FBWmodern radar like IRBIS-E , Zaslon-M or CAPTOR can detect F-35 at about 40-50 km ( assume F-35’s RCS = 0.0015 m2 according to U.S. Air Force ) , and since Kinematic isnot really F-35 strong point it better off shot down enemy from long range instead of waiting for them to get close and detect it ( because if it wait untill that moment then the stealth ability will have no use , so Aim-9X is not that useful ( iam not saying F-35 will be dead instantly when enemy get close to dogfight range , because it have DAS , DIRCM and HOBS missiles however at dogfight range no body really have advantages , it more luck than anything )
I think that you are making a few assumptions based on radar interception ranges for one. Second, that failure to engage at max range will lead to a dogfight. The prevailing wisdom that AAM’s have low PK does not bear out at the intermediate ranges. The ability to “dodge” a missile has little to do with traditional agility metrics such as sustained turn, sustained g. etc. The roll rate, pitch rate, and instantaneous turn rate is far more important. The f-18E/F and the F-35 should be quite capable in these areas.
rely mainly on stealth , normal aircraft rely mainly on kinematic , if F35 carry AA missiles externally then it basically lose it’s trump card , 4 aim-120 or Meteor is ok if the ratio is about 1 vs 1 , if the ratio is 1 vs 2 , even again 4.5 gen like rafale , su-27s then F-35 will still be in big trouble and remember F-35 is super expensive
The F-15, typhoon, etc. usually carry four radar guided missiles. The F-35 can match that and carry two AIM-9X externally with little penalty in drag or RCS. The external pylons were designed with RCS in mind.
The last point that you seem to be missing is that the F-35 carries 2000lbs JDAM’s internally which the EWP of the F-18 cannot do. These weapons are considered critical for the strike role and one of the reasons that the F-22 was considered to be deficient in air to ground. Those EWP may have better RCS than a weapon on a pylon, but drag will be considerable and the F-18E/F is not known for excess power.
Note- there is not one F414 EPE in production, nor any F-18 flying with all of the modifications ( IRST, CFT, enhanced engines, aerodyamic improvements, or EWP weapon release testing) that the F-18 roadmap has laid out.
FBWI’m of two minds on the decision to forego the cat/trap configuration of the QE Class:
1. Cost/Near-term flexibility- The “B” version is cheaper, and allows for the RAF and FAA to pool resources that would be difficult with the F-35C. Specifically, in a high intensity conflict, RAF pilots would be able to augment the air wing of the carriers. The “b” version also adds flexibility in how the carriers themselves are operated as in: deck parking, spotting, personnel needed to operate the flight deck in cat/trap config (likely an expensive and lost art in the Royal Navy today).
2. Long term- The QEC will lose the ability to operate the UCAVs that are on the drawing board. This is a considerable sacrifice. People seem to be fixating on the AEW aspect. If this was a serious consideration for the RAF, the Boeing has already been pushing a AEW version of the V-22 with the Thales Cerberus mission system & searchwater radar on a pallet (with possible refueling pallet also available). The F-35B will also have to stay relevant for CAP and interception duties for the 30-45 year life expectancy of the carriers, which may be a tall order with the USN already pursuing a sixth-gen fighter.
FBWAn engine optimized for superiority at 80,000 feet is going to be a dog at 24,000 feet in comparison. There is no magic pixie dust to make one work in both regimes right now. I think the game going forward is all about kinematic performance above all previous fighters at least 60,000 feet and above. You not only have to reach the upper limits, you need to manuever there as well.
Concur, based on the 117 engine. Dynamic thrust will be considerably lower (if the aircraft could even achieve that altitude) for a turbofan at that altitude. The second point which makes me doubt the veracity of the claim is the need for a pressure suit. VCE engines in development will allow better performance across the envelope, but the limits of the human body do not change. Operation at those altitudes without a pressure suit would require high cabin pressurization, which would increase the weight of a fighter.
FBWEnd this thread, it should have ended with: It does not matter at this point who pulled the trigger, 300 are dead. Not an
issue to discuss on a military aviation forum……. Shame.
FBWThe thermal issues that BIO mentions are real and an issue that is growing acute with:
1.The speed and heights that newer fighters routinely fly.
