FBWNot really interesting without details. These types of exercises mean little without context:
What were the RoE? Did the F-35 get to simulate external Aim-9x?
Reality is, the F-22 is the superior pure fighter. In a merge either could win, a fighter that can sustain means little these days in close in 1 v 1 fight, it’s rate and weapons system. The F-35 has an HMD that neutralizes an angles fight to some degree. But the F-22 will always retain more energy to gain a positional advantage. It’s like the F-16, F-18 all over again, except the fight is tens of seconds rather and a minute or two. In many v many…. the F-35’s ability to track multiple targets and display them on HMD is a massive advantage.
If the money ever comes down the pike (feels like we’ve been saying this for close to a decade) to equip F-22’s with a helmet mounted sight, it won’t be a much of contest in the merge between the two. Even now, the F-35 has one good turn to win a “fights on” neutral position BFM setup. Then it at a disadvantage to an F-22, Rafale, or Typhoon. Not that it matter much in real world situations those aircraft will face, but good training.
FBWwhat we have seen IMO time after time is the use of overwhelming, most modern western force against 3rd world / nearly defenceless countries with obsolete SAMs, poor training and even worse morale. Mind you, Irak didn’t even bother using their supposedly mighty military to stop the force build-up that that was later used to strike them. They were defeated even before starting the war, probably hoping that punishment wouldn’t last long if they didn’t resist.
This is a perfect example of the internet revisionist history I was referring to. The Iraq air defense network was modeled on structure of Frontal PVO, with an added French C3 network. Several of the zones had a higher density of SAM than in any of the soviet theaters. Sure they lacked the more modern S-300 system then available, but added Roland and a large array of radar directed AAA which were an extreme threat to low flying aircraft. Training? Probably not great. But that’s not why the system was completely dismantled in a matter of days. The weakness of any AD network is coordinating large surveillance radars (which are have limited mobility even today in the face of cruise missile strikes) and C3. Once the heads start to be cut off, the stinging tail is vulnerable. It is in the interests of SAM exporters to downplay the vulnerability of these networks, but in reality, without C3 and early warning, all SAM systems can do is cause attrition, not aerial denial. As good as the S-400 system is, once 91N6E radars are targeted/ neutralized, the system is compromised. That does not require strike aircaft to enter the missile envelope, emissions can be triangulated and cruise missiles interspersed with decoys such as MALD can swarm close in defenses.
Simply put manufacturers make bold claims about AD systems effectiveness, the operational history of these weapons tells a different story. Yes, they are a very real threat, one that can exact losses on attackers, but cannot stop a concerted air campaign.
FBWThis S-400 vs F-35 obsession is overplayed. Make no mistake, both the updated S-300 and S-400 systems are absolutely lethal when employed with a comprehensive AD network. Same as previous 2K12 systems etc. But there is a bit of over marketing going on posing these as Aerial denial systems.
Time and time again, we’ve seen air defense networks dismantled by a concerted air campaign. Why? Because in every case, the network was not backed up by an effective counter-air fighter force. Once an air campaign begins to dismantle air-surveillance, C&C facilities, the hunters become the hunted. Sure, they can inflict a level of attrition on the attackers (Six day war comes to mind), but cannot deny control of the air.
Since the 1991 Gulf War, we’ve seen revisionist history try to downplay the Iraqi air defense sustem that was in place as 2nd rate. In truth, it was sophisticated for the time, with a blend of western and Soviet radars and weapons in a French designed Command control network. It wasn’t dismantled because it was crap, it was a concerted defense suppression effort and total failure of Iraqi Air Force to present a threat to those efforts. Make no mistake, had Saddam used his airforce effectively in the first days of the conflict, collation losses would have been much higher…. but outcome would have been the same.
FBWThat is not true. There are many factors involved which will yield an optimal frequency. And the RCS reduction measures will diminish in effectiveness on both sides of that frequency.
Ummm, not so much HF radar (like Ka band he referred to). Both VHF/UHF theoretically are effective, but come with another host of issues. There is a reason targeting and ranging radar use certain frequencies.
