ErkokiteDo you know if they are finally starting to build series J-11B’s with the WS-10? That would be very good news for the PLAAF. I wonder if we’ll see them on the J-15 and J-10 at some point?
You know I’ve always wondered what would happen if you were to put an F100 or F110 on a Su-27. The engines are very close in size and performance. Considering that significant parts of the WS-10 were supposedly heavily influenced by the CFM56 core (the same core as the F110 engine), I guess now we have some sort of answer.
ErkokiteDoes JHMCS and aim9x negate super maneuverability; canards and tvc? Does JHMCS and aim9x put American teen series on par with euro-canards in wvr?
None of the Eurocanards have TVC and therefore none can be considered “super-maneuverable.”
Rafale pilots have stated that tactics exist to counter JHMCS. Whether or not this is true is up to debate.
It is true that in WVR a helmet mounted sight provides many of the same advantages as TVC- being able to point your targeting device at an enemy off-axis from your aircraft’s direction of travel.
The Eurofighter already has a system comparable to JHMCS+AIM9X in the form of HMSS+IRIS-T. Gripen has the Cobra HMD system and also has IRIS-T and A-Darter integration.
Also, there are limits to the capabilities of HOBS systems I think- it is likely that there is only so far off-axis you can still get a probable kill with a missile. Also an aircraft with a good ability to turn without bleeding speed such as any of the Eurocanards will most likely still have an advantage of some sort, all other things being equal.
ErkokiteI think so too, the interesting part is the “re-calculation”
I think this recalculation refers to the differences between FX-2 and the original FX competition a few years ago.
ErkokiteAny news on how the MKI fared versus the Rafale ( or vice verse ) in ex Garuda ?
No Rafales took part in Garuda. 🙁
ErkokitePardon me for my ignorance, but what difference does a few decimal point differences in mach number make in this era of BVR? Whether a plane flies at Mach 1.6 or Mach 2.6 it’s equally likely to get shot down by a Mach 4 AAM or Mach 6 SAM.
I doubt the F-35’s speed will have anything to do with its expected superiority over the Flanker or Fulcrum.
It matters a whole lot actually, far more in BVR combat than in WVR for a number of reasons:
A faster aircraft can use its speed to climb higher as well as loft missiles.
It gives an opposing pilot even less time to react when stealth comes into play.
At BVR distances, an aircraft with a high speed will have a much smaller NEZ (No Escape Zone) and can bug-out of a fight with much greater ease- the aircraft will be able to use its speed to get outside of the missile’s effective range before the missile can actually get to it, as well as outside of an opposing aircraft’s detection or engagement range. At WVR range this wouldn’t matter, but BVR range gives a pilot in a fast aircraft enough time to do such a thing.
So high speed is crucial to good BVR performance actually.
ErkokiteFor a naval role, isn’t the stealth capability of the F-35 undermined somewhat by the fact that it will be stationed on a platform that any radar will see a mile-sorry, 200 miles off?
In any case, I can see gen 4.5 fighters like the Rafale M and Gripen NG still being competitive for naval use, partly because of price and partly because there are many nations with aircraft carriers that are unlikely to ever use them in a conflict.:p
This thread is from 2008. 😀
ErkokiteRussia’s T-50 PAK FA Not Fifth-Generation Fighter Jet Yet
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/18-06-2010/113908-fifth_generation-0
Pravda? Really?
ErkokiteErkokite
i think the rafale has the SH in STR speed because of better T/W
but how did the rafale get past the aim-120’s and aim-9x’s to get behind the SH in the first place ? either or both should be dead by then
(our 25 yr old hornets run a HMS & asraam that would add another dimension to this
because of cost and we want our SH in service asap, we arent putting the asraam on our f-111 replacement SH but 9x-bll shouldnt be too far from our service date)
As part of the RoE’s, the SH pilots did not use AIM-9X or JHMCS, and the Rafales did not use SPECTRA’s passive detection abilities (or if they did it was degraded IIRC). Good HOBS missiles + HMS is indeed an equalizer as you say, and could give the SH an advantage over the Rafale. The Rafales were able to get past AIM-120’s likely due to low RCS, and good jamming (though I don’t think SPECTRA was used to its fullest extent).
The Rafale pilots say they have tactics to counter HMS, but I don’t know anything beyond that. Hopefully the Rafale will obtain HMS in the near future- I know it’s offered for export with an Elbit HMS system. Thales Topsight has also been tested, but I think they decided to go with a Sagem system instead for technical reasons.
Granted, I am not a fighter pilot and I’m not familiar with the tactics used. Unless you were there, and have a lot of experience with these types of jets, I doubt you’re going to get a very good idea of what happened. The Rafale Forums (google it) have discussed this as have the keypub forums.
The F-18 with HMS and ASRAAM sounds like a pretty potent dogfighter, BTW. 🙂
ErkokiteGiven the latest revelations that the F-35 is going to cost the same as the latest F-16 at US$60M, can LM possibly package some sort of creative lease arrangement for the IAF to acquire F-16s initially to be traded in later of F-35s? No doubt the other vendors would be very upset if India changes the rules of the bidding to accomodate such a strategy but if its perceived to be in India’s best interests, who knows what could happen?
