dark light

moon_light

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 913 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273424
    moon_light
    Participant

    any one know what is the RCS of ef-2000 ? :confused: it seem quite big …

    According to the RAF, the Eurofighter’s RCS is better than RAF requirements. Comments from BAE Systems suggest the radar return is around one quarter of that of the Tornado it replaces.[124] The Eurofighter is thought to have an RCS of less than one square metre in a clean configuration by author Doug Richardson, although no official value is available

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
    10 times bigger than f-18 e/f rcs
    btw irst like this seem to be quite potential i defeat stealth

    ATFLIR can locate and designate targets day or night at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles and altitudes surpassing 50,000 feet, outperforming comparable targeting systems

    http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir/

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273426
    moon_light
    Participant

    and to be honest people seem to overestimate the super cruise ability of fighter
    it may be really good thing in the past but now it not as important as stealth and electronic otherwise mig-31 is the best fighter 😉
    btw it seem that in bad weather ( lots of cloud ) then no fighters can beat f-35 because if their irst not working then no matter how kinematic advantage they have they will only see f-35 within 50 km or less (even with the most powerful fighter radar now )=> well within NEZ of meteor or aim-120d
    even in nice weather f-35 only have problem when it go against fighter with rcs = 0.1 m2 or below but except f-15se ,all these rafale , ef-2000 , lca , f-18 e/f , Gripen hang their missiles external on rack which will increase Rcs A LOT so the f-35 always have first lock advantage ,
    the f-15se IRST dont have laser finder range like EOTS on f-35 so it still have disadvantage in lock , shot distance against the f-35 even if they have equal rcs

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273436
    moon_light
    Participant

    I don’t think such speeds would be used practically. I vaguely remember a claim from some F-35 official (or test pilot) that the optimum cruise speed of the F-35 at altitude is below 900 km/h and that at M1.2 the aircraft would have considerably higher SFC at nomatterwhat engine regime. That, in my eyes, makes the whole supercrusing thing complete bo!!ocks because it would obviously result in reducing the already less-than-stellar range by quite a margin.

    That would be inconsistent with other claims about the F-35. The fans claim that internal loadout has no effect on the kinematic performance of the F-35 because of no added drag.. as if weight did not have any effect on drag, as well… But OK, if even two tons of bombs only have a negligible effect, suddenly every gallon of fuel should count?

    most fighter – bomber aircraft like f-14 , f-15 , f-16 , mig-29 , su-27 , su-35 , mirage , tornado , rafale ….. stay below 900 km/h for most of their journey , so i dont think there any thing wrong with f-35 optimum speed
    and yes weight has nothing to do with drag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273438
    moon_light
    Participant

    @irtusk: Are you sure or just trolling?

    Boeing http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2009/july/i_ids01.pdf:

    About the agility… do you have anything that supports your statement?

    This is what a pilot says http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110516/DEFSECT01/105160302/F-35-Tests-Proceed-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance :

    Others comparing it to F16 have said its less good as a dogfighter when the F16 has 4 missiles but with “normal loads”, aka droptanks, heavy bombs etc the F35 has the edge.

    Here are the turn rate charts if you want them. (Dotted line can also be the 9G limit when it intersects the instant turn rate)
    F16 with sidewinders http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f16a-15k.jpg
    F15 http://lockon.co.uk/img/technology/pic1_9.jpg
    FA18: http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f18_turn_rate1_576.png

    The F35 isnt built as a fighter, but the B and C versions come close to the green FA18C, the A version is somewhere between the green and red line.

    Can we now stop claiming its a superior dogfighter? Its great for what its built for but not very impressive at the rest.

    Attached are the mandatory charts compiled into one (feel free to use and abuse).

    what these chart actually mean ?:confused: iam quite confused
    if iam not wrong then according to pilots then in WVR gun dogfight f-16 is much better than f-15 and f-18 (not quite sure in turn -burn or zoom boom ) so does that mean bigger curve doesnot mean better:confused:

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2273484
    moon_light
    Participant

    Afraid not. That’s the range of the weapons it’s intercepting. The range of the missile is not disclosed AFAIK, but it’s far less.

