MarcellogoRafale and Typhoon combat capabilities correspond to the MiG-29M in 1986
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247865[/ATTACH]
I’m considered filo-russian there but in this case I call it spades.
Not false n.b. because as said several times eurocanards and russian 4+ planes have similar basic concept and similar flight pattern, just gained in different ways.
Yet calling any plane of any nationality that went out in the eighties better of another, any of any nationality the same, that went out in the new century is a far, far,far,far cry.
Above all, it risk to get all of us back into the usual fanboy’s male reproductive contest that, almost until now, seems this thread has been largely immune.
MarcellogoI think everyone there has its own favorite fighter so better stay on topic .
Question was , in which differ the 4,5 gen eurocanards to legacy teen fighter?
Response was the more , the less given: as soon as aeronautical technology progressed new features was added, also to reflect the parallel advancement of weaponry , sensor and engines.
The introduction of all aspect and successively high boresight IR was the one spurred the change in the parameters, while the introduction of ARH missiles (and Jdams) allowed also the legacy ones to stay competitive and led instead toward the 5th gen.
Process was and still is cumulative: innovations like high power ratio turbofans, enhanced manoeuvrability, FBW typical of the teen fighters were the basis on which the nose pointer started from and in turn canard and vectored thrust further enhance the latter’s typical high AoA performances but would had little operative significance on the teen fighters.
MarcellogoAnd the Off topic thread of the years award goes to…
MarcellogoBreaking havoc and sewing a foreign policy are today two distincts things. I am sure you regret the politic of the gun boat but some countries have reshaped their foreign policy and even evolved. An F22 give them increased lattitude to operate in the heavily contested scene of modern foreign policy.
Two days ago, a pair of F22 gave a clear sign to the Syrian regime that part of his own territory was none if his business! I am sorry but you don’t do that with an F16 (see Su24 shotdown), latest model, or a Rafale.This what is all about tactical deterrence: a tool to micro-manage big foreign policies…
Tomcat, the Syaaf kept on bombing Hasakah, US special forces nearby was relocated in another place, a cohomprensive agreement was mediates between the two parts by, guess who, the russians.
So, not a great micromanagement, it seems me.
Also because I didn’t get at all the part about f-16 wouldn’t get it: do you really think that the would have fired to an US plane whatsoever?
MarcellogoYes, obviously:(
MarcellogoNice but still T-50-3 and T-50-5R.
Where is the T-50-6-2?
Don’t know, where are them actually, anyway? Komsomolsk-na-Amur or Athubinsk?
MarcellogoAt Mach .8 30,000 feet. One data point a comparison does not make- needless to say.
It’s one of the problems with trying to make definitive comparisons with very limited hard values. Trying to compare flight envelopes with two data points akin to the old “blindfolded man trying to describe an elephant by feeling his trunk”.
Oh, thanks FBW, with such a reply we have dissipated the risk of another “America vs Rest of the World” thread.
The mention of sustained turn highlight in itself the difference between the flight pattern of the teen series i.e. the “legacy fighter” of the title and the 4,5 gen or 4+, 4++ gen.
First ones had it as the main feature as they were thought for a elongated dogfight in which you have to gain an advantage position at the rear of your adversary using conventional, not all aspect IR missiles.
The others are instead the so called “noise pointer”, optimized instead for use of all aspect, high boresight missiles.
Instantaneous turning and high AoA were more important as the idea was to point directly against the adversary without entering into a sustained turning furball but instead keeping it engaged with the HCS and launching the missile at a very steep angle while keeping the more, the less the initial attack course: if the target even survived to the missile attack and completed its own evasive maneuver would not have the speed and the energy to engage you running away at full afterburner.
Concept was tried in dissimilar combat against former DDR Fulcrums and it definitively worked so it was adopted also in the various eurocanard .
Only legacy teen fighter that could use this tactic was the F/A-18 but with some consistent limitations : AoA is excellent, but maxG number and T/W ratio for disengaging not.
This for the eighties: arrival of AIM-120 and R-77 however shifted parameters toward BVR combat so that also planes like F-14 and Mig-31 can have still many aces in their own sleeves.
So in the end the result would vary by the tactical situation:
-if any of the above planes is sucked in a furball with a F-16, poor him.
-if instead the same allow a Fulcrum or an Eurocanard to “point” them, poor him.
-if they allow an F-14, a Mig-31 an Eagle or a Flanker to get a radar hold on them while they are trying to close distance for WVR, R.I.P.
MarcellogoUnfairly? What is this, some sort of F.*nk sport competition? A tournament like in the middle age?
Ooooh, you Mig-29A are disqualified because of the use of R-73 and HMCS! Unfair, two years of ban from game!
(Take it as the pun it is ,Starfish, I’m joking: your was a great post).
Factually, it was exactly the existence of such a weapon type (and even before of all aspect IR seeker like on AIM-9L) that lead all the evolution of russian blended wing/engine pod planes and subsequently of the so called eurocanards.
And in due turn the introduction of Aim-120 and R-77 acted as a great equalizer of the whole game: with them WVC is not more the principal form of air combat as in the eighties.
And we all proceeded instead toward the 5 gen in order to reshuffle the deck again.
P.S. Let’s just note that in this thread the expression 4,5 is used in the significance given on this side of Atlantic and not in the one used in the american weapon producers leaflets i.e. An F-15 with AESA radar and RCS reduction features is NOT a 4,5 gen fighter at all: just a vanilla teen fighter with fifth generation avionics.
MarcellogoIt remind me the old F-16 vs MiG-29 flying test.
