Still, seems me that you have not given even a simple look to such document or you would have been noted that those comparisons were centered exclusively on their respective performances in the field of aerial manoeuvrability, so nothing that sensor fusion, Aesa radar, fiber optics or others you have possibly mentioned could improve in any way…

Have you finished the report?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3863471}[/ATTACH]

And no, more advanced versions of the above mentioned planes (that the USAF are not adopted at all) have not improved situation in such an aspect in a significant way: actually in many cases the contrary happened as such new iterations of old planes have added a lot of weight without compensate it with a comparable grown of overall wing area or the adoptions of LERX/TVC/Canards…

F-15 sustain turn rate at altitude is the same as F-22.
F-15 and F-16 still have among the best acceleration.

Thats exactly wahy USAF is buying more F15. Large ammos areNOT a large bunch of ammos.Put 2 storms shadows under a F-35 for example to have a good laugh.

Why? Storm shadow is well within the limit to carry in the inner stations.
The only good laugh is using Storm Shadow while you can carry LRASM or JSM. Both can attack moving target and are equipped with passive RF sensor in addition to their IIR sensor. I don’t think Storm shadow even have terminal anti CIWS maneuver (not that it will need it any way, without data link, Stormshadow simply can’t attack relocatable target)

Noone said that. And uyes heritage foundation deserves the same trash bin as sputnik etc. Tea parties…

Which dose not mean that the facts they cite are wrong, exactly as RT or defense aerospace.

What exactly are you trying to convey?

[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] what do you think about this
pilot rate F-35 radar better than F-15C but worse than F-15E
Basically, APG-63 v3 < APG-81 < APG-82
But since APG-63v3 aperture is so much bigger than APG-81, shouldn’t it is also better than Apg-81?

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t29E4B218-DF51-4AAD-A15E-ED3660CC8199.png Views:t0 Size:t279.0 KB ID:t3863238″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3863238″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

Check this if you will (only if you are not allergic to alternative views):
http://www.aviapanorama.ru/2019/02/v-borbu-za-nebo-vstupajut-35-e/

I am not allergic to an alternative view, but I am very allergic to sources which intentionally repeats false narrative, that article is a propaganda article nothing more, nothing less.

In the configuration of the F-35, corresponding to low visibility, all the combat gear of the aircraft is located in the inner compartments, which limits missile weapons of class “air-air” only two guided missiles (UR) medium-range missiles of the type AIM-120 and two of UR short range of the type AIM-9.

Current load is 4 AMRAAM, Block 4 load is 6 AMRAAM.

In the Arsenal of weapons the aircraft to destroy ground targets consists mainly of guided aviation bombs and SD “air-surface”, which requires convergence with the target at a distance of not more than 10…15 km.

Lying much?
JDAM range is 30 km
SDB I range is 110 km
SDB II range is 74 km
SPEAR range is 140 km
JSM range is 550 km
AARGM-ER range is 300 km

The avionics systems include a powerful multifunctional radar with a phased antenna array, which provides detection of air targets like the F-35 with an average EPR of about σ ≈ 0,3…0,5 m2 at a range in excess of energobalancecentre launch range missiles AIM-120

This a tiring and incorrect narrative. Already debunked with measurement data and firsthand account as you have seen in Su-57 thread (i repost them here)
If F-35 effective RCS is 0.5m2 that means the detection range is better than F-16 by only 6.25%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgyiFCoG0U
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_261665.png Views:t0 Size:t202.9 KB ID:t3859814″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859814″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

But the system works differently and there is not a systemic incentive to rip-off the MoD. In the case of Su-57, the price estimation was given as said previously just before the signing of the first contract so government must have had pretty realistic values by then.

What are the differences and why do you think they don’t have the incentive to increase price and benefit themselves?. My experience working with state-owned companies, there is always a lot of corruption.