    Rafael brochure

    It’s like SAMP/T intercepting ballistic missiles of 600 km range. The interceptor is Aster 30, & its range is only about 120 km.

    i think in the case of Iron Dome the intercept missile actually reach 70 km cause the Hamas’s rocket is much smaller and have much shorter range
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/QassamsRange.jpg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

    The typical Iron Dome battery consists of a radar unit, missile control unit and three launchers, with each launcher containing 20 interceptors for a total of 60 missiles per battery.[24] Reportedly, each battery is capable of protecting an urban area of approximately 150 square kilometers

    this actually raise and interesting question how the hell did the Iron Dome out range both PAC-3 and NCADE , and even fired from ground it still out range AIM-120 AB , AIM-7 , AIM-9 which all bigger than IRON DOME missile ?

    in reply to: stealth against IR threat #2280241
    moon_light
    Participant

    F-22 and F-35 has some IR topcoat to reduced infrared signature . The engine of stealthy plane is also
    hidden in the airframe of the aircraft , and the engine exhaust is also minimize . Even if these treatments will reduce the emission of the heat , it will not have so much impact on detectability like VLO fighter against radar.
    .

    i dont think the topcoat on f-22 even have any effect at all after watching this vid
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzD1SCk__g

    in reply to: stealth against IR threat #2280243
    moon_light
    Participant

    Both visible and Infrared wavelengths are greatly attenuated by cloud, but ‘yes’ thick cloud can effectively mask an aircraft’s presence from IR sensors altogether.

    I don’t think it’s really a question of whether clouds can be used to hide from IR sensors, but rather a question of how best to exploit this fact in a tactical scenario.

    Cloud formation occurs almost exclusively in the troposphere which in temperate regions falls below the optimum cruise altitude of most modern fighters, and at a far lower altitude than is advantageous for BVR combat. At high altitude under co-altitude or look-up conditions against a cool uniform background IR sensors are operating in near ideal conditions. And under these conditions it’s possible for a modern LWIR sensor to achieve long range detection of even relatively cool targets such as a subsonic fighter flying without reheat. Of course, aircraft can still fly at lower altitudes to take advantage of the available cloud cover to mask their approach from high flying fighters, but in doing so they face being at a massive energy disadvantage against their higher flying adversary.

    In many situations stealth aircraft may be able to exploit cloud cover at low altitude to hide from IR sensors in much the same way that aircraft with conventional radar signatures fly at treetop level using terrain to hide from radar. But unlike terrain features which are static and predictable features clouds are a dynamic weather phenomena which will be moving, forming, and dissipating in a fairly unpredictable manner, sometimes over very short periods of time. For aircraft which use terrain to mask their presence from radar the use of terrain databases allows an optimal route to be planned before a mission or even dynamically within a mission, but to exploit available cloud cover may require mapping of cloud position/density and calculation of an optimal course in real-time.

    Assuming that such a facility is available the problem is complicated further for a stealth aircraft as the route required to stay hidden by cloud cover must be coordinated with that required to remain outside of the threat envelope of enemy radar. Stealth aircraft penetrating an enemy IADS are designed to operate within the constraints imposed by radar threat avoidance, flying at specific altitudes within carefully calculated corridors through radar coverage and avoiding large course deviations which require banking beyond a certain angle towards threats. An aircraft may need to make fairly large course deviations simply to stay hidden by cloud cover and so there is a great possibility that those aims will conflict with one another.

    And to add one final consideration, just as enemy electro-optical sensors are affected by cloud so to are the aircraft’s own sensors. This will mean that for aircraft operating under strict EMCON conditions and relying on electro-optical sensors, the use of cloud cover to conceal the aircraft’s approach may come at the expense of being blind against the very same threats the aircraft is attempting to conceal itself from.

    😀 great answer
    may be stealth IR is not very practical to aircraft
    how about stealth IR for ground APC , tank and SAM battery ?
    EX : black fox
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogqAQrvS6To
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYsidAXQpus
    Adaptiv IR
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pftna34TbJU
    http://www.svvn.vn/upload/20080804/nhay%20du.jpg
    it will be a night mare for future fighter doing close air support dont you think 😎

    in reply to: stealth against IR threat #2281421
    moon_light
    Participant

    Vast majority of cloud are below 6 km:

    http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/Aviation-Weather-Principles.html

    ” The first layer, known as the troposphere, extends from sea level up to 20,000 feet (6 km) over the northern and southern poles and up to 48,000 feet (14.5 km) over the equatorial regions. The vast majority of weather, clouds, storms, and temperature variances occur within this first layer of the atmosphere.”

