MarcellogoDid the F-16A have bugs? Why do you pick the Block 30 as the definitive Viper, why not Block 25 or 50?
Point is, the F-16 is a bad example, because what later models offered in capability was never a requirement for the basic A models. Requirements grew along the way. Today, a WVR/dumb bomb only jet is not wanted, so the F-35 is actually required to be something of an F-16C equivalent right from the start. Even though that starting point has slipped some years to the right…
Probably he look to the letters: A/B being considered the IOC, C/D the FOC, in F-16 better to look the block numbers.
So the block 15 would be the mature version of the F-16A while the F-16 C was a totally different beast and the different blocks are evolutive steps in order to try to keep it in advantage or (more reastically) almost in par with the parallel introduction of Mig-29 and Su-27/30 advanced versions.
MarcellogoIt may have been part of the Tactical game back in the 90’s(F-22 IOC in 2006 anyway, so moot point)
But today, the F-22 has no chance operating over enemy contested airspace. Certainly not in the way you refering to above. Not in Advance AoD airspace, China, russia etc
WE HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME OPINION THEN.
F-22 was designed around a well determined mission with absolutely no compromise in everything was deemed necessary in order to be able to perform.
However, also with such an effort, original mission turned out to be impossible against updated, stealth conscious, air defense systems and so F-22 production was interrupted prematurely at 185 and so F-15C Eagle will be retained in service until the 2030…
Scariest thing is that the idea of an air dominance fighter is still there also for the 6th gen one…
MarcellogoWhat kind of mission are we talking about here? Interception? Combat air patrol? OCA or DCA?
What exactly was the original mission of the F-22? As far as I know it was made to be an air superiority fighter. I don’t know why you’re insisting that loitering over IADS was the design driver of the F-22 and its stealth features.
That being said, the T-50’s lower emphasis on all aspect stealth points do different mission requirements by the VVS, but the details of that are unknown.
Original:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245873[/ATTACH]
Modified:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245874[/ATTACH]
Do you have further readings about the matter? I’m curious.
Original mission for F-22 was to be an Air Dominance Fighter: the idea was that the stealth would allowed to extend Air Superiority /Supremacy well inside a major enemy controlled territory instead that just over the battle lines.
It have to be noted that it was envisaged that F-22 wouldn’t have needed to operate in counter aviation missions i.e. directly attacking enemy air bases to achieve that, just loitering aroung and engaging fighter planes that would eventually dare to take off.
Many of the more costly and troublesome features of F-22 came out from such an initial, let’s just say just excessively ambitious requirement.
So, actually no other 5-gen fighter plane in development just sport things like flat noozles or try to achieve the same overall level of stealth reduction in all directionsjust because they would be used along very different, more conventional roles in which such features are not deemed necessary or better said not worth the extra cost and complexity they bring.
EDIT: I have added the part in Italic for clarity sake.
MarcellogoYes, it is SOoooo presumptuous to think that maybe just maybe a fighter developed a couple decades later than its competitors and with vastly greater resources just might out perform them.
That is what is so amusing about this whole fanboy debate. There is a whole group of internet kiddies that are hoping (wishing really) that somehow the US will screw things up so completely that their favorite plane won’t be passed up…. but that just isn’t going to happen. The F-35 program has been a fiasco without a doubt, but technologically the program is unquestionably a leap ahead of anything else available in the West. (and this is evident in its export sales record)
The Super Hornet is a good plane, the Rafale is a good plane, the Typhoon is a good plane, even the F-16 is still a good plane, but none of them have a realistic chance of competing against the F-35.
+1 there.
Or to put it better: if you want something new or you take F-35 or you take F-35.
MarcellogoPolymer Matrix Composites.
And they will use them on what plane/copter?
Marcellogotake your pills boy, a short range AAM and helmet mounted sight isnt game changing, everyone got it already
It will be when AIM-9XII enters service. Lock after launch from an IR is game changing. Besides the current 9x has a 90degree off-boresight.
The “old” 9x is a beast.
Can’t spoof the 9x seeker unlike the R-73. Wonder why the Russians haven’t put out a video of their R-73 hitting targets with a HOBS?
Always same story, they comparate it with a F-16 and after it say that it is a game changer.
One entered service in 1978, other still have to do it in 2016 so it’s a 48 year span between the two. Also because Danish, Belgian , Dutch and Norwegian have just F-16A/B block 15.
