AspisThere is little chance that big scale air war actually will happen. All nations have the planes and numbers that an be seriously impact wars. I think the major problems of tis decade are not nations at war but terrorism without the link to a specific nation. Or inside struggle. In that case you cannot do much. We have seen war in Afghanistan but in the end it went worser by the day.
To me, a China-India war seems an insanity. It will be an unprecedent bloodbath, even if it remains strictly on conventional weapons. But, usually arms races do seem an insanity, yet, they happen. NATO vs USSR also seemed an insanity, but both sides were competing also on conventional weaponry. A theory says that there is the possibility where 2 nuclear countries can “afford” a conventional battlefield, as long as it doesn’t bring total defeat for the one side.
I don’t know. I don’t know in depth the needs of Indian Armed Forces either, nor can i compare them with the Chinese. I have a picture of the antagonism in the area and certain chinese moves that my dear Quadbike has told me about, that show that you have conflicted interests with China, but as to what are realistic scenarios that you could expect, i don’t know.
AspisI think you’re still missing the point, along with overstating the Typhoon’s advantages. By situational awareness, I mean that the F-35 would’ve had the first look, and the ability to start setting up a shot, before the Typhoon was aware( which would mean that the F-35 could have already gotten up to speed). Your assumption is mutual detection, and then both aircraft begin accelerating at the same time. By staying straight, the F-35 can maintain a higher energy state, though the tactics will obviously be situation dependent, and the F-35 pilot will be countering maneuvers that put it at a disadvantage. The Typhoon would already be on the defensive and at a lower energy state, assuming it survived the BVR attack, and not likely in the position to dictate the terms of the merge.
I also think you’re overstating whatever disadvantages the F-35 would have in terms of turn rate/acceleration, while ignoring the greater nose pointing authority, and full spherical engagement coverage vs frontal hemisphere.
Ah, you talk starting from BVR. That’s another story. Yes, if the F35 detects the EF first (most likely) and can also ID the Typhoon before the Typhoon detects and does the same, then there’s an obvious advantage. I took it from after the BVR has finished, assuming that both survived.
To be honest, as i have written in other thread, based on what EADS said, the Typhoons will need to at least slightly outnumber the F35 in order to work properly. On 1 vs 1 the F35 will have advantage.
The other question mark, to which i have never found reply, is how can you be sure in real war, that your “first look” is a Typhoon and not a friendly aircraft. Based on Serbia and Iraq, real war BVR engagments were far closer than one would think, limited by the target ID. So unless something has changed, the “first look, first kill”, remains an accademic theory. The way i see it, ID will be made at IRST distance. If at that distance the Typhoons are still unable to detect the F35, then by all means, they will receive the first shot.
In general, life in BVR, is easier for the F35, because it needs not to make some particular tactic. Whether the ID range will exceed the detection range from the enemy side, is something i can’t tell.
Assuming survival from the BVR stage, the Typhoon can regain its energy state fast and if it has replied to BVR shot, its state will most likely be better than the F35’s (which will have to manouver too and thus lose energy too). The only way that i see that Typhoon won’t be able to dictate the terms, is if for some obscure reason, has prefered not to shoot any missile to the F35 and waits to go to 0nm distance to do so… Why would it do that…
I don’t see why i underestimate the F35’s characteristics. Is there anywhere where it beats the Typhoon? If the Typhoon climbs right after the BVR “survival” stage can it follow without losing more energy? If it doesn’t follow, the Typhoon will trade altitude for a faster descent approaching the merge . Can it fly faster than the Typhoon? The total coverage is advantage, but only if the other can’t put you in his frontal hemisphere before that. And i don’t see why an opponent that has better kinetic performance in all fields can’t put you in his frontal hemisphere. It can outturn you too, so why does he have to come at your tail to shoot? It’s like having a family car trying to outmanouver a Porsche. It won’t happen. If the Porsche wants to bring you in her frontal hemisphere, it can do so, no matter how you hard you try.
