MarcellogoI think DAS’s primary objective is to detect threats like missiles, so it cannot scan like an IRST, it needs to watch constantly everywhere, hence a wide angle sensor. However, it would probably be possible to make a 360 degrees real IRST, either with one turret or several. It would be good to guide missiles at 360 degrees in BVR up to 50-100km but it wouldn’t replace the something like the DAS.
Side and rear looking Aesa array would do the trick, no sense however to launch a missile to hit something at your own back as it would have an awful practical range, better to made a 360° degree turn and launch it when you are between 90° and 180° degree and keep on going.
MarcellogoVLO will be a no-issue, it the sense that anyone relevant around there would have mastered it enough to have it in all their future fighters.
Think most relevant progress would be to get beyond actual turbofan engines toward scramjet or pulse detonation engines .
As it would take quite time I think however there would be space for a sort of 5.5 gen: unmanned version of actual fighters with variable bypass engines and a full 360° sensor coverage.
MarcellogoUsing a satellite to directly locate a stealth aircraft through inboard sensor has not much sense, too big an area to scan.
Better thing is operate in the opposite way: develop a multistatical , not cooperative radar sensor network able to receive and exploit SAT radio & TV emissions as they actually just are able to do with other ones: every planes passing between emitters and receiver would be seen by ground station as a black point standing before a white screen, with not any significant difference from being stealth or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_radio
Vantage of such a system would be that planes would not be able to avoid (or better said , to reduce effectiveness) of such a detection mode through very high quote flight pattern.
MarcellogoI think your time on afterburner calculation is meaningless in real world conditions unless you want to burn all your fuel at sea level conditions.
For example, given that air density represents the mass per unit volume of air, a jet engine will produce far less thrust at high altitude where the air is less dense, and since we know that fuel flow is directly related to thrust (it is thus thrust-specific) and that for example, in supersonic cruise conditions thrust equals drag (and there is so much less drag at high altitude), the plane can go very fast for longer time with far less thrust using less fuel compared to sea level conditions.
You can`t just use the sea level static thrust numbers for engine max power and thrust specific fuel consumption number to calculate for example the range and time on burner at higher altitude without knowing the engine thrust numbers at that specific height and drag of the plane at given speed and height. The performance figures for two different planes, such as Su-27 and F-35 will be different even if they have the same time on afterburner at similar conditions. One can for example travel at Mach 2 speed and the other can travel at Mach 1,6 for that period of time. That would be a huge difference in performance.
Also, TSFC is not constant, it varies (probably not that much) with altitude, flight Mach number, ambient temperature, throttle setting etc.Interesting read regarding range and time. . .
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/flying-the-flanker/
When we talk about maneuverability/agility it is also very important to be very specific about number figures and almost every information about F-35 is not that specific. For example, they say it has ability to exit at 50° AoA in controlled fashion and it seems that this is enough to assume that it has F-18 high AoA nose pointing ability?
I don`t think so because we don`t know about its pitch, roll/yaw rates at that conditions. I`m not saying it is inferior than F-18, I really don`t know, but other than 50° AoA there is not much useful information. F-18 is rare plane that can comfortably roll at high AoA and can point its nose in every direction, but for the time it can finish 180° roll at 35° AoA, Su-35S can finish 360° roll at almost two times higher AoA. In other words, both planes can roll at 35° AoA but the difference in roll rate will be significant. And if the F-35 is sluggish at high angle of attack conditions, than its ability to exit 50° AoA is not of much use.
Mig-31Bm, you have made a gigantic error there. ARH is Active Radar Homing, not Anti Radiation Missile (ARM)…:o
AIM-53, AIM-120, Standard 6, Meteor, AA-12 Arrow, S-400 missiles…
TSFC 1.92? compared to what?
Altitude? Thrust and fuel used is dependent on the amplification ratio. The stoichiometric ratio remains the same, so it has to adjust on the altitude gained.
Speed. What is the ram-recovery of the intake and the thermal efficiency of the engine?
6.9 minutes reheat? Is the reheat system cleared for that length of time? Is it a 1750K or 1900K system? what damage can occur when the heat has stretched the reheat pipe?
Gasflow. Are you talking about sonic or supersonic gasflow through the engine?
WHAAT? Mig-31 doesn’t get really new features when compared with Foxbat?
Turbofans instead of turbojets, two seater, 4 long range missiles with TVM (track via missile, given your last exploit better to write it in full words), first airborne PESA radar…
And you even use it as your nickname…
Poor Mig-31bm, it seems like those “all against one” shows…
Let give him a little break or we will pass as ebil F-35 haters.
Marcellogobecause it doesn’t really get new feature ( F-35’s feature different from F-35 are : ability to fly very far on internal fuel , VLO characteristics, internal weapon bays
WHAAT? Mig-31 doesn’t get really new features when compared with Foxbat?