    Air superiority mission is often at higher alt – around 10 km or more. F-15C in Allied Force fly rather high alt mission (10km). According to pilot F-22 fly most of the time at higher alt – 45 -50k ft and 1,6 ma

    ( http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/documents/aviation_week_010807.pdf )

    So I don’t think that in high alt operation fighter pilot can rely on cloud and weather condition to hide itself.
    But for sure weather put limitation on IR/EO sensor in the ship and ground to air SAM system and low flying strike fighter.

    almost every normal fighter have irst that can see very far and negate advantage of stealth fighter so i just think cloud could be useful for slow , medium altitude flyer like f-35 ,f-117 to hide from them

    in reply to: SEAD weapons and SAM #2281621
    moon_light
    Participant

    I believe the internal carriage is 8 SDB or 2 jsow-er,
    and i take 2 HARM over these any day.
    But even more would i have picked JDRADM, and think it will make a comeback
    one day.
    Speed increase always increase difficulty on interception,
    and the proliferating AESA radars negate moderate x-band stealth,
    where other bands is even easier

    caused F-35 can’t carry HARM internal so i just gave the total number of sdb and jsow it can carry both external and internal , i know speed make it harder to intercept but number and stealth also reduce chance of interception :diablo:

    in reply to: SEAD weapons and SAM #2281628
    moon_light
    Participant

    This one probably goes to the SAMPSON on the Type 45.

    what the range of it ?

    in reply to: SEAD weapons and SAM #2281630
    moon_light
    Participant

    Huh ? AARGM is the fastest of the lot, and has a higher chance of penetrating
    the defense than all other weapons

    really ? :confused:
    1 F-35 can only carry 4 AARGM , but it can carry a maximum of 24 SDB II or 10 jsow-er so the other weapon while slower than AARGM ,they have advantage in number and rcs
    and almost every SAM system now a day can easily intercept target moving at speed of mach 4-6 , do u think the mach 2 speed of AARGM will make a different ?

    in reply to: stealth against IR threat #2281636
    moon_light
    Participant

    Air operations are typically aborted during averse conditions,
    if chances was dim of finding anything before, they are now akin
    to find a needle in a haystack, and a waste of money & personnel

    there is cloud in almost all kind of weather condition :p

    in reply to: stealth against IR threat #2281639
    moon_light
    Participant

    IR stealth is impossible.

    Flying objects at high speed heat up, and emits IR signature. The only way to not be IR detectable is to maintain -30C ambient temperature.

    the point is cloud stop ir radiation ( like the way it stop visible light , the object still emmit radiation but you just simply cant see it ) , so the enemies’s IRST can’t see the aircraft

    in reply to: SEAD weapons and SAM #2281798
    moon_light
    Participant

    Depends on the Block

    Blk3 – SDB & JSOW
    Blk4 – SDB2 & JSM
    Blk5 – ?
    Blk6 – AARGM

    Others are planned but are not definite in schedule (JSOW-ER, T3, NGM, etc)

    honestly how could the AARGM be the best weapon ? , i mean if the F-35 carry AARGM it be no better than F-16 , no stealth ,small load and AARGM is not fast enough to evade SAM missile

    in reply to: How would you rank the worlds 5th genertion fighter designs? #2282535
    moon_light
    Participant

    Is the F-35 super manouverable?

    I read it being described as a stealth F-106, that doesn’t sound very manouverable?

    It may be clear to everybody else but in my view it appears that this generation terminology is nothing but fancy marketing. It makes all previous fighters sound as “at least 20% worse” than the latest greatest thing while in reality the gap is much smaller (if there is a gap)

    if iam not wrong you take that idea from APA right ?:rolleyes: , honestly the F-35 doesn’t need to be very agile caused it purpose is to kill the enemy from far , when they come close the F-35 still have advantages due to DAS ( allow 360 degree shot ) and DIRCM ( make enemy’s modern IIR and EO missiles become useless ) , and even if the 2 pilots decide to go in a cannon dogfight the DAS will help the F-35 pilot to keep track of enemy’s fighter much easier than what the enemies pilot have to do (like compared bubble canopy of f-16 with the canopy on F-14 )

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 913 total)