B-2 changed from high altitude to low level flight, showing the amount of faith they had on their ability to fly into Russian IADS unnoticed. Don’t have info enough on B-21, Okhotnik not necessarily meant to penetrate IADS, Russians are keen on stand-off weapons. Russian UHF radars claim 200 km detection range for 0.1 sqm target, with enough precision to guide SAMs. They also refer RCS for Western designs that are in that order of magnitude (0.1 to 1 sqm). They claim they have solved the detection problem of quadcopters and other extremely small radar returns. I personally remain very sceptical of the ability of a VLO or Ultra VLO or whatever to penetrate IADS without going low level as it has been done always.

That is not correct, B-2 did not change from high altitude to low level flight when it flew in real mission, it is correct that the design of B-2 was modified to add low level flight capability. The call to add low-level flying capability came out of fears that Russia would field increasingly more advanced radars that would neutralize the B-2’s low observable attributes. As such, being able to sneak in below radar via flying nap of the earth flight profiles like its B-52 and B-1 brethren became a requirement for what was a high-flying strategic bomber that relied primarily on its stealthy design and careful mission planning for survival. The original B-2 design didn’t have the trade mark saw tooth trailing edge, the saw tooth trailing edge is added later. Yet if we look at the design of B-21 put forward, the trade mark saw tooth trailing edge also missing, which indicate a high altitude design, that show their amount of faith in the penetration capability of the
next gen bomber

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t187.8 KB ID:t3859337″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859337″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t2.PNG Views:t0 Size:t335.8 KB ID:t3859338″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859338″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tArtist_Rendering_B21_Bomber_Air_Force_Official.jpg Views:t0 Size:t67.2 KB ID:t3859339″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859339″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

In addition, I am unconvinced that RCS for Western stealth designs are in 0.1 to 1 sqm range, not only i have several similar scattering diagrams similar to what given by Moon_light, i have seen the lecture with Zoltán Dani:
3 out of 4 frequency setting on P-18 VHF radar can’t detect F-117 at distance closer than 30 km, so the rcs is at worst 0.025 m2 in VHF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgyiFCoG0U

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tP-18 chart.PNG Views:t0 Size:t164.6 KB ID:t3859341″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859341″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

To a certain extent. These will operate normally guided by long range radars, so no need to switch on even in the event of a MALD. IR/radar camouflage/decoys exist, beyond the natural one provided by orography, forests and other hideouts over millions of sqm.

Long range ground radar can be located by ESM/RWR of fighter, and you need a way to relay the data from these long range radars to your SAM launcher, there is the horizon limit so either that your command post must have very tall antenna which make it harder to camouflage or it must be located close to the radar and narrow down the area that EO/IR/Radar must search.

EW systems can disrupt SAR at long distances

To do such tasks, the EW system must transmit, and the location will be found by EW system on aircraft. It is very easy to locate a ground transmitter

The newer systems don’t even use radar for detection and guidance. To make a long story short, these offensive tactics and approaches work very well against low level enemies but can be seriously degraded by advanced ones that have worked very hard and consistently through decades to make their AD solid and as free of weak spots as possible, Russia being the prime example here.

I don’t think only new system have other mean of detection apart from radar, old system such as Sa-3, Sa-8, Startreak have back up optical guidance. With that said, IR, optical guidance have shorter range, limited by weather, can’t see through cloud and smoke.

S-400 is 400 km range. If your CM has 500 km range, how can’t you stay away?

1- You don’t need supercruise to for your cruise missiles to have 500 km range or even longer.
2- It doesn’t matter if your missiles can fly 500-1000 km if you can only detect your enemy at significantly shorter distance

There are other means of detection apart from the ones carried by the plane or SAM site itself. Voronezh and Container can control the airspace of the whole Eurasia.

Container and Voronezh are early warning radars, they can’t be used for fire control, even though less popular US has very similar radar: AN/TPS-71 , AN/FPS-118

But I think my point stands due to the different WB volume available in both planes

It is up to whether they will test that configuration or the separation test allow it, i think it is a complex matter that we don’t have an actual answer at this point in time.

SDB is a small, short range weapon with small warhead and frail construction. It is not the equivalent to a Kh-59MK2, even if it allows a plane to engage many targets. It is like saying a 30 mm round is like a 120 mm one since both hurt.