It’s like to make a comparison between a MiG-23 MLD and Su-35S or in our case between f-104S and Typhoon block 3A.
MarcellogoFlash news
Denmark appears to have selected the F35,officially to replace their aging F16. Number is 27 airframes, 3 less than current number of F16.
Boeing marketing campaign ,on local radio ,actually hard rock one, to place the SH, did not seem to have succeeded.
No surprise there if you ask me.
Boeing seems me something desperate sometimes, he is advertising for an heavy carrier born plane in a tiny EU member nation.
What of a chance they think they can have, even in the case of a refuse of F-35, that they would buy it instead of any of Eurofighters?
MarcellogoMy favorite author is Stan Lee.
Now hows about that F-35 lol
My is Chris Claremont, but Stjepan Sejic is poised to reach him…
In Comics.
Back to f-35 then…
MarcellogoFirst, not my nation.
Mine is Dante Alighieri,Petrarca, Boccaccio, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Raffaello, Leonardo, Poliziano, Brunelleschi, Ariosto, Tasso, Caravaggio, Verdi, Rossini, Bellini… and other twenty pages like so…
So, in your own list the only one you can found as an example of american literature is Mark Twain?
Yes, he is certanly a great writer but almost add Edgar Allan Poe, Hawthorne,Steinbeck, Bukowski, Miller, Pound, Hemingway just to try playing in the same league please…
Certainly you can put also cinema in the art list and almost in this sector your own nation would fare excellently but also in this: Spielberg as the top????
Maybe the issue is right here…
Obviously take all this talking as an half ironic one. No one want to diminish your nation, just to remember that military might, economical wealth and technical prowess are not the only sectors that define a civilization.
P.S. And this is valid not just for the few ‘Murica but also for the RUSSIASTRONK! crew: yes, Russia is really a strong and important nation and one of world greater civilizations but for the thing they have accomplished in culture, art, music, science, in opening Siberia and the great North and East to modernity, in annexing several peoples into their own statuality without destroying nor forcefully integrating them and not for the weapon or the space vessels they have and will build.
Let’s remember this just in this day in which its own people celebrate the victory over a monstruous menace to all humanity.
MarcellogoRachmaninoff, buddy, you forgot Rachmaninoff.. !!!
But anyway, this is not about each nation’s achievements, I simply find an idea of openly discussing a potential destruction of some Russian city as.. let’s say.. insensitive.. I don’t think that our American members would feel comfortable reading posts of a bunch of mentally-not-completely-stable Russians discussing how to wipe out Miami.. It’s good that people like Jessmo don’t have any decision rights, I hope it remains so..
Cechov, that’s is even worse, I forgot Cechov. Oh my.:stupid:
For the rest, I think such a discussion was interesting,amusing, useful but I think it has overdone itself so it’s better to go back to usual business.
MarcellogoAnd why just Kaliningrad? Vladimir Vladimirovic would be even relieved if you wipe away this nest of liberal scum?
For the rest if you so badly want to demonstrate your nation to be superior to Russia, well I have a challenge for you.
Pusk’in , Turgeniev, Tolstoi, Dostoievsky, Gogol, Lermontov, Afanasieva,Gogol, Pasternak, Solgenitsin, Nabokov, Thaichovsky, Rimski-Korsakov, Stravinski, Prokofiev, Nabokov, Lisinsky.
Well, show me what your nation have produced that can be compared to the work of just a few between them before just talking about destruction and misery.
MarcellogoThe problem is the volume search area where this can be handled. The VHF radars finds VLO targets with only 50% of the standard range and therefore the difference in search area is HUGE! A circle with radius 100nm has an area of 31415 nm. A circle with a radius of 200nm has an area of 126000 nm. Now extend that to volume up to 60k…
The same coverage issues occur with X-band but do a much greater degree. If you have an S-400 TER that has a capability of detection one fifth against a VLO aircraft versus a 4th gen aircraft then you now need a hell of a lot more of them before you can claim complete coverage. As has been displayed graphically previously what happens is the VLO aircraft threads its way between the WEZs of the various systems using its internal ESM to determine detection thresholds.
You honour the threat… If you think the S-400 commander is going to rely solely on co-located CIWS systems such as panstir to destroy incoming SDB or other PGMS then you are mistaken.