2. Signature management which leads to the elimination of ram air cooling.
3. More Electrical Aircraft (MEA) which rely less on hydraulic, pneumatic, and mechanical for non-propulsive aircraft systems. The drawback in increased heat. The F-35 is the first MEA fighter, and the USAF is already looking at the thermal requirements for the new bomber.
This powerpoint explains the thermal management issues facing aircraft designers (slide 7 on.)
http://sdsi.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dahm-Dayton-Thermal.pdf
FBWIts not rocket science. The illuminating power is many times greater at the target that whatever the reflection is. AESA or not but that is how radars work.
Older RWRs had problems with LPI because they where designed to spot higher energy pulses instead of the lower energy but longer endurance continuous-wave radar signals that usually are quadband today.
Its simple radar mechanics.
For any interested parties, here is good paper explaining LPI Radar and ESM radar detection. Ignore title, paper explains strengths and weaknesses of radar and detection for sea based radar. I realize 2007 is a bit dated, but worth a read.
FBWThink you are wasting your time Lukos. POGO and their disciples aren’t interested in facts, it gets in the way of their narrative. That slideshow was great, a series of non-examples with misleading or downright doctored statistics to back them up. It makes Riccioni’s attack on the F-22 look like a doctoral thesis.
FBWAvWeek reporting fire was caused by blades rubbing cowling:
http://m.aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/blade-rubbing-root-f-35a-engine-fire
FBWlink ?
Not to be rude but I can’t be your personal google tour guide- Google F-22 selected aquisition report
F-22 KPP was, I believe, 3.7 g mach .9 at 30,000 feet (more on that later)
Just for quick reference off my computer, compare the F-15’s numbers at mach 1.6, 40,000 feet:
F-15C will sustain 3.2g at mach 1.6, 40,000 feet (clean 37,000 lbs., I’m guessing 50% fuel based on 1988 empty weight)
F-15E will sustain about 3.7g same speed and alt ( clean no CFT, 40,000lbs.)-229 engines.
Now we can expect the Typhoon to exceed both, but by what margin? The claims by the poster on the Typhoon forum was 5-6.6g (a huge difference in g) at between 40,000-50,000 feet (10,000 feet can have a major impact on turning). The F-15 sustained turning charts don’t even chart 50,000 feet.
Now let’s go to ASSUMPTION land-
1. The F-22 KPP I assume was for the aircraft at full-full (internal weapons and fuel). It is specifically not stated in the doc’s because the configuration is probably classified as it would give a good indication for the kinematic potential of the F-22. The F-15C clean will pull roughly 4g at mach .9, 30,000 feet.
2. It is my understanding that et ceteris paribus, a lower bypass engine will put out more power high and fast ( more like a turbojet), than a high bypass turbofan. F-119 bypass ratio numbers bounce around but we will go with Sweetman’s .2:1 bypass ratio, compared to the Ej-2000 .4:1, and the f-100 .36:1. So, there is no advantage for the Typhoon there. The F-15E with the -229 engine and no CFT is a beast in thrust to weight. There really won’t be a huge difference in wingloading to explain a minimum 1.8G difference between the F-15C and the typhoon either.
I’m not saying that the Typhoon can’t out turn an F-15 at those altitudes and speeds, it most likely can. I would say that it’s probably not 50% better. If I was to guess, I’d say both the Raptor and the Typhoon are between 4-5g at those speeds and altitudes carrying any significant fuel or load.
For the reasons I stated, and the fact that that the poster had a HUGE discrepancy in the range of numbers he presented, they are a fantasy.
FBWI’m afraid the best F-35 can do is mach 0.9 at 40k ft without afterburner.
EF can pull 5-6.6G at 40-50k ft at mach 1.6 without losing energy,
in comparison, F-35 can’t even fly mach 1.6 at 40-50k ft, let alone turn, lest it drop energy (as in diving)http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1344&p=8326
Been reading picards blog huh? Every number you just posted is fabricated. There is no evidence the f-35 tops out at .9 mach on dry thrust. The typhoon number is pure fantasy from a poster on a forum. Take a look at the KPP’s of the f-22 then think real hard.
Let’s be careful what we post as “fact”. That’s what starts those unpleasant flame wars.
FBWThe US already has by-far the world’s most robust missile effectiveness verification/test program. It is called Combat Archer, and guess what, it features hundreds of launches per year by real operational units against sophisticated threat-representative targets. (In most tests missiles have warheads removed and intentional “drone saving” maneuvers are executed at endgame to avoid needlessly wasting drones.)