With F-16 block 50+ against vanilla WP MiG-29A usually…
And obviously in a sustained turn dogfight like they would have just late seventies IR missiles with neither all aspect seeker nor high boresight capabilities…
A more fitting comparison woud be: F-14 & Mig-31 vs F-15, F-16 and Mirage 2000 vs Mig-29A and F/A-18 vs Mig-29C to M, basic Su-27 & Su-30, F-35, J-31 vs all eurocanards, canard and early thrust vectoring Sukhois, j -20 vs Mig-35, Su-35, PAK-FA. F-22 is an one of a kind bird on this regard so it wouldn’t fit easily in this kind of a incremental scale.
MarcellogoSorry that I was not clear enough.
“Neither should anyone count Gen. Yeager as an expert on modern air warfare.”
The “he” is addressed to anyone who says “Look what Gen. Yeager said!!! The F-22/35 must be a POS if he said so.”
Ok, question settled:I get the idea of the type involved.
Obviously i have also the idea of the perfect opposite one, always coming in defense of the same regardless of question involved.
MarcellogoThe Gen 4 jets will not fly “alongside”, but at a safe distance in trail of the Gen 5s. The Talon Hate pod allows F-15s to communicate with F-22 IFDL. This allows the F-15s to serve as mini arsenal planes, shooting missiles at targets identified by F-22.
Djcross, a response like yours make me question my own capability to write in English:I was writing about armaments acquisition programmes and you have taken the word alongside as i was describing a tactical situation with airplanes phisically flying one near the other…:confused:
MarcellogoThey are not a waste because the US has been in the business of ensuring it can maintain Air Dominance in any battlefield. They learned their lessons in Vietnam of having parity/near-parity and they did not like it.
Without the the F-22/35 & T-50/J-20/J-31 Just meas that our F-15/16/18s would be facing Mig-35s & Su-35s. We would not put up with that level of parity and quite frankly being a little behind the 8-ball with some of those.
Your reasoning can be reversed into its contrary however: how it comes that USAF has not any equivalent to Mig-35, Su-34, Su-30SM, Su-35, something like to say an american equivalent of Typhoon or the Rafale D or the Gripen NG alongside, not in substitution of F-22 and F-35, with maybe the same AESA radar and the DAS?
USN has almost the SH , maybe not a match for the planes listed above but surely almost giving them some respite, until the F-35 would arrive.
MarcellogoI have never made such claims. The battle between radar and countermeasure has being going on since WW2. But yes, sometimes the enemy doesn’t realise that he is being jammed.
But are datalinks in question directional? And if so, how directional? SAM and radar systems are not just the hunters; they are also the hunted. They need to move regularly in order to avoid being targeted. While some people get excited by the fact that a Yugoslav SA-3 unit shot down an F-117, I’m equally interested by the fact that the unit in question had to keep moving regularly in order to avoid being attacked., and is reported to have clocked up 100,000 km during a 78 day conflict. How many hours does it take to travel 100,000 km? The figures suggest that it didn’t spend a lot of time deployed and ready to fire.
Once a radar or SAM unit arrives at its new (temporary) location, how long will it take to set up directional datalinks? Omnidirectional will be much faster. And how directional will the datalink antennas be, and how big will their sidelobes be?
In a world where elint operations can target hand-held radio and cellphones, detecting a datalink should not be too difficult.
They do – and just think for a moment about their tactical limitations. If I can force the bad guys to rely on cables, the minimum distance between their system components becomes constrained by the maximum length of the cable, while the time needed to setup and teardown must increase by the need for personnel to deploy and stow the cable. The system will spend less time in a ready-to-fire condition before it is time to ‘bug out’ to a new location, while the reduced separation between system components will make the latter easier to detect and attack.
Give that there were around 40 F-117 in theatre and almost 250 F-16s, it is hardly surprising that the latter flew more sorties.
The “more losses” refers to only a single F-117. A single failure tells you nothing, statistically. The sample is too small.
None of this being the result of the F117 presence in the area.
Also, this suggests that this particular SAM team didn’t have much time to observe the regular routes flown by the F117.
Nic
It seems me that there we are at the usual confrontation going nowhere in which what The things my own part have to do is the easiest and would always work flawless and the ones that your have to do are actually impossible or won’t actually work.
About the F-117 thing in particular, just two considerations:
It was not Russia, it was not China, it was neither India, Iran or even North Korea, it was just Serbia (and Montenegro still).
And it was not S-400, nor S-350, neither S-300v, nor BUK and even KUB, it was Sa-3/S-125 Neva.
The same fact that someone has get to keep that old piece of scrap on the move for 78 days and operational would be worth for itself the highest decoration of valor, let’s imagine being able to shot down a stealth plane.
MarcellogoI am not offering up myself as an expert in modern combat.
However, neither should he.
Would you trust a mechanic from the 60’s to work on your new Tesla?
Neither Yaeger have done.
He just responded to a question through his own twitter not through some magazine , even if him, differently by the most of us, would be naturally qualified for doing so.
MarcellogoLet’s define fully committed there please.
Also the USN is fully committed to end developing and acquire F-35C but it has not stopped to acquire a steady amount of F/A-18E&F in the meantime nor it plan to scrap them in order to buy more of the new one.
Same for Russia an China that in the meanwhile of their own fifth gen fighters development still keep acquiring scores of 4++ fighter.
Here in Europe we are still buying Typhoons and will keep doing so also when first batches of F-35 would enter service.
It was just the USAF to practically stops acquiring new fighter planes in the last fifteen/twenty years (just a small number of F-15E and F-16 block 50/52 just to replace attrition and keep lines open) to make full space for a 100% 5 gen line, that until now is mainly in the mind of God.
So we have two different approach here about acquisition line composition and so on and IMHO one of the two is plain dead wrong.
You and any other there can naturally be of a completely different advice.
Sign In
