TooCool_12fAnd Bluewings once again fails to understand the evolving IADS threat. :rolleyes:
Russian and Chinese IADS are extremely difficult to target and destroy. And expect whoever they sell their SAM systems to will be trained to use them. They are set up in networks of overlapping coverage and are designed to move frequently, typically spending only a couple dozen minutes in any location to prevent them from being targeted by SEAD.
Up to half of the SAM radars are moving while the other half are illuminating your Rafales. This means the SAM battery coordinates programmed into your Scalp EGs 30 minutes ago are now empty fields. Additionally, your Rafales can expect to be illuminated by 4-6 radars simultaneously, using war reserve LPI waveforms and frequency agility to negate the effectiveness of your ECM.
New SAM radars will pop up as they complete their move and other radars will go off line as they begin to move. Rafale has no military utility in this complex IADS environment. It will be a missile magnet and waste the lives of good French pilots.
Let the F-35s take down the IADS by using passive stealth to get close enough to target and destroy the SAMs in real-time. That is what they are designed to do.
In your scenario (4-6 radars illuminating networked) one shoul expect that the radar “A” will get the signal return initiated by radar “B” from a passive stealth aircraft… All while the aircraft with a working active stealth system will treat the threats simultaneously. Basically, the rafale will be safer in such environment than th F-35.
And, before you say “active stealth doesn’t work yet”, remember that th F-35 does neither 😉
TooCool_12fIf you can show me 5th generation types that will use Durandal and low level penetration tactics I will shut up. BUT UNTIL then I stand by my point.
one can ask, what will you destroy runways with? something big that you launch from far away will make one hole that bulldozers will flatten in less than an hour will you send a new F-22 every hour to keep the runway closed?
TooCool_12f@ jessmo24
what business would the B-2 have down low? its job is to go half world away, drop JDAMs from a safe distance (it doesn’t overfly its target as much as possible, even if it’s stealthy) et go land far away again…
The F-22? same thing, its mission is to stay high and go after enemy aircraft. It’s been bought in so small numbers that it simply can’t be everywhere anyway
F-35? yes, it should be one of its jobs.. with close support etc.. and how will it do it? now that’s a good question: it has low loiter time and “thin skin” as some pointed out. It can hardly withstand being hit by anything. With one engine, a single rifle bullet can bring it down, and when being up high, it can manage to see something on the ground when there’s a desert beneath, but if it ever has to go after targets requiring visual identification in forests etc.. it’s simply unable to do the job. That’s what aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider in Vietnam and the A-10 today are made for.
in the end, what can be pointed out is that USAf is “phasing the low level missions out”.. does it mean it’s a thing of the past? same as ‘”all missile fighters” from early 60’s. Dogfighting was supposed to be a thing of the past.. the USAF brass decided it that way. It was a pity the others didn’t listen, wasn’t it? Today, they’re suppressing from inventory the aircraft capable to go in low and slow.. will the need disappear overnight like by magic? It’s highly questionable.
TooCool_12fDo you realize that those videos show the X 35, not the F 35 ?
Not only the F 35 will outaccelerate and outmaneuver the F 16 but also the Rafale, the Gripen and the EF…
er, how about taking that as what it is: a hope?
often you hear people comparing “what F-35 does”.. while they talk about what it may, eventually, do in ten years at best.. against what rafale or the typhoon did ten years ago.
once (if) it comes into service, we’ll be able to compare eventually what this or that can do.
For now, the one and only thing that is certain the F-35 is supposed to be able to do while the rafale never will is vertical take off or landing. For the rest, we’ll see when it is produced
TooCool_12for maybe they have chosen to go with jamming radar because they have nothing better available (and maybe too much money spent already to invest in more research in a domain in which they’ll see tangible results in maybe 15 years at best)… while dassault has the choice with an already integrated EW suite which is just updated instead of having to be built from scratch…
TooCool_12fStill ignoring that flight tests are to verify flight performance/characteristics rather than to learn of them…
so? verifying means checking whether it does do as engineers supposed (or expected, or hoped, you can choose any verb you like) or not. until it’s been proven, it’s just a theory at best, or wishful thinking at worst.
If it was certain, there would be no need for test flights, just build the thing and find a pilot crazy enough to go out there and do all sorts of stunts on the promise that it should work as expected.
TooCool_12fyawn, your trolling
you have been shown to be wrong, accept it
I simply point out that that “roll” is never demonstrated… and, what really is relevant in this discussion, the F-35 never demonstrated anything even remotely close up to now.
Of course, you can call trolling every statement that you don’t like… won’t be something new.