SDB is not comparable to Kh-59MK2, but it is not accurate to say F-35 can only carry 2 A2G weapons or only missiles the size and range of Kh-59MK2 is adequate for A2G tasks

They are literally thousands of km inside of the territory… they are not easy to reach to start with and attacks in that depth would mean existential threat and hence maximum retaliation.

II think it depends on countries.

That is a good question and I doubt anybody knows, considering jamming, decoys, geometry of the attack etc etc. Hard to say, but I doubt a F-35 pilot would stay on course with one (or several) of those things coming in its direction at Mach 6. The seeker is quite big and capable against interference and a 60 kg warhead does not need a direct hit to tear a fighter apart. Those missiles BTW fly high where drag is lower and attack from the upper aspect, where RCS reduction measures are not so effective, so I doubt pilots would like to try their luck against them.

Without addressing how can Mig-31 get the firing solution to launch one R-37 toward F-35 or Su-57
The seeker of R-37 while big, is still very small and inferior to a small fighter radar both in output and processing, i do not think F-16 radar is capable against stealth aircraft, any missiles radar sensor will be far worse.
Unless R-37 coming from direct straight up, RCS reduction measures will be very effective, even more because the missile will be in look down scenario because of geometry.

Can you find it now:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”1z6efk1.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3858961}[/ATTACH]

Patent by Sukhoi: http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/261/2614871.html

Thank you bellum, i see it now

Please allow me to be sceptic with these new wonder weapons that are going to be four or eight times smaller than current ones while doubling their range and being ultra lethal. Will they even have a warhead? There are a number of ways of degrading the guidance of smart weapons you know if the warhead is 5 kg HE (just to say something) it needs to impact right at the target to have any effects at all. You cannot go around physics just because somebody in JSF program wants to sell more weapons under too optimistic premises, as it always happens BTW in order to get a development program started.

They are not 4 or 8 times smaller than current weapons.
About 8 can be carried internally, so they are approximately the same size as Spice 250, SDB II and SPEAR or roughly 1/2 size of MALD but can reach the same range.
I think it could well be possible, we don’t have exact details at the moment, but it seems more simple to extend the range of subsonic weapons, for example LAM, PAM, AGM-114 are similar in size but PAM can fly 4 times further while LAM can fly 7 times the distance. Who are we to claim they can’t make a mutation 1/2 the size of MALD with the same range?
by the way these weapons are developed by AFRL rather than Lockheed Martin

In any case what I meant is that these kind of air defences are always going to be difficult to find and have ranges enough to attack planes at substantial distances, in case you carry external weapons. See Serbia again, they didn’t have the radars on all the time or were static, waiting for someone to eliminate them.
In any case, these weapons and tactics would be more or less ok against low level militaries. I don’t see this working against powerful IADS, simply not. And it makes sense, since they are used always against weaker countries, not against China or Russia..

how you can conclude these weapons can’t work against powerful IADS?
it is obvious that they won’t be used against peer countries, there is no way Russian, China, US will get in a direct conventional war.

Gutenev is quoted as saying it would cost 2.5 times less than F-22 and F-35. That would be very roughly between 36 and 57 million, at the time this was said (2018). I guess they know how much it ill cost.

That what they said, but you know the cost will always creep up, i have yet to see a modern fighter program where the cost is less than expected.
and since Su-57 isn’t in full scale production, any cost figure at this point in time is a guesstimate

It depends. In any case you know the engagement geometry and kinetic capabilities of each involved element is relevant. A fast supercruiser will be able to come much closer to a SAM than the equivalent subsonic strike plane. An anti radiation missile launched from it will reach the target much faster, its missiles will have much more range etc. Engagement windows depend very strongly on the target, no point IMO in discussing this.

