mig-31bmI bet it has sufficient speed for intercept as well, lets call it mig-31bmZIPPO
[ATTACH=CONFIG]230047[/ATTACH]
You dont always need speed to intercept , it could act as a flying missiles carrier ( just like Aegis or s-400 but on air => much longer range missiles , radar not limited by horizon )
mig-31bmTo quote an RFC (RAF) pilot from WW1 with regards to shooting down airships.
One generally let off a 2 to 4 second burst in the airship’s general direction, then it was a matter of waiting a moment of one to see a jolly spectacular sight.
While modern airships have a more sufficient and safer way to travel, they are very attractive and easy targets, and while they would most certainly need an escort of air superiority aircraft (honestly, sticking A/A weapons on an airship will be like trying to fire a sniper round using a catapult), in which case would be a waste of resources to start with.
Why ? , we can put missiles on ground , why not an airship ? With the advantGe of high altitude , not affected by radar horizon
Why need escort ? You can equip it with enough missiles to protect itself , just like a missiles cruiser ie: aegis
mig-31bmVHF arrays are equally effective against non-VLO aircraft, but the fact that they can be used to detect and target VLO platform would invalidate rather horrid expenses of fielding said platforms. Especially since radar never was primary air-to-air sensor (Mk I eyeball was, and IRST may replace it, but even that is not a given).
radar is primary sensor
F-117 got shot down due to laws of physics that have nothing to do with its age and hold true for the F-22 and F-35 as well. Plus, one F-117 got shot down and one got damaged.
F-117 was shot down due to bad SA and mission planing , and no evidence about the f-117 that got damaged
With missile starting a lock-on process only after bay is open, it has to wait for half a second for doors to open plus some more time to lock on. If it uses radar to lock on to a target and thus allow a missile to lock on after the launch, it will still need several seconds to lock on and maybe a second to launch the missile.
Where did you find the info that LOAL missiles need several sec to lock on ?????
OK, killing an ancient F-4 in a steady-state turn of no more than 4 g somehow invalidates my argument? As a matter of fact, it only proves my statement.
f-4 can turn more than 4g , also f-4 version with slat wing is quite agile , and you can’t calculate G just by look at a video
And higher service ceilling plus higher cruise and dash speeds translate into longer range for weapons, be these BVR missiles or AtG munitions.
faster speed also mean you die faster when go head on with enemy missile , faster speed + higher altitude mean less maneuver
And how are you supposing to cool down an exhaust from a 12.000 kgf engine? F-135 does incorporate some cooling, but that is standard for all modern fighter turbojet engines:
http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/F135_Engine/img/b-2-4_f135-ctol-cutaway-high.jpg
http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/EJ200_Eurojet_Cutaway.jpg
http://image.tech-domain.com/images/2010-10/ABP-GE%20F404%20cutaway.jpgCompare with Snecma M88, which is specifically designed for reduced IR signature:
http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/images/m88-depose.jpg
oh really , why you think m88 is designed to reduce IR while f-135 isn’t ?
Is that because you hate the f-35
And as far as non-afterburning plume goes, at long range most significant IR signature is produced by broadening “wings” of the plume due to the atmosphere absorpion effects. Suffice to say that these are NOT hidden by the airframe. F-35 also has aerodynamics of a brick. Combine all of that and you can see that it is about as stealthy as a pink elephant in a glass shop.
Nonsense
Gain is relative. Modern LPI radars will not get detected by old RWRs, but RWRs using the same technology will detect them. It has always been that way, and radars designed to be LPI are hardly something new.
and that only your opinion , at the moment the only EW system claim it can detect another AESA radar is the one on f-35 , and we dont even know at what range
I hope it is true… but the F-35 is designed for ground attack, and geolocation capability against a static emitter does not necessarily translate into a geolocation capability against a mobile one.
