TooCool_12fWhile pulling the same number of Gs, the Avro Vulcan will have smaller turning radius than the Eurofighter or F-16.
er… no
for the same speed, the same load factor gives you the same turning radius… regardless of the wingloading; it’s just basic physics
TooCool_12fPerhaps Lockheed will know this and combine Hypersonic speed (Mach 10+) and Stealth to the SR-72. Oh by the way I forgot to add altitude (100,000 ft+) to the equation.
there’s one little problem with hypersonic vehicles trying to be “discreet”: heat
when you fly that fast, you litterally glow for any IR detector that can manage to get its line of sight on you. Today we have the F-35 promoters boasting about the EODAS that detects stuff 360° around the aircraft… by the time you get anything really hypersonic into operational service, there, most certainly, will be passive detection systems that will allow to have IR detectors, equipped with wide angle lenses watching the sky… and if you come at it so fast, and at such altitude, they’ll spot you from really very far away ( you’d appear over the horizon at about 700km, that is if they are on sea or flat ground… shoudlo the detector be put on some mountain, it’s even further)… that would give a good 4 minutes for detection and intercepting the supersonic flyer… short time in peace time, but if we’re on alert, it’s more than enough (should a modern SAM system be on your way).
According to wikipedia (for what it’s worth) the S400 could go as high as 30km (pretty close to the 100000ft altitude) already, and intercept targets flying at 4.8km/s (which would be around Mach 17 ), and the S-500 is in the works
basically, such aircraft would be useful (and probably be overkill most of the time), but would still have to avoid areas with strong modern SAM coverage (against the “serious” opponents, basically)
TooCool_12fRafale only do with tanker support or external tanks. which increase the cost of operations.
Su-35 is built with 21st century material. Rafale is 20 year old. it cannot have smaller rcs than Su-35. once you put weopons the underside of Rafale sticks out much more.
Su-35 is a derivative of a 40 years old prototype, it can’t have smaller RCS than an F-4 phantom… happy? :p
TooCool_12ffunny to read your arguments guys…
just a few gems:
“MIG-31 “dashing” @ M2.6 for 650 miles will need to refuel..”
well, yeah, so? by the time it reduces thrust to slow down, the closest pursuer will be something like 300+ miles away… if one believes he’ll keep chasing a target that left him in the dust waaaay behind…
“It can’t turn at high supersonic speeds”
well, no aircraft can for that matter… they all do pretty much slight curves at such speeds. Should the Mig fire its weapons in a head-on scenario at max range, any fighter in front of him will turn away (er, “try to turn” would be more exact) to make as sure as possible not to get shot down. So the fact that it can’t turn is somewhat useless… it may not hit anything, but it will bring a mission kill at least. Don’t forget that it is a long range interceptor: his job is to get somewhere (far away, as the USSR was a huge territory) fast and shoot… and there’s no fighter in existence that can come close to its abilities to this day (eventually the A-12 could perform in a similar way but it was more of a prototype than an operational fighter)
only a fool would try to mix it up with any other aircraft, and for a reason: he’s able to run around and shoot at a safe distance at any target without ever entering its weapons’ range.. why would he nee to turn tight? it would just be a waste of energy (speed) and putting himself at a risk.
TooCool_12fthat needs push out the door the Typhoon (tranche 1 if anything)…
while I think the Rafale would be a perfect fit for RCAF, my bet is on a US made jet, as (pretty much) always…
TooCool_12fThe problem I see with Rafale is that it cannot address the problem of depleted squadron strength in the near future (say, next 5 or so years). Dassault does not have the capacity to assemble much more than 20 per annum.
er, it can assemble 24 per annum as of now… should they sign the contract by the end of this year, france would be happy to let all rafales to India (and spare the money they don’t have to buy more rafales for now 😉 ), so, from 2014 to 2018 included, at a rate of 24 aircraft per year (spare a couple of months to ramp up the production rythm) and you have your 120 fighters by mid-2019. the problem is that india wants the ToT which excludes already the F-35 as most US-built aircraft from that deal, and the ToT for the french built aircraft would be about nil…
Considering the requirements there’s no other solution for now (the “cheap Typhoon” idea that was proposed doesn’t adress that very point), migs don’t either, and the PAK-FA is just a little bit outside the aimed goals… it’s neither “middleweight” nor “multirole” but rather a heavy air superiority platform…
TooCool_12f…and what is the “advertised efficiency level?”
This is one of those areas where the internet and professionals see something completely differently. In the eyes of air forces Kosovo was an incredible demonstration of the AMRAAM’s capability. Around here people complain that some of them didn’t hit…:rolleyes:
Think about it, an enemy that was flying modern fighters was rendered 100% ineffective. So much so that they were never even able to take a shot, let alone score a kill, and that is flying over their own territory. Sure the AMRAAM did not achieve a 100% kill rate, but that is immaterial. It did exactly what it was supposed to do on the battlefield. It allowed NATO to strike effectively from beyond the range of the enemy, dictating the terms of the engagement and ultimately controlling the skies.