I think it is highly unlikely. LM claims it will cost $60M. Most people don’t believe them. LM would still have to fight with congress just to get them to sell the F-35 to India at all, let alone with the ToT India is requesting. I think the F-16 is out of the question too because of likely unimpressive performance in comparison to its peers, its failure at Leh, and the fact that Pakistan also flies the F-16. And there will probably be ToT troubles with the F-16IN too due to the AESA radar.
Erkokiteeverything i have read leads me to think the deltas even with canard bleeds more at high AOA but i’m happy to be corrected
their current build orders with the now added 60 runs to ~2020? there was a write up on airdefense about it
but if f4 is at 2015, it must be f5? upgrade i’m thinking about, when spectra goes T5, better rcs etc, it sounded very impressive to me
because of french interests in the pacific there is french/aussie stuff happening, we might see their carrier and rafales at one of the exercises down here
Some delta wing+canard configurations might bleed speed badly at very high AoA, but you should be comparing energy loss to maintain a given ITR or STR, not pure AoA. I think what the Rafale pilots were getting at is to maintain a certain turn rate or radius, the Super Hornet has to maintain a much higher AoA and ends up bleeding speed much more than the Rafale does.
ErkokiteWonder how can we compare the progress of this program (14 flights, in 3 months? probably not a lot, but then i have no clue regarding this) with other similar programs (EF, F22, F35), i think for the 3th flight no modern prototype was doing high AoA testings which probably was done for the T50, i may be wrong of course.
Seems Sukhoi has a lot of confidence on this design.
I think they are using the same FCS and engines as the Su-35, plus it is plain to see some flanker genes in the T-50. I imagine that Sukhoi would have confidence in the T-50 for this reason.
ErkokiteF22 tracked through rafale’s OSF :
Thanks. I imagine this will cause quite a controversy.
ErkokiteA new rafale special edition that I just bought :
http://www.journaux.fr/air-cosmos-hors-serie-rafale_avions_auto-moto_137147.html
I’ll give a detail report latter and probably scan the most interesting elements when I have time.
I made a quick overview : beautiful exclusive pictures but also some crispy shots of Typhoon through rafale HUD (gun dogfights) as well as OSF pictures with F22 silently tracked by the rafale from long distances.
I wonder if such pictures are available publicly (that is outside of a pay-source).
ErkokiteLet me sum it up from I see the situation between Russia and China in the cooperation between nations building the Su-27. Russian gave license to build Su-27 airframes and components. The Radar and Engine is to be imported.
China starts experimenting in locally developing missiles. They want to integrate their own BVR, AAM, ASM and Anti-Ship missiles and the only way to do that is to aquire the source code. Moscow refuses (only allowed to buy our missiles) so China develops local avionics and puts it into Su-27 which they then named it J-11. Technically its still a Su-27 airframe but with Chinese built subsystems.
When it came to the Engines China is willing to go ahead and try to copy the AL-31F and so far has flopped on their knees. Even though they could easily just buy fresh off the shelf originals from Russia but it is more of a pride issue and trying to be more independent. They want locally manufactured Engines for their J-10 pet project and local engines for their Flanker clone. Unfortunately for them by the time they somehow manages to get it up and running there would better Engine models available. So the game continues Russia will always be 2 steps ahead of them.
From what I understand, the WS-10 is actually largely influenced by the F101 core, which China received when they bought civilian CFM56 engines for airliners. The CFM56 shares a core with the F101 and F110. So, in essence, the J-11b is a Flanker with an engine that’s a close relative of the F110 found on F-16’s and some F-15’s. 😮
ErkokiteIf that were true all fighters with a light wing loading would be great dog fighters, does the Mig-21 strike you as being agile? Even if the Mig-21 had a better thrust to weight ratio would that make it agile? I think its safer to say that fighters with a low wing loading AND a large tailplane in relation to wings size = generally better agility, Su-27 and F-22 both certainly qualify in that regard. In the case of the Su-27, the fact that its not FBW works to its advantage, becuase center of gravity is ahead of center of lift, this allows the plane to stall “properly” which works against the leading edge strake of the wings which counts as a lifting surface that shifts the center of lift well ahead of the center of lift of the wing itself even though its not calculated as wing area. This gives the Su-22 its ability to pull off ridiculously high AoA maneuvers like the cobra, well beyond the normal angle of attack that would be produced just by tail surface working against the wing, and the forward center of gravity corrects for it by stalling back to neutral after speed bleeds off…simple yet brilliant. This trick doesnt work with the Hornet because the Hornet is FBW. Although the leading edge strakes of the Hornet do allow it to achieve extreme AoA, it remains deep stalled in that high AoA and only has its 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio to mush through in this condition. If The Hornets thrust to weight ratio was not unity, the aircraft would be completely worthless and extremely dangerous to fly as it would lose total control in a stall. For FBW jets its best to stick with the simple F-22 solution of very large tailplane to counter a large wing, such a jet remains very controllable even at extreme AoA.
All other things being equal, lower wing loading does lead to better agility. This is a well-known, fundamental aerodynamic fact.
Sign In