at a multirole fighter , just like the f-16 , and it still have better ew than other AC , being the only one able to do single ship geolocation
It is easy to make a day for someone who insists on keeping brain shut down. You said that the F-35 will start combat at 25-30% of the internal fuel. That is 2.484 kg of fuel at most. Even assuming that it is fairly close to the air base and can get back to it with 10% of its internal fuel, it spends 39.000 kg of fuel per hour at full afterburner. So it can fight for 2,5 minutes at most. Typhoon consumes 31.202 kg of fuel per hour at full afterburner. If it can use 30% of its fuel or 1.646 kg (as it will have full fuel tank at beginning of the fight) while leaving rest for the trip home, then it can fight for 3,2 minutes. If both start at full internal fuel, then Typhoon can simply stay in low afterburner or even dry thrust owing to its higher TWR and lower wing loading, forcing the F-35 to expend fuel at far faster rate despite the F-35 having both higher fuel fraction and higher total internal fuel capacity.
Do I really have to draw everything to you? And F-35s TWR is lower (1,07 vs 1,19) and wing loading is higher (428 kg/m2 vs 392 kg/m2) than the F-16Cs.
F-35 AT 25-30% fuel will have better t/w and wing loading than typhoon at 100% fuel , if typhoon stay at low after burner it will make the different even bigger = typhoon got shot down faster
Sustain.
Sorry that is bull **** , the number you posted was not official and just from a random member on a random forum , the typhoon willnot be able to turn that much ,let alone sustain iy
Which is why most of its shaping areas fall within resonance or scattering region of a VHF radar, why it has huge IR signature and not very small visual signature either…
VHF Radar is not very useful for attack , guide missiles , huge IR signature can be said about all supersonic fighter , especially if they fly at high altitude
Not all of them, just some 90% of them. Only evasion maneuver known to Iraqi pilots was to turn away and engage afterburner, and out of 7 Serbian pilots shot down, maybe one tried to maneuver.
And this is your opinion , it not a fact , there no statistic about it
There are, but these require guidance from the launch platform, which means that the launch platform needs to lock on.
Pilot dont often launch there missiles without lock
They aren’t. But aircraft have several backup systems for every single task (except the propulsion). Missiles tend not to have such redundancy.
Most Fighter dont have more than 1 radar , IRST , gun or pilot
They also say that maximum speed is Mach 1,8, and it is well known that Typhoon can achieve Mach 2,0. And second link equally clearly states that the maximum altitude is 65.000 ft
no it not well known that typhoon can achieve mach 2 , where it say that??? Is there a test ?
The official one still say max altitude of typhoon is 55 k feet , if you want to go by biggest number , then there are source say f-35 can fly at 60k feet too
Different IR signature is due to the fact that a) exhaust from two engines mixes more quickly with the ambient air than that from one engine, b) Typhoon doesn’t have to use afterburner as often as F-35.
a) does that also mean spread heat to bigger area ? = bigger IR
b) but it also faster = higher IR due to friction
Because that is the way signature is compared, it is clear that F-35 will have far higher IR signature when it needs afterburner to go supersonic while Typhoon can cruise at dry thrust. Or you’re expecting the F-35 pilot to just waggle around at Mach 0,95? (which is what F-35 will do, since it is a bomber and not a fighter)
Only need after burner to pass sonic barrier then it can turn it off
Rafale and F-22 can also do that.
both of them still need radar for firing solution , neither can attack target by RWR Alone , and not again AESA especially
With how large lag?
fraction of a second
Was good 30 years ago.
doubt that , f-16 did win again typhoon in dogfight several time , google it
Standard loadout is 6 missiles, but it can carry a maximum of 10 missiles (mica/magic 2 at wingtip hardpoints, mica at outer underwing hardpoints, mica/meteor at middle underwing hardpoints, mica/meteor at side body hardpoints, mica and ceter body hardpoints). If inner underwing hardpoints are opened for missiles, it will be able to carry 12 missiles.
Rafale can probably fly for 10 min without external fuel tank
And both mica and magic 2 have inferior kinematic compared to meteor , aim-120 ,especially at long range
You mean like the F-104? Point is, missile can achieve either maximum g capability (at low altitude) or maximum range (at high altitude), not both.
Same for fighter
Especially those with high wing loading.
Not much different , still no fighter turn well at 60k ft may be 1-1.5 g top
Use your brain, if you have any. Red shift is only measurable at high speeds, but it is always there.