Last, but not least, to fly with such high AoA means you’re basically stalled and generate no G (doing straight line), and the roll, from what your document states, is just a way to avoid the FCC goes berserk and lets the aircraft fall out of control, spinning to the ground.. not in any way to enable the pilot to do what it heart desires up to 55°… but you can keep dreaming, the world will keep on going round without you, don’t worry
As for your remark about “rafale doing better than euro f-18 linked to “not receiving the upgrade”, no real world pilot will put himself at such AoA in a fight upgrade or not… it’s of no use plain and simple. what you need in a dogfight is to be able to manouver the aircraft, not just sit there and wait for the other guy to come around and kill you
TooCool_12fyawn
there is roll and there is straight, both are different numbers, as you have been shown
here is the link to the old hornet tested at 45 deg aoa roll, so lets not hear any more nonsense
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/36378/16-885JFall2003/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall2003/70D5449E-60FA-4C95-B80B-D4B19D12C222/0/sohl_mit_brief.pdf
and still, in airshows it never rolls at such AoA nor has the F-35 achieve anything anywhere near the claimed 55°
TooCool_12factually, the F-35 until now has demonstrated that at less than 5G, if it tried to roll, it would suffer a wing drop, basically, one wing stalls and the thing goes into a spin if you don’t manage to stop it… and 5G are reached way lower than 55° AoA
so much for the claims about “manouvering at 55°AoA”… most you can expect from it would be straight line, with the engine keeping it flying while the fuselage is keeping its balance on the air flowing around, generating drag… not much more.
Even the F-18, when it performs in airshows ‘very light etc…) when it makes a passe on highest AoA, it doesn’t turn.. it just goes straight ahead… it’s basically: “never try to turn or even just bank your aircraft, or it goes down, and fast”
TooCool_12fI posted a couple of weeks ago a graph showing F-22’s roling ability in regard of AoA; with and without TVC
With TVC, it could manage light rolls until quite good AoA, but without, it barely could roll until the AoA reached something in the low 20’s.
the TVC is integral part of F-22s control systems and is vital for it to keep its performance high. Not that it is a flaw, but one has to understand that you can’t have everything for free… there’s always a trade-off, and the F-22 has to manage several “not so compatible” features:
– stealth (need to “keep lines aligned”) which is not good for aerodynamics in general
– supercruise (need for as small supersonic drag as possible -> streamlined surfaces and low lift production overall)
– manouverability (need for high lift and curved surfaces so the air can flow around to generate high lift -> incompatible with the two previous ones)
at some point, to compensate the necessary compromises (especially between the two last points), the F-22 engineers had to use raw power: strong engines and TVC… first to overcome drag (either supersonic or at higher AoA where the vortex are built all over the place to provide lift) and second to help maintain control of a flat thing that they are willing to make fly.
TooCool_12fThere’s a big difference between instantaneous and sustained AoA. The F-35 can sustain 55deg. The Rafale can’t.
the f-35 sustain 55° AoA?
can you show a source for that? not comemrcial on “how greatly it will do this or that” but “how it didi it” if it ever did..
TooCool_12fIf the F-35 enters service before it has completed its full test programme, I assume this will continue to be conducted at the relevant military testing and evaluation centre. However who picks up the bill for any modification needed to aircraft in squadron service, the contractor (LM) or the Military? If it is the latter then is this a way to fudge the budget and hide additional costs by using a different budget, logistics/support as compared to procurement?
actually, it’s already mostly tested on military sites like Edwards AFB etc… entering service means equipping squadrons, which, in turn, implies that the guys flying it will be fighter pilots, not test pilots
TooCool_12fnone of these aircraft would be able to take off from a “ski jump” with any significant load.
However, until the carriers are sufficiently built, the difference in fittiing catapults shouldn’t be too important. The same basis is (was?) supposed to be used for 2nd french carrier that is made with catapults (so the study is already done anyway).
TooCool_12fThe USMC obviously knows a lot more about the F-35 than you do.
Not to mention a whole lot of testing that will be done before the F-35B’s IOC in 2012…
they may know more (it would be strange, to say the least if they didn’t), but the fact remains: putting into service a design that hasn’t completed its test program is irresponsible at best.
Even designs that have undergone complete flight test programs sometimes are grounded because of a defect discovered in service (with a loss of several lives before it happens), so what can one expect from an aircraft that hasn’t finished its flight test? will the pilots hang some rabbit paw in the cockpit and hope their luck avoids them getting killed by some hidden defect?
TooCool_12fit will probably end up with a tail at some moment (not easy to control laterally an aircraft in supersonic flight without a vertical tail), but overall, it’s a nice clean design…
😉
Sign In