Read here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011gunmissile/Proctor_Awards.pdf
(note in particular the stats on missile lethality on slide 6, which are to put it mildly somewhat less alarmist than various bloggers have calculated. :dev2: )and here: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_te/publication/afi99-108/afi99-108.pdf
Good links, I’ve been looking for information about Combat archer, etc.
FBWTake a look at just about every war when radar guided missiles have been used. Gulf Wars and Kosovo war in particular – no missile achieved better than 50% Pk against non-maneuvering no-ECM targets.
I think you need to read into the circumstances of the engagements during the Gulf War, many of the AIM-7 shots were tail chase engagements. The Iraqi pilots were fleeing. In naval dictum “a stern chase is a long chase”. Let’s also not forget that the Gulf War was 23 years ago. I would say that technology has advanced just a bit since then.
As shown in Bosnia, they can.
Ah, the old F-117 got shot down so the whole doctine of low observability is called into question. By that reasoning, we should do away with Air defense destroyers because the unique circumstances of the falklands war had two Type 42 destroyers sunk.
It adds up. Total time from a firing opportunity to breakaway is 5-7 seconds for an IR missile, but with external IR missile with gimbaled seeker, missile can lock on to a target while still on the rail, reducing time to launch once fighter is in position. Meanwhile opening weapons bays precludes that possibility.
Absurd arguement, if the F-22 bays are a guide, they have three speeds for opening and closing with the fastest opening time in fractions of a second. Furthermore the AIM-9x will be carried externally by the F-35
I’ve seen some videos of tests… in best case, target was in a hard but steady-state turn. Not even remotely realistic.
I would say that the AIM-9x testing video is quite impressive with a variety of scenarios:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ
Overall, most AIM-9 models had 15% Pk compared to AIM-7s 8% Pk, and russian IR missile had 12% Pk.
Once the USAF sent F-4’s equipped with combat tree entered service, the use and success of the AIM-7 rose dramatically.
No. Things tend to malfunction in war, and modern missiles are quite complex.
So are modern combat aircraft, and if USAF availability rates during the gulf war are any indicator, the increased maintainence and spares made available during war can actually increase reliability in the short term.
As for Typhoon, looks like service ceilling is 55.000 ft, but maximum altitude is 65.000 ft:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/0186cc2a_1143_ec82_2ef2bffff37857da.pdfThere is no way that the F-35, with its higher wing loading and lower TWR, will have higher service ceilling.
F-35 has a service ceiling in line with USAF proceedures for the requirement of a pressure suit. Is there really a practical need for operation above 50,000 feet where no fighter is really capable of manuvering? This is a moot point.
Typhoon’s two engines produce 12.240 kgf dry, while F-35s single engine produces 12.700 kgf dry. Add to that superior aerodynamics, and at the same speed Typhoon will have significantly lower IR signature.
No arguement about the typhoon’s better TWR or aerodynamics. You consistently state that the F-35’s IR sig will be significant despite all evidence to the contrary that both the F-22 and the F-35 incorporate a balanced approach to LO with comparable IR and Radar detection ranges. Why do you thing that engine is buried between the twin tails? The LOAN nozzle was designed for reduced IR sig as well:
http://forskning.tekna.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norway-and-F-35-7-nov-2013.pdf
F-35 can’s supercruise regardless of which definition you use, and as for LM, they are not ones defining what supercruise is. As for your link, I have adressed that:
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/supercruise/
Having a cheerleading blog for the Rafale does not make you an expert on what the classifed capabilities of these aircraft are. There is no definitive evidence that the F-35 cannot maintain supersonic speeds without afterburner, which is the definition you are using. The quotes from the pilot about the F-35 maintaining supersonic speed on “minimal” or no afterburner are vague. Second, what the Rafale and others do maintaining speeds in the trans sonic regime was achieved by the f-106 and others years ago. The F-22 has exhibited sustained supersonic speeds above mach 1.5 without afterburner for a tactically significant distance. Even it does not have the fuel fraction to take full advantage despite having engines, TVC, inlets, designed with sustained supersonic speed in mind.
