dark light

mig-31bm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,051 through 1,065 (of 1,759 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) #2207498
    mig-31bm
    Participant
    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) #2207500
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    I think we go over F-35 kinematic many time before, dont understand why people asking exactly the same thing

    Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) while conceding that the aircraft’s performance in combat within visual range (WVR) will only be marginally superior to that of its fourth-generation and advanced fourth-generation counterparts.
    Briefing Australian journalists at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility on 2 February, Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of air systems in the company’s strategic studies group, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI. He said that in a typical combat configuration carrying four internally stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks; and that it was faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and F/A-18 carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter’s case).
    On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft, the F-35 was shown coming second best.
    With a requirement involving the same acceleration and the aircraft tasked for a 600 n mile ‘out and back’ mission, Mazanowski said the F-35 was “nothing stellar but certainly not an underperformer in this category”.
    When accelerating from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 – important if evading a surface-to-air missile or in combat with other aircraft – the F-35 showed a comparable performance to its counterparts.
    Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
    Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.
    According to Mazanowski, the JSF joint programme office required the modelling to assume an F- 35 engine at the end of its life with 5 per cent fuel degradation and a 2 per cent reduction in thrust. The counterpart aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt wherever platform and systems performance were not clear – as, for example, in the assumption that all five would have active electronically scanned array radars operational within five years.
    Modelling based on operational experience and simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR.
    Mazanowski acknowledged that these figures did not take account of BVR engagements that might develop into WVR engagements.
    Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”.
    He attributed this almost entirely to the F-35’s superior stealth and situational awareness.
    In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable. Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally mounted short-range AIM-9X missiles to avoid increasing its radar cross-section, Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM.
    “The WVR environment, once you get there, is very awkward and very lethal. We think the F-35 may have some limited advantage in situational awareness with its DAS [distributed aperture system] and hopefully there would be enough wingmen to work their way out of the situation,” Mazanowski said.
    He added: “One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WVR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well.”

    in reply to: Meteor based SAM #1787960
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    for some reasons, i dont what it is, most modern SAM abandoned ramjet and go with normal rocket motor, there used to be many ramjet SAM such as SA-5, RIM-8 but that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore

    in reply to: Rise of the 6th Generation Fighter … #2208255
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    it depends on time needed vs time available to destroy a missile.

    Soviets already used to ripple-fire missiles to ensure a kill.

    Should you have several missiles after you, it is not certain your missile-defense system will be able to cope with them all

    what’s more, who can say that missile manufacturers won’t find a way to counter directed energy weapons for their missiles?

    I think ripple fire will cause great trouble to deceptive jammer as well as directed energy weapon, trying to out maneuver or intercept enemy’s missiles doesn’t seem like the best idea in this situation

    By contrast, if you was using cruise decoy such as ITALD, MALD-J then you probably want enemy to ripple fire their missiles, they will run out of missiles very quickly

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) #2209254
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    If the attacker comes from behind it is problematic because he is outside of the EOTS FOV. And if the F-35s fly far apart in bad weather their DAS could not both see the target, so they can’t triangulate. What’s the weather like in China and Russia I don’t think they are so good. Triangulating requires 2 planes so you have to approach 2 planes, which would be risky because the DAS wouldn’t have a long range, at this range the F-35s are likely to be detected in IR and radar.

    i dont know whether DAS can triangulated or not, but at least it give pilot some warning when enemy fighter coming from behind or if some AA gun fire at F-35, by contrast, for other fighters that is not equipped with similar system to DAS, if enemy some how silently get behind them, then they will be shot down very easy ( by cannon)

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) #2209420
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    So an Su-27 with -1000lbs of fuel, + 2 x 2000lbs bombs + 2 AAM will accelerate slower than an F35? Allow me to doubt that. But this is the somewhat honest part. After all, he is using the one situation that the F35 is optimised for.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224589&d=1380839905
    su-27 with 4 AAM, 50% fuel

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2210580
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Kh-58UShK- yes.

    Size of bays was from the outset designed to hold them.

    wow, that is really really impressive, is it’s WB 2 times bigger than F-35 one?
    btw it can carry 8 R-77 + 2 R73 right?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2210719
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    is it true that they can fit 4 KH-58 inside PAK-FA?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2211287
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    FD, actually NO US 5G prototypes exhibited Luneberg lénse.

    i think they does
    http://i52.tinypic.com/11lrjtl.jpg
    http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17770&mode=view

    in reply to: a2a and a2g variants of a stealth fighter #2212109
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    No.

    I am not sure that 2223 F15C would have shot down as much fighter than 179 F22 (even if you number were true). This have even been “shown” in the past during exercises.

    When you are a military organization on a budget ( :rolleyes: ), this is what you are looking first. And this without even speaking about the amount of support that your mega fleet of Eagles would have needed.

    he was trying to say that there should be a balance between quantity and quality, F-22 is a good fighter but too expensive , p-51 are very cheap but not so good.. etc

    in reply to: a2a and a2g variants of a stealth fighter #2212133
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    ^ well said

    in reply to: a2a and a2g variants of a stealth fighter #2212770
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Yep, thats what u end up with, when u start of with a B@ztard design that consist of Navy, Marines and USAF requirements. Poor F-35 indeed.

    i agree that F-35 may not be good in intercepting mission but to say it is useless in air to air is just BS, in air to air it is much better than gen 4 or 4.5 fighter

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2210696
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    It sure does. There was a photo of RCS figures for that Su-27M tested with RAM and other signature eduction measures, and the change was fairly substantial (though it accounted for RAM treated AAMs as well, and I am not sure how “field-practical” some of the measures were).

    However of course I can’t find a working link of that picture, and did not back it up earlier. Bah.

    EDIT: Something like this:

    http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/airforcefan1/Special%20Report/EMScatteringofSu-27.jpg

    i think i saw this picture as well
    btw it seem that most RAM absorb best within 9-10 Ghz
    http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/16807/media/image13.png
    http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/Articleimage/2014/NR/c3nr04087a/c3nr04087a-f3_hi-res.gif
    http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/mr/v13n2/13f07f.gif
    http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/mr/v11n3/03f6.gif
    http://ej.iop.org/images/0295-5075/85/5/58003/Full/epl11646fig5.jpg

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2210702
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    Continuing to derail the thread futher;

    A year ago a study was published in the International Journal of Research in Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering pegging the F-22 without RAM at -9 dBsm frontal, 30 dbSm lateral and 50 dbSm at X-Band. And around 20 dBsm in UHF/VFH.

    Available at: http://www.ijrame.com/vol2issue1/V2i105.pdf

    RAM are quite effective though http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/xu-an/pitch_rcs_b2-sim.jpg

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2211389
    mig-31bm
    Participant

    since we are at it, here are are some RCS reflection graph that i can find[ATTACH=CONFIG]236273[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]236274[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]236275[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]236276[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]236277[/ATTACH]

Viewing 15 posts - 1,051 through 1,065 (of 1,759 total)