The only way to make the Typhoon have to come to your rear hemisphere, is to somehow manage to “stick” next to it during the merge, so that you will cross tighly to each other, wing to wing. The way i see it, the Typhoon pilot must be a moron to do that. If the Typhoon keeps a bit of a lateral margin, a tight turn will be enough to have the F35 in frontal hemisphere and fire. They may both get killed, but… i don’t see how the F35 will use the rear coverage to get out of it alive. Against a non HOBS aircraft, yes, it could work.
The advantage of the F35 that i see, is in BVR, assuming, that ID range will exceed detection range. I also see an advantage in BVR in needing less complicated approach. The way EADS tells her tactic, there must be at least 2 Typhoons “in order to use their weapons to max range”, approaching from different angles, so that one of the 2 will pick up the F35 and then either fire or pass the target via link to the other Typhoon so that it can fire too.
In WVR, against opponent with HOBS that has better kinematic performance, i don’t see an advantage of the F35. On the contrary, the opponent doesn’t need stealth, so he may well have more missiles to fire , including more “dogfight” missiles. If somehow the F35 does manage to avoid being shot during merge and puts the enemy to its rear and fires while the enemy still hasn’t a firing solution, then bravo to the F35. But i just don’t see it so easy to do. Certainly it won’t be so easy as LM shows it in its videos, where the F35 passes like an arrow between “frozen” (or “startled”)opponents, who then wake up and try to make the 180 degree turn, but alas get erased by the F35 missiles that have made in the meantime their own 180 degree turn and are coming for them. If not for anything else, even the “frozen” opponents, if with HOBS, won’t have to make a 180 degree turn, but most likely a 80 degree before firing to the F35 that is happily flying its level path with his fuel exhaust openly exposed to the opponent’s missile.
Anyway, when the F35 will actually fly operationally, i will have a more or less clear picture of it, because right now i only know the LM computer animation video.
AspisAspis, with all due respect, the Greek financial crisis seems to make you think that the same financial crunch is affecting India too or is about to hit soon.
That is not the case. India spends only around 2.5% of its GDP on defence and even out of that, a very big percentage of capital expenditure gets returned at the end of the year since the bureaucracy means that money meant to be spent doesn’t get spent. India can afford to both acquire and fly 126 twin seat fighters. It will be cheaper to acquire and fly 126 single seaters but really, money is NOT the biggest problem for India.
In deed, our crisis has affected my views for the greek choices. But, for India’s case, my opinion is based on this that i wrote:
This, because you have an arms race against China, who is spending more than you
If this isn’t an issue, then by all means, you can get anything without thinking about costs. If being more efficient than China isn’t an issue, IMHO, you can buy both EF and Rafale if you ask me. Split it in 2 and take the 2 best 2-engined fighters and get the best of 2 worlds. A similarity with weapons with Mirage and political liberty and ToT from EADS on the other hand and a 2nd A-A specialist.
It’s just that for me, this is not an efficient way to conduct an arms race against someone who spends twice as you.
Aspis– the AIM-120D had HOBS capabilities(and a much greater range than a SRAAM)
Ι know it has HOBS capability and has a greater range, but being bigger and longer, doesn’t necessarily means that you are more suited for short distance fight. I think there is a reason of why airforces buy dedicated dogfight missiles instead of just getting one that “will do for all”.
-your assumption is that the foe would be merging with equal situational awareness, and it’s by no means a given, that that will be the case. Agility isn’t useful till you know that you need to maneuver.
My assumption is, that if someone knows where the F35 is, he can position himself adeguately. Basically, my assumption is that the F35 won’t remain insivisible forever, but will be revealed well before the merge. He doesn’t NEED to have “equal situational awareness”, he just needs the amount necessary to do a task. For example, you may have night vision googles. But if we are both in a lighted room, all i need is my eyes to kill you. Yes, you have night vision googles, but at close quarters, i don’t need them. You have better situational awareness, but i have enough to kill you. The rest is “overkill”.
