi (7,456 mi (11,999 km))

    vs

    http://www.bankofaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/cit_x_flt14_1280x1024.jpg
    mach 0.94
    Range: 3,216 nmi (3,700 mi, 5,956 km)

    vs

    http://www.aircraftcompare.com/aircraft_images/1854.jpg
    Mach 2.05
    Range: 12,300 km

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2230378
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Depends how advanced the SMACM was. If it was close to completion, maybe it can be finished, or upgraded with the SDB2 seeker.

    I find the 370km range a bit hard to believe, but maybe they achieve that range by lowering the speed and reducing the weight. Drag being proportional to the square of the speed, if it flies at M0.5 instead of 0.85, it would get like 3 times the range.

    A missile with a throttable motor would be interesting. It could get to the target at M0.85 and loiter at M0.4 for a few minutes to find the target in the search zone.

    It would cost more than the SDB2 but would be used for SEAD primarily.

    to be honest i think about 100-150 km could be enough , if the enemy radar can’t detect you , no point to have longer range missiles , if the enemy SAM radar can detect you from long distance then just fly nap of the earth , and since f-35 gonna target SAM using EOTS ( range limited to 80 km ) or APG-81 ( ground mode may be around 100 km ) there arent many benefit to have longer AtG missiles with longer range than 100 km , even the RIM-116 able to shoot down target with speed of mach 2.5 in test with PK = 0.96 then a high speed missiles probably not that effective , i think it better to make stealth missiles that are very small so we can overwhelm enemy by number
    Ex : upgrade SPEAR III with stealth airframe

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230380
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Pogosyan said the Su-27 does around 600-700km @ supersonic speed, while the T-50 pulls over 1500km @ supersonic speeds. Subsonic range was close to 3500km.

    No idea what the specifics were.

    still very impressive , talking about range and speed it far better than F-22 or f-35 , and quite close to mig-31
    mig-31 can fly like 1400 km at mach 2.4 , not sure at which speed does the PAK-FA fly for 1500km though , probably mach 1.8 ?

    in reply to: Jamming an IRST with a laser #2230414
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Spud – I am going to have to call you “Mr-Not-Scott” rather than “Mr Potato Head”, because of your ability to alter the laws of physics.

    Good IRST is likely effective in the 50-100 km range, having frequently been described as compatible with AMRAAM intercepts.
    .

    100 km range is when you look at something like full afterburner from behind , or very big SAM like SM-2 , SM-3 take off , normally detection range is about 30- 50 km and that with full optical zoom , it will take quite a while to search the whole sky

    in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2230470
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    The idea of keeping the airframe in the 6′ length size for the BRU-61 ( or BRU-69 whatever ) integration may not be that good for a motorized SDB. That limits the fuel capacity and the warhead too much. Perhaps a 12′ missile on double launcher would be better. Range would be much longer, 300km or something like that.

    That makes sense if the F-35 has its own internal cruise missile ( which it should ). However the JASSM will probably be integrated externally later when the F-35 replaces the F-16.

    Hypersonic are impressive but the cost is likely to be prohibitive. Maybe against very high value targets like ships they would be cost effective. For everything else glide bombs and stealthy cruise missiles are the way to go.

    There was a project a few years ago of a ramjet HARM with twice the speed and twice the range, that could be more cost effective than a hypersonic, all the more that the improved AARGM electronics is available. That variant didn’t have wings so possibly it could to fit inside the F-35.

    wasn’t the SMACM fit on bru-61 as well, and have 370 km range, just develop sth like that but with a stealthy airframe, could be a lot more dangerous than a rather AARGM

    in reply to: Jamming an IRST with a laser #2230472
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    IRST technology is improving, and using the afterburner would increase the IR signature a lot. The F-35 being not very fast using the AB at will would be a plus. The faster the F-35 is the better it can escape.

    I also doubt it will be possible to kill all targets at long range.

    Concerning the future 100kW laser you are talking if it has the capability to jam or damage an IRST then why not implement it. It might even be capable of damaging the enemy IR missiles seekers while they are still on the enemy plane.

    IRST targeting range is limited by the LRF not the sensor itself, and you can make the IRST sensor become more sensitive ( longer detection range) but it will still have same limit that I listed before
    laser weapon will be heavy, expensive, short range, affected heavily by weather, and again aircraft have > 1 Ir sensor, jamming all of them could be a problem ex: rafale, f-35

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230474
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    oh and BTW in test PAK-FA fly sth like 3000 – 4000 km supersonic

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230476
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    how about f-104 fly at 100000 ft
    or f-8u3 top speed > mạch 3

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230630
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    You need to look at combat radius, NOT RANGE. Your data is waayyy off. The flight manual is online.

    http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/Tech_Performance_Data.pdf

    humm is there a same thing for mig-31
    btw he only go one way California to Alaska so i think range is what we care about here

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230636
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    No way, 500nmi is not comparable with the Mig-31. The F-106 carried 9,400lbs of fuel internally, 14,000 with external. Not even close.

    f-106
    Range: 1,800 mi (1,600 nm, 2,900 km) combat
    Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nm, 4,300 km)
    vs mig-31
    Combat radius: 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 / 720 km (447 mi) at Mach 2.35
    Ferry range: 3,300 km (2,050 mi)
    it slower but probably have better range

Viewing 15 posts - 1,516 through 1,530 (of 1,759 total)