A simple example. Each panstir has 12 missiles and 700 rounds of ammo per gun. For a battery of 6 panstir that is 72 missiles and 33600 rds of cannon ammo. The missile are effective only out to 12 nm and probably less than that against SDB style munitions while the gun is effective to 2nm. Wiki lists a maximum engagement of 10-12 targets in a minute per panstir, so probably at best 6 per 30 seconds per vehicle.
In context, a flight of four F-35s could have as many as 32 SDBs to launch against a priority target like an S-400 TER, all potentially launched within a 10 second window. Hence it would be relatively easy to swamp the attached CIWS of the S-400, forcing it to defend itself using its own missiles. Alternatively the S-400 uses other associated assets including other SAMS to defend itself, presenting these as targets of opportunity for engagement. All this while the S-400 TER realises that the moment it radiates to engage a target it has to move before its location is targeted by GPS guided weapons.
Never though that: I just used the pantshir as an example of the practise they use of organically attach Ciws unit to long range AD for selfdefense but in a typical OOB you would found several of such system operating together.
S-400 has 9M96E missiles also for point defense, 4 of them instead of a standard long range one, so if thanks to SDB F-35 can quadruplicate the number of targets it engage same apply to the defender.
Obviously, there will be also the S-350, the Morfey, the newer version of the Buk and of S-300V plus a myriad of other systems, some tasked with protecting the whole aereospace other aimed at protecting single army or airforce assets + air defense fighters coming into rescue.
On the other hands there would be other assets supporting F-35 but given that they would amount to be a greater numbers of all others USAF combat planes put together hope you would pardon me for same oversimplification.
So in the case of an (let’s hope just hypotetical) direct confrontation between two superpowers sky would certainly be blackened out but from both sides.
What I was actually contesting was the practise to examine just a system against the other without considering the whole scenario in which the battle would take place.
MarcellogoStick around, there is alot you don’t know.
The 1st step when you have a problem is….
Yes, I know…i’ll shut up and learn so.
MarcellogoROFL
Well in that case… Bravo, great achievement!
I just thought it was impossible to glide at supersonic velocity.
MarcellogoOn what grounds can you say that the nozzles were designed at the expense of fundamental performances and reliability parameters? Do you know what the reliability of the F119 nozzles are?
More than compensated? This “shoot, turn around and run” description is grossly simplistic assessment of air combat. All aspect RCS is important not just in egress. Also, this assumes that whatever aircraft that uses this method for survival dash away at maximum speed more than F-22’s, i.e. Mach 2+, something the T-50’s was simply not designed for. The T-50 is optimized for sustained supersonic cruise and high levels of maneuverability, NOT maximum dash speed (neither is any modern fighter aircraft other than interceptors), so its not designed with your “tactic” in mind, and in fact no air superiority fighter can even attempt this; the only aircraft that can try is the MiG-31, but that aircraft is designed for a fundamentally different mission from the T-50.
And how does the MALD-J factor into this? I’m curious as to how you can judge something as “suicide pattern”.
You citing one of my post of more than a month ago? I’m flattened.
Just allow me some time to go back and make up my mind a little about the whole discussion.
About the first of your contastation, i would reply that not just the noozles but all of F-22 was designed with the objective of the maximum possible reduction of RCS in any direction
I’don’t really know if it was really the noozles and not another part the responsable for the f-22 being generally considered an Hangar queen.
So said, certainly flat 2d noozles add considerable weight and complexity when compared to round ones even with TVC added.
The shoot, turn around and run was a standard tactic used by soviet interceptors and frontline fighters with their middle range missiles, always carried in pairs, one IR and the other Sarh, so i’m quite curious why you limit it only to Mig-31.
MALD-J is something that the one I was talking about proposed as a possible solution to the problem I raised up so I just replied to him.
Suicide pattern is a way to describe how it would turn out to be trying to utilize the air dominance mission pattern originally intended for F-22 use i.e. sending a plane to loiter over enemy controlled territory against a modern air defence system, it doesn’t in any way imply that F-22 cannot turn out the great fighter it is when employed in another, more realistic way.
Just I doesn’t expect that any future 5gen fighter plane to be designed with the same all round RCS level reduction scheme as the relative advantages it bring are not in any way enought to justified the cost, both monetary than in terms of performances and reliability it would imply.
For the rest, same US MoD seems to have come to the same conclusion and have stopped its production in favor of F-35.
Sign In