1- is perfectly detectable by modern RWRs
2- modern RWRs can easily calculate altitude, and both velocity and range can be estimated passively
3- and there may be Typhoons it won’t detect on radar as they are outside radar coverage
LPI radars are perfectly detectible because you say so? LPI radars LOWER the chance that the emitter will be detected, and at what range? Funny that all modern radars are being designed with narrow beams and frequency hopping ability for no gain.
Can you read, I said that Rafale has better EW suite than Typhoon, as for the F-35, can it engage fighters by using their own radar signals and staying passive itself?
Yes, it can. “According to certain sources, the Barracuda offers precise geo-location and targeting of potential hostile emitters, without the need for triangulation and thus other networked aircraft. The Barracuda is also integrated with Northrop Grumman’s Communications, Navigation and Intelligence (CNI) suite data links for real-time data sharing as well as the APG-81 AESA radar, which is reported to have RF surveillance and jamming, in addition to cyberwarfare capabilities.”
http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/
F-35 has bad cockpit visibility, low cruise speed, bad maneuverability… only good things it has is IRST (Rafale and Typhoon also have it – OSF/PIRATE, and Gripen E will use Skyward) and IR missile warners with 360* coverage (Rafale also has it – DDM – while Gripen E will use UV missile warners).
All this has already be discussed ad nauseam on this forum. Your conclusions are incorrect.
So basically, your F-35 will fall out of sky during or after the combat. Let’s see a more realistic situation (100% fuel + 6 AAMs for Rafale/Typhoon and 50% fuel + 6 AAMs for the F-35):
Rafale C: 327 kg/m2 WL, 1,01 TWR
Typhoon: 340 kg/m2 WL, 1,08 TWR
F-35A: 428 kg/m2 WL, 1,07 TWR
Even at the empty weight, F-35 has 311 kg/m2 wing loading.
SO, an aircraft with the T/W ratio of an F-16, similar wingloading to the Mig-29 and F-16 will “fall out of the sky” during air combat? Thanks you made my day.
It doesn’t have it yet, and even when it does get it… Rafale can carry 10 missiles, how you expect it to jam 10 AAMs at close range. And gun can’t be jammed with DIRCM.
And as you are a stickler for “real world results”. I’m sure you realize exactly how many gun kills have been made in the last 30 years, enough said on that joke of a statement.
Typhoon can pull 5 g at Mach 1,5 and 45.000 ft
.
Can pull, or can sustain? Be careful here, you are entering B..sh..t territory.
And F-35 is not stealth, it can’t supercruise, is very visible on IRST and visual sensors.
And how exactly did you get into classified breifings that lead you to make conclusions that contradict statements made by the airforce to the contrary?
Stealth also covers far more than active X-band radar, something that F-35 designers did their best to ignore.
Optimized for X-band (for a very good reason) does not mean that the aircraft does not have reduced detectabilty throughout the spectrum.
FBW100 years ago, the world’s most professional general staff, directing the world’s best trained and equipped army, had a plan to win a European war before Christmas.
So anyone who says “this is so, because the military experts say so” is failing to use the brains he was given, if he was given any.
Well it was, the general staff just got which side and which year wrong.
FBWAre flight manuals completely reliable sources of an aircraft’s flight performance parameters? what is the purpose of any kind of user-operator manual anyway?
Andraxuss has access to the the F-22 and F-35’s flight manuals?:confused:
In all fairness, the information in US flight manuals is 100% accurate for that aircraft model at the time of the flight test. So, f-15c, f-16 ( differing on various blocks) are in public domain. The numbers on the SU-27, Mig-29 are difficult to cross reference unless you can: a. Read russian b. Decipher their charts which differ from US c. Can verify the source of the charts ( there have been some dubious claimed su-27 e-m diagrams posted online). I like that he at least tries to quantify the performance rather than ” mine turns better than yours”. The only real issue is if people take those numbers that he rightly claims are guesstimates as gospel.
Yeah, i do think the f-22, typhoon numbers are off. Frankly, there is not enough confirmed information on the f-22 to calculate it’s performance. Even the numbers out there like 35,000 pound thrust class- are sanitized. And i don’t believe the USAF has ever released what NACA wing the f-22 uses.
FBWYour knowledge base can only go up by reading that site, and you need education for general understanding
APA is only only good for getting manufacturers claims info for rough comparisons. Most simply read their conclusions which are, ahem, speculative and biased.
On a side note, this thread is getting messy….. Again. Same old, same old.
Sign In