-how does one begin their turn before the merge? That would result in them presenting their side or rear to the F-35, which is certainly not the most advantageous attitude to be in.
By increasing the lateral distance before the merge in a smooth curve. The one that is faster and can manounver better, will get the fight to its prefered distance and angle (and altitude actually). There is no need to present the rear. You can “run” faster and turn better than the opponent before the merge. You can then create the conditions of avoiding to have to make a “too tight” turn. Yes, you will have a angular frontal aspect towards him, while the F35 will be trying to turn directly in to you, but with HOBS missile, you will too have him at zero degree aspect to your missile as you go near the merge. Showing your side to the missile, is actually better than showing your nose. I don’t know if i describe this as i should. Take for example that the opponent is the Typhoon. And the Typhoon has spotted the F35 and things are leading to a merge. If the Typhoon decides to outrun the F35 to gain lateral distance in a smooth turn before the merge, so that it can suddenly turn on the F35 on the merge, what can the F35 do to stop that? Nothing, because the Typhoon is faster, has better acceleration, climb rate, you name it. In every manouver, the Typhoon will be faster. The F35 can try a shot on the Typhoon while this is doing its smooth curve. But so can the Typhoon, because with HOBS, it just needs to have it on the front hemisphere. Even if we suppose that during the curve, it won’t, if it just turns hard instantly, it can bring it back to launching parameteres to shoot too.
The worst position to get a missile is head on or at your tail. Lateral is actually better. The F35 if continues to fly straight, will only make things worse. Turning towards the Typhoon will be better, but it will be heads on to a Typhoon’s off bore missile and no matter how fast you run, he can run faster. So it’s the Typhoon that will dictate how the merge will happen. UNLESS, of course, the Typhoon doesn’t detect the F35. But, i think that this won’t be so likely.
It’s basically similar to the F18 vs F4 scenario in the video. Both are turning, but it’s the F18 that gets in more advantageous position. Now imagine if someone positions himself even before the merge. He can outclimb, run faster and with better acceleration. No matter what you try to do, he can position himself to how HE likes. At the merge, his position will be more to HIS liking that to yours. You can shoot him before the merge, but then so can he… He has an entire hemisphere too where to keep you and maintain a firing solution on you, he doesn’t need to always point on you. You want to fire at him while he turns? Fine, if Amraam D his RWR and MAWS will let him know in case he doesn’t notice the missile trail, if it’s AIM9, his MAWS will let him know. And he ll turn hard and shoot too, if he doesn’t have you already in his hemisphere. He may even have more missiles than you and thus shoot you before you do, because he can afford a missile less.
AspisJust a few points here- the -9X isn’t the only HOBS weapon that the F-35 carries, so carrying external weapons, or modifying the bays to use Sidewinders, isn’t the key to success. Secondly, if the F-35 is going fast in a straight line, even a more maneuverable foe, will take time to get turned into a firing position, and…the range of a HOBS shot vs a receding target will be much lower.
You mean the Amraam D will do the same? In that case i would give the advantage to the aircraft wih IR HOBS. The Amraam isn’t optimized for such a fight, assuming it can cue a target through DAS. That’s why all manufacturers have in production dedicated HOBS.
I think that if the F35 goes fast in a straight line, it will be worst for the F35. The enemy can start his turn slightly before the merge and will see the non manouvering F35 sooner in his front hemisphere.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3152/72165858.png
The problem is this. A more manouverable enemy will dictate at what distance the merge will occur, not the F35. The F35 would have in its best interest to merge perfectly parallel and as close horizontal separation as possible to the enemy. But if the enemy can out-accelerate and outmanouver the F35, the F35 won’t be able to choose how they will merge. The other will.
AspisThe motor impulse of a short range missile lasts less than a second. I don’t see the possibility of 360deg missile coverage as very realistic unless some are mounted pointing rearwards.
