More and more voices say DRFM makes it harder to kill enemy aircrafts.
Although adding one to a MiG-21 will hardly make the fishbed an F-22, there is no discussion this added capability seriously complicates the calculus of the aggressor.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-aims-curb-enemy-jamming
Whats your take on this ?
How can one defend against this ? To me it looks trickier then even the most stealth shapes
DRFM isn’t anything new, many jammer ( for exampleALQ -165, ALQ-211, ALQ-99, ALQ-131.. etc) have it, again radar with frequency hopping and random waveform, PRF characteristics , DRFM jamming is really really hard
Jamming is likewise much more difficult against an AESA. Traditionally, jammers have operated by determining the operating frequency of the radar and then broadcasting a signal on it to confuse the receiver as to which is the “real” pulse and which is the jammer’s. This technique works as long as the radar system cannot easily change its operating frequency. When the transmitters were based on klystron tubes this was generally true, and radars, especially airborne ones, had only a few frequencies to choose among. A jammer could listen to those possible frequencies and select the one to be used to jam.
Most radars using modern electronics are capable of changing their operating frequency with every pulse. An AESA has the additional capability of spreading its frequencies across a wide band even in a single pulse, which equates to lowering the emission power, making jammers much less effective. Although it is possible to send out broadband white noise against all the possible frequencies, this means the amount of energy being sent at any one frequency is much lower, reducing its effectiveness
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/aesa_radar
Air Marshal Brown: I think if you have a look around on an F16 sometimes that is not wonderful either. But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is a current fourth-generation aeroplane.
The data fusion in the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis. They tend to go down particular paths in the aeroplane, whether it is turn rate performance or acceleration. These are all important factors, but it is a combination of what you have actually got in the jet and the situational awareness that is resident in the cockpit of a fifth-generation aeroplane that makes the fundamental difference…To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God’s-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter—and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements .
the passive targeting method mentioned in the article is also well known for age
Again though my last question. Why were the F4 K/M series slower than the J? The engines were more powerful than the J (J79=J RB168=K/M). Because the the engines were bigger, the airframe was made fatter, the cross-section bigger. They accelerated faster than the J but by virtue of the larger cross-section, they had a lower maximum speed. It was common knowledge years ago and the butt of many an American joke over our a/c.
in my opinion the reason why F-4K is slower than the J have more to do with the engine, pressure recovery at intake rather than total drag , the K/M version have turbo fan engine , thus at high speed , high altitude it will lose alot more thrust than a turbo jet engine .
Similarly , the Mig-25 only have 10 kN of thrust more than F-35 but it is significantly draggier and heavier than f-35 , despite all that it is still 2 time faster than f-35
anyways , even if we assumed that you are right that F-4K maximum speed slower than F-4J due to drag cause by total cross section , Andraxuss assessment that drag come mostly from the wing at dogfight speed is still true
.
As for my ONLY claim about F-35 being better than F-16, it was this: Its 5,3G KPP threshold figures, and relaxed 4,6G “achieved” performance figure, is slightly better than Block 50 F-16’s flight manual data at same flight conditions. As proof of burden about this is on me:
Lets talk about F-16 with following equipped with 2 AIM-120s and 2 empty pylons to match F-35:
2xAIM-120s + 2xLAU-129 on stations 1 and 9 instead of 16S210 included in basic aircraft weight, 2xLAU-129 on stations 2 and 8 for previously spent A-A missiles, + 8 racks of chaff-flare + gun ammo; weigh 599kg in total.
Drag index = 21; (+1 for each LAU-129 at wingtips, +6 for each LAU-127 at stations 2 and 8, and +7 for F-16C basic airframe drag index)
F-16C Block 50, Drag indexAltittude = 15000 feet, Speed = M0,8:
22000lbs = 218 kg fuel (6% of total internal fuel capacity) == 6,3Gs @ Drag index = 0.
26000lbs = 2032 kg fuel (63%) == 5,3Gs @ DI=0, 5,1Gs @ DI=0, 5,2Gs @ Drag index = 21.
28500lbs = 3227 kg fuel (100%) == 4,8Gs @ DI =0, 4,4Gs @ DI=50, 4,6Gs @ Drag index = 21.Now, I don’t know exact KPP details of F-35; but logically,
1- It will definately include two AAMs (as B variant has no gun, there is no point in giving it a “key performance figure” unarmed. Quite possibly, it will include 4 AAMs.
2- Logically, KPP of F-35 will at least involve 50% fuel, and judging how other KPP is given to other aircraft, it is quite possibly 60%, to include reserve fuel into equation.I assume F-35’s specific range is consistent with its wing area and thrust increase, ballpark around 50%. Then, there are 4 possibilities;
Possibility #1: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 2 AAMs. This translates to same maneuverability, but fuel for longer range than F-16 with full internal fuel. For same range, F-35 needs less fuel, less weight. This translates to better maneuverability.
Possibility #2: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 2 AAMs. With this fuel, F-35 can match range of F-16 with only 88% internal fuel. This means, F-35 is slightly inferior to F-16 (by 0,1Gs).
Possibility #3: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then you would have to subtract some 304 kg from fuel of F-16 , and add 8 to drag index, to compare it with equal grounds to F-35’s KPP. Then F-35 will have better maneuverability for same range.
Possibility #4: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then, this translates to better maneuverability with fuel for better range. Translates to A LOT better maneuverability when fueled for same range.This comparison actually favours F-16;
a) You cannot guarantee an F-16 to enter BFM with 2 AAMs and only 2 empty pylons; typically, it would almost certainly carry 2 additional LAU-129s at 3 and 7, plus MAYBE additional missiles on those pylons, non-jetisson fuel tank pylons on 4 and 6, centerline pylon on 5.
b) you cannot guarantee F-35’s 4,6G achieved performance years ago is not improved even by 0,1Gs. Maybe (just maybe) F-35 today is close to its KPP threshold of 5,3Gs?Even if we take worst case scenario in this comparison, how on earth that justifies “F-35 can’t dogfight” idea?
At sea level, M0,66, clean with 50% fuel, an F-16 block 30 can sustain 9Gs. An F-16 block 50 can sustain 8,1Gs. An Su-27 can sustain 8,7Gs. An F-15C can sustain 7,8Gs. That is up to 15% difference in performance, yet all these aircraft can easily “dogfight” with each other. If worse comes to worst, F-35’s unclassified sustained turn performance at 15k feet M0,8 is just 3% inferior to F-16s. If F-35 cannot dogfight with F-16, then nothing in 4th generation, be it late F-16C, F-15C, MiG-29 or M2k, can dogfight with an Su-27 or an early F-16C block.
Now if you are blowing gasket, at least answer to this claim that I am actually making.
According to small writing in this picture : then the G spec are taken at 60% fuel, 2 missiles, bomb all dropped
Sign In