Red shift can’t be used to measure range, there are other ways to measure range (triangulaton, for one).
You said red shift can be used by irst to detect range to target, velocity of enemy fighter , but the truth is they can’t do that , no matter how long you detect target by irst the range you can attack it limit by the range of LRF from 40-50 km
If you don’t have kinematics you will have good situational awareness of a guy that kills you. You need to have situtational awareness to detect enemy fighters in front and behind you (both F-35 and Rafale have it), cruise speed to achieve rear-quadrant approach against the enemy (Rafale has it, F-35 doesn’t), and kinematics to achieve firing position quickly and defeat any possible enemy attacks (Rafale has it, F-35 doesn’t).
f-35 have stealth = reduce SA of rafale = attack rafale without being attacked
and no cruise speed dont help you achieve rear quadrant approach , SA do
Rafale is stealth but in IR as opposed to RF, and if F-35 uses radar it isn’t stealth any more.
no fighter is stealth in IR , due to their high speed air friction give huge ir signature , and f-35 still stealth with it’s radar on because no other fighter claim their RWR can detect aesa , or giving fire solution again air target with RWR alone , even if they can then the distance to target that they can do that is another problem
mig-31bmMach 8 aircraft will not be that useful it may be A good bomber to strike stationary target on ground but it pretty much unable to find moving target on ground thus not a good striker or cas
as an intercepter it may be very decent but as an airsuperority fighter it may be very useless because the time it loiter in one air space may be less than few min , turn radius may be as big as continent or it may not turn at all and fly like a satelite thus it not only going to invade many countries air space but also unable to provide protection on the air space it supposed to protect , mach 8 , scramjet mean very very high IR signature IR system will be able to see it from 700-800 nm thus able to hide when it coming , last but not least that aircraft will not be invulnerable given the fact that we can intercept ICBM missiles now which is easily much faster , even on fighter there is program to use their missiles to intercept ballistic missiles for example NCADE , STUNNER , ASM-135 ..etc
mig-31bmI’m afraid the best F-35 can do is mach 0.9 at 40k ft without afterburner.
EF can pull 5-6.6G at 40-50k ft at mach 1.6 without losing energy,
in comparison, F-35 can’t even fly mach 1.6 at 40-50k ft, let alone turn, lest it drop energy (as in diving)http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1344&p=8326
1- link to forum => not very reliable info
2- Dont have exact condition like fuel , weapon , engine state of the ef-2000
3 – f-35 have been tested to 50k ft
mig-31bmTake a look at just about every war when radar guided missiles have been used. Gulf Wars and Kosovo war in particular – no missile achieved better than 50% Pk against non-maneuvering no-ECM targets .
target may not using ECM But assume all of them not maneuver is bull ****
Since when are “turn” and “run” same thing? Last time I checked, one precludes another.
typhoon is not going to turn at 60k ft
It adds up. Total time from a firing opportunity to breakaway is 5-7 seconds for an IR missile, but with external IR missile with gimbaled seeker, missile can lock on to a target while still on the rail, reducing time to launch once fighter is in position. Meanwhile opening weapons bays precludes that possibility.
There are LOAL missiles as well
MiG-17 entered service in 1952, and as a matter of fact it is little more than a modification of the MiG-15. MiG-19 is most similar to the F-86. That is what I meant under “Korean War era fighters”.
No they are very different
1 engine vs 2 engine
after burner vs no after burner
Which is exactly what I said. To quote myself again:
What iam trying to say is , it may be easy to turn at the right time if there only 1 enemy missile , but if there > 1 missiles then it a different story
No. Things tend to malfunction in war, and modern missiles are quite complex.
Not as complex as the AC carry them
Guy who writes it has a lot of technical knowledge about radars, regardless of how crappy his assesment of other things might be.
I really doubt that , he have the tendecy to pump up , or reduce number all the time to fit his idea that f-22 f-111 is god and f-35 is ****
He will know by MAWS, but far later than he will if missile or fighter that launched it use active sensors. As for no anti-radiation AAMs having been produced… really?