Turbofans instead of turbojets, two seater, 4 long range missiles with TVM (track via missile, given your last exploit better to write it in full words), first airborne PESA radar…
And you even use it as your nickname…
Marcellogoanti radiation seeker is impractical for an AAM, or SAM because they will be useless the moment enemy aircraft turn their nose away or turn off their radar
the only thing you can hope to shot down by an ARH AAM or SAM is an AWACS than constantly transmissting and moving in the same direction the whole time
Mig-31Bm, you have made a gigantic error there. ARH is Active Radar Homing, not Anti Radiation Missile (ARM)…:o
AIM-53, AIM-120, Standard 6, Meteor, AA-12 Arrow, S-400 missiles…
MarcellogoWhen did the Su-35 become a benchmark for defining a ‘flying brick’?
How do you intend to cue the Storm Shadow/KEPD 350 without involving the fighter jet? Terrain-following will take your missile to a bridge or a building. Not to a mobile radar unit.
Hmm so a PhD would be handy in deciphering this gobbledegook(?):
About the L-band on Pak-Fa I doest just mention nor one nor the others at all,so
PAK FA isn’t carrying ‘one of those’. Its got an L-band array for IFF & ESM. And just for the record, both the F-22 & F-35 also incorporate L-band arrays in their ESM suites.
I know for a fact that the invention of the radar, let to the incorporation of the radar on aircraft and that radar-equipped aircraft were considered superior to their non-radar equipped peers. Apparently nobody was waiting on a ‘radar-nullifying’ silver bullet technology.
Seeing as
1. the US is ‘building stealth planes‘ despite Russia & China ‘making a serious effort in building stealth detecting radars‘, and
2. Russia & China are ‘building stealth planes‘ despite the US ‘making a serious effort in building stealth detecting radars‘apparently all three of them are lacking in ‘sense’.
It is you saying that a 50 degree AoA was something exceptional, worth alone to cancel the definition of flying brick I gave to the F-35, I just make a note about this being a normal performance in current fighters.
About the stand off missiles, when you mention them one can naturally though that you are saying that instead going deep and using bombs you suggest to counter stealth detecting radar launching them from distance. For doing so you not need to use a stealth plane as a vector. Our armed force will get F-35 but would use Eurofighters for launching them.
You instead now in this latest post suggest than Jsow and Jassm would be used as ARM? and what is those , pardon me, weirdnesses about the necessity of a fighters to cue a stand off missile? Ground radar and Sam can’t take it down the same? Jsow and Jassm for what I know are not specialized anti-radar missiles but just gps guided weapons, so what they would be useful against mobile radar sites?
PAK-fa in not carring any of those, I know perfectly, you know perfectly, Mig-31bm know perfectly.
Only thing was that Mig-31 was instead convinced that I was referring to the L-band surfaces when Iwas talking about long wave radars. so i send that line to say to him that it was not the case given. Pardon me, if such phrase sorted out something that you have difficulty to understand, i’m not a native english speaker.
for the rest iwas just using your same logic: if you said that is absurd to buid a stealth plane if exist a radar able to detect it, the same would apply to conventional planes against conventional radars, in both cases they (stealth ones)would fly the same lik e the others have flown after the radar introduction: with much more care than before.
So, just being stealth now would not allow a plane to penetrate in enemy air defenses anymore, it would require a careful planning, lot of support and good performances i.e. what we are discussing here as a possible F-35 drawback.
MarcellogoFlying brick with a 50 degree AoA.
JSOWs and JASSMs are just for that.
This statement doesn’t seem to make sense.
Its interesting that all the countries fielding ‘stealth-killer’ L-band radars also seem to developing stealth fighters. Suicidal tendencies, I suppose.
50 degree less than a Su-35.
So all the extra money spent for Stealth are just been wasted?
Maybe with some of them spared also the US would maybe have added a terrain-following mode to their own missiles like we have done on our Storm Shadow and Kepd 350.
It help a lot, you know.
Also the money spent on your education,it seems.
No one country is spending money to stealth killing L-band radar, L-band is the decimeter one, metric one is the C.
So no one there have ever though that Pak-Fa will be carrying one of such. It was a Mig-31Bm wild assumption and that was the sense of my statement. Just a correction, get it now?
About your other statement: according to your logic,no one would have been flown any conventional military plane after the invention of the radar.
In every case, building stealth planes would still have a lot of sense WHEN your probable opponent is not making any serious effort in building Stealth detecting (not killing, it is not a death ray) radars.
MarcellogoGuy, allow me just a word about all mathematics and statistiacal waste of time about bvr possibility of success.
Most of this calculation seem to assume planes practically fixed in a point, one faced to the others in always the same position and doing nothing for all the time of the engagement.
It just doesn’t work so you know: all those things are just oversimplifications.