I know, a faster aircraft will increase the range and velocity of its missiles.
On the other hand, it will also have higher IR signature and will be detect earlier.
The issue with this discussion: we don’t know the exact number for anything: the detection distance of the SAM?, the velocity of the SAM? , the range you can find the SAM? the range the SAM site can detect your aircraft ? it is very hard to make a conclusion
for example: if the range which you can detect the SAM site is less than the max range of your weapons then supercruise doesn’t really help (which is the case for JSM, JSOW-ER, LRASM, MALD-V, AGM-X, KH-59MK2)
You can also easily make up numbers to make the case for supercruising, but the bottom line is we know too little, if it was so simple and clear cut, SR-71 and Avo Arrow will be far more popular.

What AD system can detect a plane at say 300 km via IR?

That depends on your altitude and velocity. Higher altitude, the air is cooler and you stand out more from the background.
In my opinion, IR sensor can’t detect fighter from 300 km in most case, however, it won’t have to, because you should also consider the distance that your stealth aircraft can detect a silent SAM site.

The bays from what we know would have space for 4 R-77 sized missiles side to side if they had folding wings. They would need two double pylons, currently all indicates there are only two single ones per bay so this third missile you mention would not have any point to attach it to.
In an extreme case, maybe additional missiles could be hung on the doors of the WB like in F-35, going to 6 or even 8 missiles per bay. Have not really checked but I guess is doable since the bay is very deep. This would make sense for instance to do patrol with 2 x SRAAM, 6 x MRAAM and the second bay carrying additional fuel, maybe around 1500 kg more that would we like 15% extra fuel for range close to 4000 km, considering current range and fuel capacity estimations are reasonable. That would be many hours on station and very long reach indeed.

That drawing is cool and all but:
1- Sukhoi has not talk about this configuration let alone testing it, up till now
2- R-77 with folding wing is not exist yet or if they currently have the plan to make one
In short, that configuration is purely the product of forum member drawing missiles inside the cutaway drawing of Su-57 without taking into account various important factors such as weapon separation when launched or tunes inside the bays. You can’t use that to support the statement ” Su-57 will carry double the load out of F-35″

They will not be the only ones improving technology and will start the race with a burden other planes do not have. To the concrete points:
1. 20% thrust increase in what flying regime? Again over optimistic claims from manufacturers eager to sell. If it is VCE it will help increase dry thrust. But it will not necessarily improve subsonic fuel economy just by being VCE. A plane like F-35 will welcome more thrust at that regime but will it turn into a supercruiser like the F-22? Most probably not, because of the high drag inherent to the design.
2. Ramjet AAM: not the only ones working on this. In fact Russia with Zircon is close to deploy scramjet missiles, do you want to bet how long until this tech goes to a very long range AAM?
3. True. Twin engine planes have an advantage in terms of power generation and big airframes can evacuate more heat. Russia works on this actively too.
4. See above. Physics rule, a small missile will always have smaller range and warhead than a bigger one despite all Powerpoints in this world.

F-35 is not the only one improving in technology but you essentially compare the future version of others aircraft to the current version of F-35, my point is, once other 5G are produced in large numbers, F-35 is already improved from it current form.
1. You could say it is over optimistic claims but on the otherhand, why limit it to F-35? how can you know Sukhoi claims about Su-57 isn’t overly optimistic as well?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tzuwCoky.jpg Views:t0 Size:t823.6 KB ID:t3858897″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858897″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

2. F-35 can be equipped with ramjet air to air missiles, Russian don’t have ramjet air to air missiles in production or in development at the moment, it could be possible that in 25-30 years, Russian can have scramjet air to air missiles but not now or in the near future, you can’t just ignore that. They have not talk about scramjet air to air missiles yet. So to included scramjet or ramjet missiles along with 8 MRAAMs configuration in Su-57 to compare with current or 2025 F-35 is not accurate or reasonable. Secondly, in a fight between stealth aircraft: If your radar is far less effective due to stealth, and your IR sensor only managed to detect your opponents from 35-45 km, and the NEZ of your ramjet missiles is 100-150 km then supercruise or not probably doesn’t matter. Once scramjet missiles are available, they will make the difference in aircraft velocity less relevant.
Supercuise have minimal effect on terminal velocity of air breathing design
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t2.PNG Views:t0 Size:t277.6 KB ID:t3858903″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858903″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

3. I think power generator also depends on the exact configuration of the airplane, F-35B can use its engine drive shaft to power the generator for the laser system. Doing a similar thing on Su-57 could be impossible
Cooling capacity is also affected by the number/volumes of cooling scopes
Moreover, bigger size = bigger visual and infrared signature.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF-35 laser weapon.PNG Views:t0 Size:t395.9 KB ID:t3858898″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858898″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

4. Same technology, bigger missiles will carry bigger warhead and longer range. But in combat, you don’t always need bigger warhead and bigger missiles will be detected sooner.

