Jason SimondsGranted the Su-35 has a more advanced engine, but my understanding is that supercruise is still somewhat marginal due to aerodynamic reasons.
On paper the SU-35 has a more advanced engine. It is still in testing…
The “aerodynamics issues” are the same faced by any other current fighter except the F-22A.
It’s stores (weapons, sensors and fuel) must be carried externally and consequently generate significant parasitic drag, which generally precludes any serious supercruise capability.
A technical ability to supercruise (as most understand the term – flying supersonically without the use of afterburners – reheat) will no doubt be present. Most modern fighters can do it, but a genuine operational “supercruise” capability ala the F-22 has yet to be demonstrated in any obvious, verifiable way.
Except of course if you share the Air Power Australia view of things, where parasitic drag and enormous fuel burn at supersonic speeds, doesn’t apply to Sino-Russian fighters, but does of course to any Euro-Canard, F-Teen series fighter or any fighter aircraft that is not the F-22…
Jason SimondsAs mentioned before in the other thread, here is the F-100 WITHOUT the SPY-1 radar as proposed. This has all the standard equipment fit of the AWD, but would be tailored to meet the requirements of the RAN’s Future FFG
I can’t see any future RAN surface combatant without a 3D phased array radar system. I suspect it will provide an excellent anti-submarine capability, but then so will the “Air Warfare Destroyer” so I don’t see as much issue there, as some.
Any ANZAC replacement will also need to provide an extensive VLS load-out capability that the former Howard Government passed on when it chose the F-100 design over the G&C Evolved frigate design.
Whatever RAN chooses, I hope they opt for a bigger hull that will actually allow them to add the kit they need over the lifespan of the vessel, something they haven’t got with the ANZAC’s and it looks increasingly likely that they won’t have it with the F-100 class either…
Jason SimondsHorses for courses. Helos and aircraft will find it difficult – if not impossible – to handle a Brahmos-class missile, but that doesn’t mean such a weapon is useless altogether, other platforms (like large surface ships) will have no issues.
What you’re saying is that the PzH2000 artillery piece is irrelevant because Germany also builds the G36 assault rifle :rolleyes:
Not at all. But supersonics are portrayed as instant death for surface combatants and yet REAL Pussers and other Naval warfare officers who train AGAINST these threats are not as concerned by them as the fanboys who like to portray these missiles as invincible simply because they are fast…
Low and slow may not be as “sexy” as something going Mach 4 and lighting up the sky with an enormous thermal bloom, but they sure scare the hell out of people who may be at risk from them…
Ask the Israelis…
Jason SimondsPerhaps a look at the weight and size of the missile should answer your question.
What question did I ask?
AAW Ships like the Type-45 have very evolved and powerful sensors and the required computing power, can a surface skimming LO missile be effective in hiding itself up close with in the visual/radar horizon?
How many nations consider their AF’s for striking naval targets?
Laws of physics still apply and the Earth was still curved the last time I checked. The horizon that you can see on the ocean is about 7 kilometres away at sea level.
Now radar and IRST sensors are mounted higher than sea level on a warship but the curvature of the earth still imposes limits that cannot be overcome no matter how advanced the radar or EO sensor system.
As I said above, it is no coincident that the suppliers of these “amazing” supersonics still produce sea-skimming subsonic missiles…
Jason SimondsHaha, come on now. . . What sensors is the supersonic Klub going to light up that Tomahawk and Harpoon won’t around the same time?
IRST.
😉
Jason SimondsA supersonic missile, e.g. Brahmos, SS-N-22 Sunburn, maybe even a hypersonic missile like the Fasthawk is far superior to a subsonic one, e.g. Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS-15 Kent.
The advantage of speed is critical nowadays on today’s 21st Century battlefields, where time-sensitive targets have to be hit.
A Fasthawk can cover the same distance in eight minutes as the Tomahawk can do the same in one hour.
Not one of those missiles are fast enough to avoid defensive fires, but ALL of them are fast enough to light up like a christmas tree on defensive sensor systems and provide comparatively enormous warning/reaction time.
It is noteworthy that even the builders of the “superior” supersonic missiles have invested heavily in “Harpoonski” subsonic missile copies.
🙂
Jason SimondsSo let me get this right,
Pakistan is bad for modifying Harpoon Block 1C missiles for land attack missions, when it already has Harpoon Block II missiles in it’s inventory, supplied by the United States and which feature:
“Harpoon Block II is capable of executing both land-strike and anti-ship missions. To strike targets on land and ships in port, the missile uses GPS-aided inertial navigation to hit a designated target aimpoint. The 500-pound blast warhead delivers lethal firepower against a wide variety of land-based targets“.