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/-r-27-aa-10-alamo-guided-medium-range-air-missile/
so useful that it was replaced by r-77 without same seeker , btw that arh sensor was intended to be used again awacs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazo
Brazo project was discontinued for having been too successful and calling US overreliance on radar into question.
This is bull****
http://www.ixarm.com/Technical-card,10820 – Rafale
As for Typhoon, looks like service ceilling is 55.000 ft, but maximum altitude is 65.000 ft:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/0186cc2a_1143_ec82_2ef2bffff37857da.pdfThere is no way that the F-35, with its higher wing loading and lower TWR, will have higher service ceilling.
Never say it can fly higher , i say it can fly at quite the same altitude
and remember typhoon , rafale almost always have to carry at least 3 EFTs to have useful range especially supersonic so they are not going to be very light to achieve extreme altitude
btw it say very clear there that the max altitude is 55k ft , dont change the number to fit your idea
Typhoon’s two engines produce 12.240 kgf dry, while F-35s single engine produces 12.700 kgf dry.
Different is too small to caused different in IR SIGNATURE
Add to that superior aerodynamics, and at the same speed Typhoon will have significantly lower IR signature.
i like how you completely ignore the fact that f-35 use method to reduce IR Signature like LOAN nozzle or TOP COAT paint while typhoon dont have any of that , and why at the start you claim typhoon fly much faster but then now when compared signature they suddently fly at same speed ?
1- is perfectly detectable by modern RWRs
2- modern RWRs can easily calculate altitude, and both velocity and range can be estimated passively
3- and there may be Typhoons it won’t detect on radar as they are outside radar coverage
1 – No they are not , the only case that we have heard about that is when f-35 EW SYSTEM in test able to detect , jam F-22 Radar , but that doesnot mean all other ew can do the same , and not all the time , LPI mean low probably of intercept not No probably , also we dont know at what range it can do that
2-range can be estimated but not velocity or angle of approach , and still only f-35 claim it́s EW SYSTEM can do single ship geolocation at the moment ( f-18 e/f in future )
It is PIRATE, not private, and “no valid reason”? Lol:
http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/12/26/75/01/eotsjs11.jpgBasically, it can’t see targets at altitude significantly higher than F-35s.
Using simple mathematic sin, cos , tan you will know that f-35 EOTS can see target fly alot higher unless at very very close range , and at that range DAS can see target any way
Can you read, I said that Rafale has better EW suite than Typhoon, as for the F-35, can it engage fighters by using their own radar signals and staying passive itself?
yes it can , posted in this thread a few time
F-35 has bad cockpit visibility, low cruise speed, bad maneuverability… only good things it has is IRST (Rafale and Typhoon also have it – OSF/PIRATE, and Gripen E will use Skyward) and IR missile warners with 360* coverage (Rafale also has it – DDM – while Gripen E will use UV missile warners).
Cockpit visible solve by DAS
Cruise speed of mach 1.2 is not that bad
maneuver equal to f-16 block 50 is good enough , that not it́s strength any way
So basically, your F-35 will fall out of sky during or after the combat. Let’s see a more realistic situation (100% fuel + 6 AAMs for Rafale/Typhoon and 50% fuel + 6 AAMs for the F-35):
Rafale C: 327 kg/m2 WL, 1,01 TWR
Typhoon: 340 kg/m2 WL, 1,08 TWR
F-35A: 428 kg/m2 WL, 1,07 TWR
Why 50% but not 25-30% like i suggested , you scared that it will be better than your beloved typhoon , rafale ?
It doesn’t have it yet, and even when it does get it… Rafale can carry 10 missiles, how you expect it to jam 10 AAMs at close range. And gun can’t be jammed with DIRCM.
The point is it will have it , also rafale ate going to carry 10 IR WVR missiles now ?
It does, more sensitive sensor means greater detection range in all bands that sensor covers.
But You just pull the number out of no where , unless you can have specific detail about ir signature , you cant just create detection range like that
Not “alot less” since missile is still quite fast and there has to be enough air for it to fly.
IT is alot less the reason why missiles can still fly without big wing is because they are very very fasT
Typhoon can pull 5 g at Mach 1,5 and 45.000 ft.