On the subject of AMRAAM reliability:
“85% missile success rate (within lethal radius); tests conducted Oct 02 – Dec 03 (214 test launches)”
er… serbia had half a dozen (yes, 6) Mig-29s which received no upgrades nor vital parts for almost ten years… they had most of the times radars that didn’t work, RWR systems that were just about the same and with that half a dozen aircraft they had about 300 latest tech aircraft against them… supported by AWACS and so on while serbia couldn’t start a radar without drawing attention to it attracting a HARM shot almost automatically… so, basically: six almost modern (non supported) aircraft, taking off pretty miuch blind against 300 aircraft having a full picture of what was going on, and you consider an achievement they didn’t score? (shots they did take a couple, but the shooting mig got shot in return)
TooCool_12fkosovo was much closer to us, new generation of missiles (AMRAAM) and yet it was waaay below the advertised efficiency level… again, not to say it’s worthless, just one has to realize that missiles never achieve the standards one can see in brochures… simply because there’s almost always something to make it miss, either a malfunction, or countermeasures, or weather, or firing conditions….
TooCool_12fabout the sparrow: 620 were fired, which gives you a little under 10% overall.. by the end of the war, the improved sparrow and better trained crews managed a staggering 13% success rate… not something to brag about in the end…
TooCool_12fAbsolutely not, if a poster is going to say:
It is absolutely reasonable to ask where that poster is from.
He claims he knows better than his own defense establishment and that I just have to take his word for it? Absolutely not.
Nobody has to announce their nationality, but you can’t hide behind that to claim that only you know what your mystery country really needs.
hopsalot… in fact, what you fail to see is that the primary, if not only, real requirement for any country without projection will nor capabilities is an air dominance platform. nobody except a couple of nations needs an aircraft with plenty of gadgets including a coffee machine for the pilot… a small, fast and cheap to buy and operate interceptor is pretty much all that any country needs if they’re not looking to go to the other side of the planet to blow up remote countries for god only knows what real reason
TooCool_12fIf all you want to do is patrol your skies in peacetime go ahead and buy some armed trainers. If you want to remain technologically relevant in the coming decades and retain at least a core capability of modern air power, then the F-35 is the best choice. Not the cheapest though, so you are right about that.
trainers won’t be able to do air policing, for example: just trying to catch a simulated airliner in swiss evals, the standard gripen C had to call bingo fuel before even completing its mission… you need an aircraft that can fly supersonically for a sufficient amount of time to do that. But, on the other hand, for that mission, you won’t need anything more than yesterday’s technology until we have supersonic aircraft going around on a daily basis.
besides, being “technologically relevant” means what? a country that has bought a handful of aircraft it can’t afford to make fly sufficiently and having no access to its core technologies is “technologically relevant”? again, it will prpobably be a good aircraft for what the USA will do with it… for others not so.
but, then again, it’s not the politicians who buy it today that will be in charge of operating them tomorrow, so even if they buy a lemon, it will be someone else’s problem
TooCool_12fTooCool_the way you talk, anyone would think it’s a waste of time putting missiles on a f-35
no, what I sqay is that the F-35 is a waste of money for countries other than the USA…
putting missiles on a combat aircraft is definitely not.. you never know when you might need them, just as your gun
TooCool_12f@ Mercurius:
the Sparrow killed 50 aircraft while 612 have been shot… not exactly what one may call “efficient” weapon it made kills but way under the expectations.
@ hopsalot:
fact is that a stealth bomb hauler is what the US need… others (pretty much everybody else), with less (or even without) foreign intruding policy have no need for such thing.