Courtesy Boeing IDS website.
So er, exactly what is the problem? Pakistan is not gaining a “new” capability here. It has Block II Harpies already which have a land attack capability and other missile systems of different origin which perform the same mission.
I wonder if that same magazine published an article decrying about India “destablising the region” when it acquired the Brahmos missile?
Jason SimondsNone of this has anything to do with the original question. Start a new thread.
Won’t matter. The argument will go around again and again…
As to the original question, hardpoints 2 and 10 are railed for AMRAAM as well as HARM, meaning they will be carrying LAU-127 launch rails, on the Growler.
LAU-127 can carry AIM-9X, so physical carriage is not a problem. Whether or not Growler is actually wired for the Sidewinder, I have no idea, but I suspect it is.
Jason Simonds“#1 above, an Aim-9X, Aim-132, or Aim-120C5 could take him out long before the F-35 was detected.”
Interesting theory. That somehow the F-35 is invisible to 2nd and 3rd gen IRST. Hmmm.
No-one said that. They said IRST is out-ranged by modern radar. The designers of the IRST admit it. Do you know something even they do not?
Nice try- No extreme super-cruise combined with extreme altitude means that something that only depends on stealth is going to have serious problems.
Against WHAT? Other aircraft that don’t have extreme supercruise or extreme altitude either? Or do you envisage F-35 having to fight F-22 on a regular basis?
Lets see… what is the combat PK of the AMRAAM?… or any air-to-air missile. Note that the AMRAAM so far has only been up against 3rd stringers.
Now you are using Kopp and Chris Mill’s intellectually dishonest AMRAAM Pk argument. Your “opinion” is getting funnier by the day.
This is how those two have constructed this “argument”.
1. Let’s use AIM-120A firing results and portray that as somehow equivalent to the results of AIM-120C/D, neither of which have been used in combat yet.
2. Let us then assume that the R-77 and R-73, neither of which have combat results either, have a 100% Pk.
3. Then let us distort the actual results we have, so that they flatter our rubbish argument as much as possible. Tell me, genius. If I fire 2x AMRAAM at the same target and both hit it, destroying said target, what is the Pk value for these missiles?
Because both Kopp and Mills consider it to be a 50% effectiveness in their sums.
Most people without pre-determined end-point arguments based mostly on bitterness, consider such a result to be a 100% Pk.
They do this of course, because it flatters their otherwise unsustainable argument.
They also pay absolutely no attention whatsoever at the INTENT behind particular firings. Does it matter at all, that some recorded AMRAAM firings have been conducted with a “scatter gun” intent, behind it? Ie, the intent was not to seriously attempt to attack the enemy aircraft, but rather to “keep it at bay”.
This of course is listed as a miss by the Kopp and Goon show, never minding that the firing actually achieved a “mission kill” which was enough at that particular moment to achieve the desired effect, because the moment they ever start to admit that tactics might actually play a part in air combat, their entire house of cards style of discussion will come crashing down around their ears.
Yet you plod along, lapping their rubbish up. It paints you and your vaunted “opinion” in such a worthy light…
BTW I do not totally agree with Kopp on everything. The basis though for opposing argument is sound.
Never seen you disagree with him once, actually and no, their argument is in no way fundamentally sound, at ALL.
And remember, the export friendly design of the F-35 was never supposed to go-it-alone as in the advertisements. The F-22 and the F-35 are supposed to work together.
********. That is the USAF’s desired intention as to how they will operate the aircraft. It is NOT how everyone else will operate it.
Before the merge? …Yeah keep dreaming the AMRAAM as 100% PK.
No-one said it does, but it is far more effective than the intellectually dishonest APA cult would have us believe (all the while noting of course that the very SAME missile is more than sufficient for the invincible F-22) and unlike it’s Russian competitors, it ACTUALLY has combat results to support it’s claims.
APA’s beloved R-27/R-77/R-73 have no such results and absolutely nothing but “Blue Sky Marketing” to support their claims, given apparently, that test firing results are completely irrelevant. (At least AMRAAM test firing results are irrelevant. Sino/Russian test firing results are of course accepted completely without question).
It is funny that you find one side’s “Blue Sky Marketing” acceptable though…
Jason SimondsMan is real bad about predicting the future.
Every man except you, apparently… :rolleyes:
Jason SimondsSorry Jason, but you are speaking nonsense now. Next time try to provide some hard facts. And taking into consideration how old all of air defense systems in Yugoslav inventory were (and how many of them NATO actually destroyed), yes it was an achievement. But it’s not time and place to discuss about it now and here.