45.000 ft is not the same as 60.000 ft
the air density is very different, your typhoon is not going to turn even 1.05 g at 60k ft , and now calculate turn radius for that altitude
also the number you posted is just fantasy from.a forum.member , they are not real or official
AIM-120D has max range of 180 km against a non-maneuvering head-on target at high altitude, if target turns away then range is down to 45 km, if target maneuvers during the end game it gets cut down even more.
Turn at high altitude is not that simple . All fighter will be like brick at high altitude
And F-35 is not stealth, it can’t supercruise, is very visible on IRST and visual sensors.
NONSENSE
Learn physics, red shift happens even at speeds of 0,000001 mm / year
link a scientific book or anything that say this , or any where official saying RED SHIFT can be used in IRST measure range , velocity to aircraft
you wont be able to do that , why , because that only used again target that light year away and move at super super high speed
Stealth also covers far more than active X-band radar, something that F-35 designers did their best to ignore.
No LM claim f-35 stealth in other band as well rather than x band , and remember it́s stealth was designed to defeat double digit SAM like s-300/400
That, and unlike Arab pilots they were actually competent. So what makes you think that missiles will achieve 50% Pk against competent opponents flying modern fighters?
THE point is SA is more important than kinematic
So you’re not an idealist but a liar as well. This was the link:
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2012/11/f-35-yeah-baby-it-super-cruises.html?m=1
“The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.”So it is Mach 1,2 and not 1,3. Mach 1,2 for 150 miles at 30.000 feet translates into 13 minutes of flight. Compare to Rafale’s 20 minutes of cruise flight at Mach 1,4 at distance of 560 km from base. 320 km if reserve for 2 minutes of maximum afterburner is added, and you can take off ~100 km from these numbers for takeoff, climb, descent and landing requirements.
And it cannot cruise without afterburner at all, as this quote shows:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110613/DEFFEAT04/106130302/F-35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds
“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.”
13 min vs 20 min , mach 1.2 vs 1.4 sure there are different but the point is the different is not enough to off set the disadvantage of rafale that it not stealth ,
also it doesnot really matter if f-35 use after burner to get past sonic barrier , the point is in 13 min of fly at mach 1.2 it the same as other supercruise AC , Not using reheat
mig-31bmThis thread is awesome , alot of expert actually try to calculate things rather than just being biased and support their favorite AC :))
PS : can anyone calculate max ceiling for F-35 ?
mig-31bmWhat is negative stability
mig-31bmThere is a good reason to believe that they don’t work extremely well. The reason being various EW/ECM systems being in operation with their true capabilities and limits carefully concealed. Frankly, even if their specs were released, I have serious doubts many of us here would understand what they really mean.
If systems like Spectra, DASS, ALR-94, Khibiny or EWS are capable to confuse, disturb or neutralize even large shipborne radars, we can only imagine what mess they can do with the tiny missile seekers.. I would not be surprised to learn that three of four modern BVR missiles miss their target (unless you’re firing at late 60s MiG-23MF, that is).
At the same time I believe that the Pk of IR-guided missiles must have been increased considerably. Given the intensive development of IR seekers in recent years (both resolution and sensitivity) I don’t think that the development of counter-measures could have continued at comparable pace. At least I cannot imagine techniques to counter that.
actually DIRCM can counter IIR missiles
jamming can be counter by firing many missiles + use data link
mig-31bmI have to agree. Andraxuss posted a complete wall of text full of statistics which may or may not be verified and which can not be placed into any kind of useful context.
most of his statistic come from flight manual which is quite reliable , and to be fair his answer to most question does seem.logical
But i do agree that they r hard to verified , and with my limited knowledge i cańt recheck it
mig-31bmThe advantage of speed permitted the faster opponent to control the engagement, and to disengage when necessary or opportune. Or to avoid engagement altogether.