With the exception of USA, France and UK to a degree, pretty much everybody else cares his own business (or eventually watches at his close neighbor).. and of these three:
– US have what it takes to cover the F-35s carrying bombs in the form of the F-22s, F-15s and even F-16/F-18 (for the navy) if need be
– UK has Typhoons for all domestic air superiority jobs (and their projection has been pretty much linked to the USA for several decades now)
– France : doesn’t have any plans to use the F-35
Basically, if you move away from these three, everybody else’s use of air power is keeping own skies under control (as they have zero projection capability), a duty which those that may have most use of F-35s abilities put on other platforms anyway…
TooCool_12fWhat if the opposition has a very sophisticated ECM/EW and SATCOM denial capability? Can the Neuron or X-47 pick targets and discriminate on their own? The USAF/USN does not think so. Perhaps France has better capability, but from what i see the US has a different threat level from the french for which they must prepare. Manned assets give you capability to operate on their own..A pair of LGB’s using EOTS and DAS can take out targets…If SATCOM is jammed and/or manipulated and if your Link-16 is degraded you dont have any option…LOS data links do not work as well when you have a manned asset close by, might as well use it. In a high intensity conflict against a peer adversary you have to look at these things. In the US there is OPEN research and development and then there is a Huge black budget (Bigger than most nation’s defense budgets)..The LRS_B is a product of both and as a B-2 replacement it is probably going to be one of the most sophisticated project in the world..From what we know its going to be OPTIONALLY manned ( at best, most likely – Fully manned) that too post 2030 or so…They do not have confidence to make it totally unmanned..Forget replacing a full tactical strike fighter with that….UCAV’s will increasingly become important but they would not replace tactical strike figthers and this coming from an AF/USN setup that spends the most amount of money (and has the most combat experience) on Unmanned aviation and UCAV’s…For most nations that do not have sophisticated capability the strike ability of X-47/Neuron is no better than that of the Avenger or Predator which are less survivable but available NOW…
This is hardly exclusive..Most will be able to do this in some for or other…In fact the High end trend is to move away from Link-16 to more secure, faster LOS data links (MADL) and high speed networks…The problem is not with networking manned and unmanned…
See #42
For the USAF/USN its about a certain level of AUTONOMY that must be developed..Eforts are on, the X-47 would give you quite a bit(from what was previously available)..If Bill Sweetsmann is true and a UCAV is being tested at Area-51 that would support the LRS_B than i would suspect the major source of funding on autonomous ops would be these programs…As mentioned earlier dont expect such capabilities for a few decades..The entire point of having a UCAV is to reduce the burden on a manned asset…Why the heck would you want to escort them? Some concepts suggest that the LRS_B would be a mothership to control many UCAV’s through established Secure LOS and local networks (things like TRITONS would work well in satcom denied environments) to serve a purpose long after it has used its resources….The moment you make your UCAV’s so expensive that you need to escort them, you kind of loose their advantage…A 20-25 million dollar UCAV that has enough things to survive (LO, Electronic counter measures) is far better than a more capable 50 million dollar UCAV that requires support..
Direct Line of Site comms and data links are already their..The F-35 has MADL…But again its limited for close ops between crafts and its LPI nature means that you should not exchange HUGE amounts of data through it (tactical info such as sensor info sharing between sensors)…There are also prommising technologies like the link shows…Those are quite a giant step up from the Link-16, However you still need manned assets in the loop quite closeby…You can stilll send swarming predators against fixed targets without data links or without controlling from a fighter but that does not perform all the missions of a strike figther…The USAF/USN are developing all these data links, MADL etc that are cutting edge and advanced compared to the standard Link-16 and they are still banking on future autonomy to offload strike missions. Its not going to happen anytime soon, not against a peer adversary..while against a poorly equipped opponent the X47/Neuron are a waste of capability compared to much cheaper predators and Avengers which are available now.
Thats not how F-35’s will operate…A 4 ship fighers will be quite spread out compared to legacy fighters (Just how stealth fighers operate) and would be linked up with MADL..You can cover a lot of space with AESA and EOTS when you are spread out nicely..And DAS gives you 360 degrees short-medium-Long range (Against Ballistic missiles and missle launches etc)…Everything will be linked with MADL..
Hence you have a capability that can counter…Such as the NGJ, tactical jamming from tactical crafts (A Huge AESA based fleet) and future technologies and capabilities (LRS_B) …
so on one side you can’t use unmanned drones because the enemy may suppress comms, but the widly spread F-35s will fly together by sharing information between them? it was said that the WSO in a conventional fighter (Rafale or F-16 ro anything similar) would control the drone ahead…
if you can share information between the F-35s, you can do so with an UAV ahead of the fighter and eliminate the need to spend billions on making the F-35. you can’t have reliable communications with your UAV, your F-35 will be just as alone in the sky as well….
you see, MADL or any other sort of communication is not something that can ONLY work on an F-35. it’s just a piece of kit that you can install in pretty much any flyable thingy you’re able to produce
TooCool_12fLOL Huge gap in capabilities. Hell, the Rafale is just getting its first AESA Radar and doesn’t have anything close to the level of Stealth as the F-35. Nor, does it have anything close to the Sensor Fusion that gives the latter unrivaled “Situational Awareness”. With the ability for First Look, First Shot, and First Kill.
Also, being a 5th Generation Fighter the F-35 carries it’s weapons internally to give it excellent flight performance. While the Rafale on the other hand carries everything externally. Which, pays a big penalty in increased RCS, Drag, and Overall Performance.
In short the difference in performance between the F-35 and Rafale is “HUGE”. With the former as the “WINNER”.
TODAY:
the F-35 can’t drop anything, can’t detect anything, can’t fly in bad weather, can’t do anything similar to aerobatics (so, no ACM), so, as you talk about what Rafale can do today, there IS a huuge gap in capabilities as one is fully operational while the other can’t do squat
sorry to burst your bubble… once the F-35 starts getting some useful capabilities, maybe the gap will get reduced (we’ll see where the Rafale will be by that time), but as of today, it’s way behind even an F-5; not to speak of more modern birds
Sign In