I wanted to know if anyone on this forum with some relevant knowledge had any idea what this device could have been. Or Colonel was speaking BS and just got lucky to shot down two and engage a couple more of enemy aircraft without losing a single man and piece of equipment.
Open sourced data confirms the number of missile firings and the results they achieved.
It is not rubbish, the Colonel most certainly DID get lucky, and it was quite clear they were NOT able to replicate the performance of their so-called “special device”.
Theories are all well and good but they ARE rubbish if the observations do not match the predictions. No further F-117’s were shot down by the Serbs, nor anyone else and thus the theory is no good, brother…
Sorry if that upsets you. 🙂
Jason SimondsNot that I am interested in pursuing this ultimately futile argument any further, but thought Pfcem might be interesting in reading what Boeing’s Executives have to say about F-15 and a new radar. The RCS admission is rather interesting too…
DATE:19/06/09
SOURCE:Flight International
Boeing holds F-15 Silent Eagle go-ahead pending business case review
By Stephen Trimble
Boeing has disavowed an executive’s statement at a show news conference that questioned the company’s internal financial commitment to its high-profile F-15 Silent Eagle programme.
The company on 17 June issued a statement that “reaffirmed” its commitment to a flight-test programme for a more stealthy version of the venerable F-15E, and scheduled the flight trials to launch in the third quarter of 2010.
The statement came a day after Tom Bell, Boeing vice-president for business development, said categorically that the company had withheld funding for the F-15SE flight test programme next year, pending a business case review within the next four months.
“We’re not at a point [on the F-15SE] where we have a definitive path forward,” he said.
But by the end of the week, Boeing’s ricocheting statements seemed to put the programme’s status back where it had begun: as one of the company’s top investment priorities.
“We know from talking with current international F-15 operators that they are very interested in the capabilities of the Silent Eagle,” says Jim Albaugh, Boeing’s president of Integrated Defense Systems.
“Making this commitment to get the programme through to a flight demonstration will ultimately help international customers understand how this aircraft meets their need for a flexible, long-range, large-payload, high-speed, multirole strike fighter with reduced observability.”
Boeing rolled out the F-15SE in mid-March without a customer, using a cosmetically modified, company-owned F-15E testbed.
The configuration introduces a canted tail and a new internal weapons bay based on a modified conformal fuel tank. It is also proposing to introduce fly-by-wire flight controls and a BAE Systems digital electronic warfare system.
Bell confirms that Boeing is in talks with Raytheon about the option of integrating a new active electronically scanned array radar designated the APG-82. That would provide export customers of the F-15SE with the same radar system selected for the US Air Force’s F-15E radar modernisation programme.
Bell also sought to lower expectations for the F-15SE’s frontal aspect radar cross-section characteristics, noting: “Until we get one on the pole and do the studies, that’s all theoretical at this point.”
Jason Simonds@Swerve and djcross,
Colonel Dani, who’s unit was credited with shooting down the aforementioned F-117 said that he made some kind of modification onto his Neva. IIRC that would be some kind of optical accessory which would help in identifying an F-117 (and if you require I’ll try to dig some articles of him stating this).
Furthermore, agents were stationed just outside of Aviano, but not only there. The intel was also coming from within NATO command structure. In one of his interviews Col Dani says that his unit was ordered to turn on their radars at about 20h and in matter of minutes the Nighthawk arrived. In addition, he says that with use of that device he was able to distinguish between a stealth and non-stealth aircraft and it was his call which target had to be engaged.
Now, if he managed to develop such a device (back in 1996, 3 years before the war) with (extremely) limited resources and that according to him it was proved to be effective against (V)LO targets can we assume that optical devices will stand better chance to find an enemy (VLO aircraft) rather than AESA/PESA radar:confused:
The Serbs fired 815 (best OSINT estimate) surface to air missiles at NATO aircraft during Operation Allied Force. 665 of these were radar guidance based missiles.
They managed to shoot down 1x F-16 and 1x F-117.
This is how much of an “achievement” they managed and the good Colonels “special device” wasn’t able to replicate it’s performance…
Jason SimondsS
Which usually always equates to me be allocated less round and explosives (let alone basics like boots and socks) to make up for stuff ups just like this!!!!!!!Regards
Pioneer
You are not issued boots or socks in the ADF?
I knew they were short of money, but I had no idea things were this bad…
:rolleyes:
Jason SimondsSo PAK-FA is not going to fly in 2009?
Gee, never would have picked that… :rolleyes:
Sign In