Any long range engagement with missiles depends heavily by a lots of variables.
The quote, the distance between the two (if they are two) how they are faced, how they react one with the other: there is not any mathematical model to cope with such things.
One thing sure is that launching a missiles at the longest possible distance against a approaching fighter, the school case there, is a recipe for failure.
MarcellogoSorry Mig-31BM, I needed to go out of town in a hurry.
turn rate, climb rate, roll rate, dive rate, acceleration rate, celling, speed are all related to kinematics
It only lack take off and landing run and you would have listed all the possible performances of a plane…
I was much more modest thinking you was referring just to the ones like speed, climb rate and acceleration that were related to a scramble mission.
So according to your own word I was totally right when I said that F-35 specialized into being a flying brick.
Man, and I though I was just joking (or better saying a sad truth with an half smile):rolleyes:.
PAK-FA and F-22 sacrificed extreme speed and altitude to have good turn rate, Mig-31, mig-25 do it the other way round. No information about J-20, J-31 yet
For what I know both F-22 and (in future) PAK-FA sacrificed very little compared with, respectively, F-15 and Su-27/30 i.e. their antecessors and I think it was more because of stealth added features. MiG-31 also when compared with MiG-25 doesn’t sacrificed anything substantial in key performances.
and why cant F-35 be used in air defense role?, it have excellent VLO characteristics, excellent SA, it’s kinematics is comparable to F-15E, F-16
Comparable to bomb loaded F-15E and F-16, you mean.
Still have not noticed that all those fancy brochures refers to A2G loads???
And F-15E is not used for air defense roles anyway, C&D without conformal tanks are.
the point of VLO is they cant detect or cant track you by their FCR, if they can see you as easy as normal fighter then no one would bother making stealth fighter
Sorry, I was under the impression that strike fighters, VLO or not were done to penetrate enemy air defenses, avoid enemy interception and SAM, attack targets and possibly come back.
low frequency radar isn’t something new, you have that since WW II, it still have exactly same disadvantage
1) accuracy too low for weapons guider
2) too huge in size to put on fighter or even ship
with their huge size and the fact that they doesn’t move around alot , low band radar are the perfect target for cruise missiles
P/s : the L band slat on PAK-FA, Su-35 isn’t a radar but an IFF system
See answer above for the too huge in size for be put on fighters. Data links and integrated air defense network are there just for this.
About SAM missiles allow me to spend some words more:I had said on purpose modern, last generation SAM meaning with this the ones with ARH guidance.
Low band radars doesn’t gave a precise positioning of a target but they were in the old times coupled with targeting radars but actually they are perfectly capable to get enough precise data to perform mid course guidance for ARH missiles in order to put them close enough to lock on target on their own.
It is not easy, it is expensive in terms of upgrading cost but just a fraction of what it is necessary for get VLO planes.
About the L-band on Pak-Fa I doest just mention nor one nor the others at all,so ?????????????
funny that you taking about SAM
Do you actually believe that flying at 60k ft and mach 2 will make you invulnerable to SAM even if your aircraft being detected?
modern SAM can even shot down ballistic missiles that fly at mach 8-9 and come down from 100k ft so no! , without VLO and SA you will be death meat to SAM as much as normal aircraft
Flying at 60kt and at any speed is obviously a suicide WITHOUT ECM, ARM, heavy jammers suites and so on.
Now the point about metric wavelenght radars is that it is actually a suicide also for stealth airplanes, above all if they were designed to operate for long period at those quotes deep into enemy territory or without such systems on board.
low altitude will favor F-35 more, since low wing loading caused alot of drag at low altitude
Hope it will be so, a Tornado-like attack run is quite demanding, you know…
Marcellogoi dont see why you consider F-35 doesn’t have powerful A2A armament, or delicated avionics, or lacking combat persistent
Just this one, the rest for when i will not be busy…
You have just read wrong the part about the powerful A2A armament etc, etc… it was referred to the comparison between interceptors (thinking more about f-104/106 and Bac Lighting than Mig-25/31) and Air superiority fighters…
F-35 doesn’t fall into neither of those two categories,and by a very large margin
MarcellogoWell numbers are everything, only difference between magnetron in microwave oven and a transmitter of over-the-horizon radar is just 3 numbers.
Although not directly asked to me, I would ask the opposite; Which part of F-22, PAK-FA or J-20 makes you think that they are focused on kinematics?F-22? I put the numbers, maybe true maybe not. No single data to indicate it will clearly outperform F-15C in any area sufficent to make a difference.
PAK-FA? A definate no with current engines. It needs the mentioned 170+kN engines to significantly surpass Su-27S’s kinematics.
J-20? Most definately not when compared to J-11. No planned/desired ~150 kN engine will make a difference unless the aircraft actually weigh some 17 tons empty.
Probably with kinematics he means not just speed but the sum of it, climb rate and acceleration.