It never leaves atmosphere. SM-3 is of no use.

How do you know Kinzhal never leave the atmosphere? Kinzhal is an air-launched Iskander, release at very high altitude and velocity.

But the missiles manouver, very hard. You don’t know when it is going to move in what direction so you end up eventually chasing it.

The direction Kinzhal move will be monitor by radar and IR sensor, I am not very confident that it can maneuver very hard at Mach 10 or that it won’t lose significant speed after a hard maneuver.

It is not that simple and I don’t take these assurances demonstrate the ability to intercept real enemy hypersonic missiles in combat conditions, at all. If you have any good link it would be interesting to look at it. After decades of ABM scams I am not very confident in these statements, especially when physics point it would be very difficult or impossible.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t278.3 KB ID:t3858893″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858893″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t2.PNG Views:t0 Size:t252.3 KB ID:t3858894″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858894″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t3.PNG Views:t0 Size:t295.9 KB ID:t3858895″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858895″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

In 1981, the U.S. Navy modified 10 AQM-37As under the Challenger program with a refined high-g autopilot, and enlarged heat-resistant tail surfaces, to allow for higher speed, altitude and manoeuverability. These features were incorporated into the AQM-37C, which was delivered to the Navy from 1986 onwards. The AQM-37C has a radio command control system, which allows changes in the flight path after launch, including a terminal dive at a controlled dive angle. It also features a digital autopilot, and improved radar augmentation in four different frequency bands. Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) and a range of 425 km (265 miles), with terminal speeds of Mach 5. Typical equipment of current AQM-37Cs includes the AN/DRQ-4B and AN/DSQ-37A (or AN/DSQ-50) miss distance indicators, the AN/DPN-88 (or AN/DPN-90(V)) radar beacon, and the AN/DPT-2 pulsed RF ECM transmitter.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

LONDON, July 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — The USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) used a Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) Standard Missile-6 to destroy a supersonic high altitude target drone (AQM-37). The test moves the program one step closer to full operational capability.

http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix…cle&id=1947361

GQM-163
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4.PNG Views:t0 Size:t609.1 KB ID:t3858896″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858896″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

This is more or less what I head too. Apparently higher speed would have required to increase weight to make the keels more robust but have no further details.
Different parts of the plane use different materials. Structure is alu, surface is mostly composite, areas around the engines are titanium. No big changes in 5G from 4G apart from having big a complex surfaces created in composites

Then i guess high speed could melt, expand or weaken the composite skin.

They don’t need to see the stealth fighters at all, they would have OTH to do that for them.
BTW, what is the engagement window of a 3 M missile against a 2.8 M plane?

I don’t think skywave OTH radar can provide targeting solution.
Meteor can maintain a speed above Mach 5 out to 180 km if it was launched from 50kft
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_261558.jpg Views:t0 Size:t48.5 KB ID:t3858899″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3858899″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

And how would the stealth planes remain stealth while they locate targets and guide missiles towards them?

IIRC you had the same question in German next gen thread and with similar discussion, i will try to dig that up
This
https://forum.keypublishing.com/foru…-fighter/page9
i can offer more simple answer:
Mig-31crusing at Mach 2.8 , 70kft is an extremely hot target, and the background is cold, so EOTS or DAS very likely can pick it up from 200 km or further. Then APG-81 can be used in a single pulse to calculate the targeting solution. Mig-31 can’t do anything, even if we let it launch R-37, F-35 pilot can go silent anytime. AIM-120D and Meteor can be share guide