I have my doubts too and it will also need to either carry AIM9X externally (goodbye stealth) or later get an internal AIM9x version (reducing the internal payload), but i think it’s a good concept, if it works.
I found this:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/61051-f-35-jsf-maneuvering-irrelevant.html
And then also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-CeuO1R4WE
The second one, made me think about the “manouverability is irrelevant”. It may be for the F35, but won’t guarantee that it will save it. A more manouverable enemy that is merging, will probably put quickly the F35 in it’s frontal hemisphere and shoot the AIM9x just like in the video the pilot does against the F4 drone. So what you can do in your rear hemisphere won’t matter probably, it will all be finished before that. It could be a mutual kill though. I mean, in the LM DAS video, the enemy has to “turn” and take the 6 oclock of the F35. Well, apparently not… if the enemy has HOBS. All he needs is to turn a bit tighter during the 1st pass and he can launch.
I don’t know… It’s sure good against enemy without HOBS, that HAS to take your tail.
Modifying the missile to be able to turn backwards i think won’t be a problem. I remember the news about Rafale shooting MICA backwards using the link from another Rafale. The missile will probably take more time to make a full turn at high speed, but it can be done. The question is, what will your opponent be doing during that time. If he has HOBS probably he won’t bother to take your exact 6 o’clock.
At the end, IMHO, in the merge, the one with most kills, will be the one that will be able to fire more HOBS missiles quicker… So it will come down to numbers of missiles and aircrafts.
AspisAnd it’s not just about flying hours or maintenance cost. It’s also about the benefits of specialization, that are a bonus of using each type to a primary or even only role. For example, if you want in IAF to have an aircraft more for CAS, your pilots will be able to spend more hours in CAS trainning. At the same manner, your PAK FA pilots will spend more hours in A-A trainning. This will result in pilots that for their role, will be more trainned than if they had to do “a bit of everything”. This is also one of the positive sides of having different aircraft types, to justify the cost. Multirole is a good marketing feature and is also something that fits many countries. But once you take the road of having more aircraft types, a “multirole pilot” will be less trainned than a “A-A” pilot or an “A-G” pilot, for the same flying hours. Or even inside the same aircraft type, a pilot from a squadron that has primary “SEAD” role, will be better trainned in SEAD than a generic “multirole” pilot or even a generic “A-G” pilot, because he will be spending a higher percentage of his flying in SEAD trainning than in other tasks, while the “multirole” pilots will have to divide their hours between more tasks.
AspisHow about talking about flying hours ? How does the RuAF compare with the USAF or other western airforces ? A twin engined fighter costs more to fly and therefore less flying hours per pilot.
Royal Airforce will have its complement of F 35s soon, but they are still not what you call big airforces.
How about you looking at U.S.A, China, RoKaf, JSDF, the other IAF…Turkey, Greece…
The thing is this. You can buy twin engined. You CAN also maintain it. But, it comes down at how you distribute funding inside your armed forces. For example, if you buy something that requires 2 or 3 times the maintenance cost of a Gripen, you can divert the money there, but it will be money that you will cut from elsewhere (navy? army?).
At the end, is about administrating your funds. My opinion, which i have said before, is that IAF has too many aircraft types to have them doing overlapping missions and with overlapping abilities. You must see for the MMRCA WHAT is the sector that you miss something and thus need to fill a gap and buy for that role the most cost-effective solution. This is how an airforce with diverse aircraft types, can transform the financial loss into an advantage. For example, if you think you lack in A-A, buy more PAK-FA, no reason to buy for MMRCA something that will be better in A-A.
This, because you have an arms race against China, who is spending more than you. So, having more aircraft types, is costly. But can give operational gains, if they cover better different roles. If you buy many aircraft types that more or less do the same things at the same level of proficiency, IMHO you ‘re wasting your money. Maybe your airforce will be OK, but it’s money that you will cut from some navy or land system.