With the advent of reliable guided missiles disengagement became much more dangerous, regardless of speed. Hence we’re back to fixed-lip intakes but high agility; one now has to win the engagement, it’s not possible to light the ‘burner and escape when R-73s and AIM-9Xs are in the picture.
seem reasonable ,but if assume both side run out of missiles , does that mean modern fighter like f-16 , mirage be in big trouble if they was in dogfight with f-104 , mig-23 ?
mig-31bmIt is most agile depending on conditions; MiG-29 has very efficient engines for cruise, but they are very fuel hungry at full AB; For example If your criteria was “2 minutes on full AB M0.85 S/L” instead of “500 km range” F-16 would need 1148 kg of fuel; MiG-29 on the other hand would need 1680kg of fuel, and F-16 should perform better than MiG-29. Likewise heavy fighters like F-15 would have been affected more; an F-15 has ~0.16nm/lb fuel efficiency compared to F-16’s 0.20nm/lb. However their full AB fuel flow are 2200lb/min and 1265lb/min respectively. In short, comparing F-15 to F-16, there is only ~25% increase in fuel consumption while cruising but 174% fuel required for full AB maneuvering. So if mission demands more sustained combat at less range, F-16 should perform better than F-15; however when fueled for same range only, there is nothing that can beat a Su-27 or F-15 on paper.
Oh i see , i used to think same range would translate to same amount of afterburner time
Can you do the same calculation for 10 min of afterburner sea level with internal fuel
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229845[/ATTACH]
mach1.6 for 55 min seem quite impressive , feel like it can go longer distance than f-22 on supercruise
mig-31bmWhy would you ask when you already keep harping on that F-35 is cruisin’ at 60k ft @ mach 1 without afterburner ?
flinging AMRAAM etc etc
Because he seem to have good knowledge + not very biased compared to most people here , his opinion ( neutral ) on the subject probably better than me ( pro f-35 ) or you ( anti f-35 )
mig-31bmYour knowledge base can only go up by reading that site, and you need education for general understanding
Doubt that
that site have mostly speculate info that very biased , or wrong , many wrong assumption are made there just to pump f-22 up and put f-35 down
mig-31bmWith fuel to flight 500 km and empty weapon rack :
Su-27S instantenious turn rate = 33,45 deg/s
Su-27S sustained turn rate = 25,91 deg/s
Su-27S climb rate= 357 m/sMiG-29A instantenious turn rate = 28,57deg/s
MiG-29A sustained turn rate = 22,94 deg/s
MiG-29A climb rate = 368 m/sF-16 Block 30 instantenious turn rate = 26,2 deg/s
F-16 Block 30 sustained turn rate = 23 deg/s
F-16 Block 30 climb rate rate = 343 m/sF-15C instantenious turn rate = 27,46deg/s
F-15C sustained turn rate = 24,3 deg/s
F-15C climb rate = 376m/s@Vmax,Rafale instantenious turn rate 30,26 deg/s
Rafale sustained turn rate 24,2 deg/s
Rafale climb rate 370 m/sTyphoon instantenious turn rate 27,82
Typhoon sustained turn rate 22,41deg/s
Typhoon climb rate 359 m/sF-35 instantenious turn rate 27,2 deg/s
F-35 sustained turn rate 21,5 deg/s
F-35 climb rate 286m/sF-22 instantenious turn rate 31,12deg/s
F-22 sustained turn rate 23,58deg/sGrippen instantenious turn rate 32,3 deg/s
Grippen sustained turn rate 21,57 deg/s
This awesome
can you do the same for interceptor like mig-31 and f-14 ? And old fighter like mig-19 , mig-21bis
btw why the f-16 fly like a brick there :-?especially compared to gripen and mig-29 despite all are light weight fighter and the range here is only 500 km. I always thought it was the most agile 4 gen
Would entirely depend on altitude; Even a MiG-29 with its pathetic fuel capacity can sustain full afterburner for 55+ minutes (on internal fuel alone), given the altitude is around 18000 meters . Same MiG-29 doing M1.2+ at the deck will deplate its entire fuel tank in less than 4 minutes.
How fast will it go at 18k meters ?
Btw why the mig-29 can fly much higher than f-16 ? What the different ?
Also there many figure for f-35 service ceiling on internet ranging from 50k feet to 60k feet which one is more likely true according to your aerodynamic model ?
Sign In