Now,,one thing is emphazising such performances at the direct expense of others, like in case of interceptors, other thing is to enhance those characteristics while keeping good overall performances how it happen in the air superiority fighters that have not casually taken almost completely the place of the formers.
Now it seems me that the aforementioned fighters have not been focused on kinematics when compared to others ones: IT IS THE F-35 THAT HAS BEEN FOCUSED TO BE A FLYING BRICK, even in comparison to the Hornet or a Su-17, just to name a pair of honest, efficient, battle proven zoomers, no one of what have been ever asked to become something different by what they really are.
MarcellogoIn “real life”, nobody flies alone and F-35 is no different. Expect a 4-ship to fly against low to moderately challenging targets and 2 x 4-ship against challenging targets. For air policing, a 2-ship can be expected. And a 4-ship or 2-ship doesn’t fly wingtip-to-wingtip as seen in the movies, but use widely-spaced, mutually supporting positions to enhance sensor effectiveness and survivability.
So your IRST-using bad guy has to defeat multiple shipsets of EODAS and ASQ-239s. IOW, Albert Ball’s tactic of gunning hapless tail end Charlie from below doesn’t work anymore.
Albert Ball? To be precise I was describing the former standard soviet/WP interception procedure: lag pursuit, high speed dive, an IR and a SARH missile launched together, a sharp but not complete turn (that’s because of the need of keeping SA radar guidance, now it can be a full one) full afterburner and bye bye.
You have probably missed the couple of missiles hint…
Such a procedure fell a little out of favor toward the end of the Cold War when they were faced by 4gen fighters/AWACS combo:in such a case you really had a superior situational awareness coupled with an all round good fighting performance.
EODAS and ASQ-234 won’t give nothing of such, no matter the number of F-35 involved: bad guys would just concentrate themselves in attacking the most external ones of the incoming attacking pack.
Inferior kinematics characteristics are an even worse disadvantage in a many vs many scenario.
Marcellogoyes you can see things with greater clarify by your eye than an IR camera, however, you dont have light at night and visual light wave are absorbed more by smoke, moiture in air
you forget about the most important part of DAS, it prevents enemy from sneaking up on the fighter from behind ( as the pilot also said in his interview) , some can sneak on him if he fly an F-16, no one can sneak on him if he fly an f-35
And, forgive me, the practical utility of such a thing against a real life opponent?
Winning an hide and seek game?
You can see it coming behind your F-35 as having better kinematics it is gone in a lag pursuit staying outside your visual range (a quite standard interception procedure).
It close distance, being faster than you it can do it easily and when your DAS would notice it,with all probability its IRST have not just seen, but also got a lock on you.
Now, what would be your own move and how can DAS help you ? It would probability just give you a non stop, multispectral, high definition flick of the couple of missiles with your name written on them coming to award you with a new pair of wings :angel:.
MarcellogoF-22 and PAK-FA focused on kinematics, yes
but F-22 born before the age of HOBS and DAS
PAK-FA may be simply due to the fact that Russian didn’t have alot of experience with stealth before, so they decided to focus more on what they have more experience about ( kinematics)
about J-20? i dont see any reason to believe it will be better than F-35 in term of kinematics, we dont even know it’s exact weight and thrust yet
Nor one of them is focused in Kinematics, the one focused on it are MiG-25, MiG-31 and generally all Interceptors, meaning that they were on purpose designed to have the most possible of it at the expense of other flight characteristics,most notably turn rate.
Air superiority fighters instead try to still have the most possible of it butcoupled with excellent performances in all others flight characteristics + powerful A2A armaments and dedicated avionics and enough combat persistence to effectively gain effective control of an aerial battle space.
Now all three airplanes you cited are fine examples of such kind of fighter planes, different one from the other but with a clear mission imprinting.
Now, one of such planes can evolve in a good deep strike or multirole fighter like it happened with F-15E, F-14D or Su-30 but a F-35 in an air defense role?
you cant engage and disengage again something you cannot see, and just out of curiosity how many G do you think F-22 will turn at 60-65K ft
Ok, now the problem is that THEY can see you. Expecially when you flight at 60-65k feet.
Wake up and stop dreaming: this is not the age of DAS but the era of low frequency radar, metric wavelength, AESA upgraded P-18, 3D Nebo + data fusion with X and L band radar. Or their Chinese and Iranian equivalents.
They can see you with enough precision to send salvo of latest generation SAM missiles against you with a discrete chance of success, let’s imagine about guiding 5 gen fighters to intercept you.
Now, given that, it would IMHO more important to know how f-35 (but also the others) would perform at 60/65 tens feets instead, the ones necessary for not being spotted by such radars.
On what basis are you coming to that conclusion? Is this another fluff statement pulled from thin air?
In this case it would be the exact equivalent of the LockMart initial ones.
Sign In