In 2 words, there are 2 ways to go: a) Point to uniformity of the fleet. Few aircraft types, that like it or not will have to do everything, b) Point to multipe aircraft types, which will cost more, but, if used wisely each to its strong point, will pay off in operational gains. But, if you just buy many types, overlapping, with the most expensive choices out there, you ‘re doing wrongly both a) and b) and the only result, is that in the long run the Chinese invest their money more efficiently.
Aspisas for “360° missile shoot ability, that reminds me the “invulnerable” WWII bombers who has 360° MG coverage… .
But, you must admit, that if the 360 shooting does work as advertized, the F35 will bring a revolution in building aircrafts. Automatically, the F22, PAK-FA and J-20 are a waste of money. The bad thing about such a thing though, will be that differences between aircrafts will become minimal. Any flying brick (let alone the F35) will be able to shoot down F22 or Pak Fa or J-XX at dogfight… Soon everyone will incorporate similar functions and flight performance will be of no concern.
Personally i will wait and see how things work out. Because it is rather obvious that someone is building aircrafts in the wrong manner. It remains to be seen who that is.
AspisHere’s a recent article about the F35 flight characteristics (not a novelty of course).
F-16s’ arrival brings ‘battle rhythm’ to strike fighter wing
Posted 1/14/2011… Officials elected to bring the F-16 to the wing because of its similarity to its descendant, the F-35. Its flying characteristics are similar to the F-35 so the training and mindset pilots are going to have in a single-engine fighter transitions from the F-16 into the F-35…
AspisThat’s just something some random came up with, no official name has been given yet.
Thanks. It was a nice name though. Not difficult to remember either.
AspisPardon the confusion, but after reading the first page, i got lost. I haven’t followed this thread closely. Last time i remember J-7 Hotdog said that the chinese name of the J-20 was “Wei Long” (nice name and suitable too). Has it changed??
AspisFunny how stealth was the only thing that mattered until China tagged along, then “sensors can see it”. 🙂
You did notice it too, didn’t you… 😀 Before you know it, they will say that LPI is no more LPI so the “Wei Long” is traceable back to its emissions!
For example, if the EF-T can detect the F-22 at 150nm, what does it matter if the F-22 can detect the EF-T at 200nm?
Better yet, if both can’t ID each other before 50km, does it matter if they could detect each other at 150nm?
AspisUse the ‘translate a document’ facility – though I think you’ll need to download the document first.
Click on the link below the text box.
Ah, thank you so much! I can’t believe i hadn’t noticed that… I tried it on the F104 article pdf… Not too good result, half of the article remained in greek, some words and expressions are plain wrong and there are some serious syntax errors that make phrases uncomprehensible, but some individual terms are more correctly translated. For example the 17th “grade” of the compressor is i think more correctly translated as “17th stage”. If i had know about this, i would have consulted it before making the free translation. The result would have been better. Well, it will be for the next time…
Aspishanks, Aspis. Sorry I didn’t notice the actual link. 😀 But thanks anyway. 😉
Sorry I don’t know how to do that, my boss (girlfried) knows I think. But shes kind of…Semi-alive on the settee at the moment, and I dare not wake her. lol Failing that, if the text, grammar etc is 100%(ish) correct, you could get a pretty accurate translation by using Google. Just a matter of copy & paiste. The accuracy might sometimes be a little, ‘in-accurate’ but you can get a pretty good idea of what it means. Thats what I usually do anyway. But if I find another better way, I’ll let you know as soon as I can. 😉
Thank you. I do use google translate too, but with pdfs it doesn’t work… In any case, if your girlfriend knows how to do that, then you needn’t worry about text correctness or grammar in that particular pdf. It’s almost perfect, because the article had been pubblished on the paper edition of the magazine too. Usually google translate from greek to english gives fair results, but with cases also of incomprehensible phrases, because the greek grammar is more complicated than english and there are also too many synonyms. But you should get some idea. When you know more or less already what the text says, it should be easier. Good luck.
Sign In