FBWI am also aware of the problem with the dash target; MICA, for instance, is a medium-ranged air-to-air missile with EO seeker, up to about 100 km. On approach at high Mach, you’re going to be detected at very long ranges, and you can be targeted beforehand even if the missile can’t acquire a lock and needs data-linking.
Dios Mio!! Man where do you get your figures from? Hearsay on forums? MICA is not a 100km missile…. even against DC-3. I don’t even think manufacturers inaccurate estimates would claim 100km for the MICA.
FBW@RALL
I am sure I read Pogossian whole interview and found this statement (maybe not in exactly the same wording) but that was the meaning of it. I don’t speak Russian so I read the English version and I don’t believe in a translation error because the rest of the interview was written in excellent English.
“Possibly the same can be said for the USAF as well?”
Possibly but the Americans keep praising stealth which, according to them, will make close combat impossible together with long range AA missiles. Nevertheless both F22 and F35 embark two short range missiles and a cannon…
Reminds me of those brand new F4 Phantom that were sent to VietNam with air-air missiles but no cannon based on the same idea. But after some of them were shot down by MiG-15 which had no missiles but one 37mm and two 25mm guns the Phantoms where rushed back to the US and equipped with a nice Gatling cannon under the nose…
That analogy is so ill-used and obsolete it is painful to read every time it’s repeated. 50 years… that is the time that has passed since Vietnam. Let that sink in. If guns and maneuverability were the two critical factors in air combat, the biplane with dual cannon firing through the prop was both the most maneuverable, and most reliable gun system. We don’t use those now do we?
One, AAM of the Vietnam era had limited coolant, limited firing envelope, limited aspect for which a heat seeker could engage. Pilots from the USAF (specifically) were not trained in their employment. Worse, they didn’t realize captive carry hours could result in dud missiles from repeated stress of flight.
Forward 12-15 years, the Aim-9L was lethal in Falklands. Forward another 5-7 years, HMS and AA-11 (R-73) combination on the MiG-29 and Su-27.
Playing WVR is death. Sure, a Su-22 avioided an AIM-9X over Syria, then died to an AIM-120. Maneuverability isn’t going to save you in a “many vs many” close in fight. Nor will turn radius or thrust to weight ratio. Multiple exercises and studies show this. I can pull up my old thread to show the results.
OODA loop and advantageous position are the biggest factors in “winning” close in. And frankly, modern day fights aren’t going to last long enough for a gun (or lack thereof) to be a factor. The day of two-three circle fights with multiple vertical breaks and extending are done. It only gets an all-aspect missile up your rear..
or nose.
FBWSuper Inst. now look up issues with F-22 inlet coatings. We are not talking an aerodynamic limit for the F-22 et. al. It is a materials limit. If you want to believe the Su-57 or J-20 can reach speeds above Mach 2-2.3 go ahead. And yes, theoretically the F-22 can reach roughly similar speeds 2.3-2.4. Operationally, it has been limited to speeds just above Mach 2.
And the J-20 reaching anywhere much above Mach 2 is fantasy. Simply put neither the inlet or current engine has that capability. And no one piece canopy or RAM could survive that thermal environment.
FBWActually, no. The F-22 has a demostrated supercruise of Mach 1.72 official from SAR reports. Any “rumors” are just that rumors. As for the rest:
Boundary layer air bleed systems are present in the F-22, F-35, and Su-57. They have zero to do with Vmax (other than regulating airflow), an inlet optimized for Mach 1.8 won’t reach Mach 2.9 no matter how many BLC vents. DSI have been tested to roughly Mach 2, where recovery falls off. The rest I am just not going to spend the time to discuss. Primarily because no LO aircraft based on current materials is going to have a top speed much above Mach 2. Period. And none of the engines or inlets of the above mentioned would be capable of speeds like Mach 2.9.
FBWInst- think reality. The F-22’s supercruise speed isn’t secret… and it isn’t Mach 2.
Fineness ratio and wing sweep do not determine Vmax: inlets, materials, and engine design does. I can assure you that neither the J-20 or Su-57 will operate much above Mach 2.
FBWNow we have:
J-20 with a Vmax of Mach 2.9…with AL-31F engines (or WS-10B). Or throw in the WS-15 that isn’t ready yet. Sure Mach 2.9.
And a Su-57 with a supercruise speed of Mach 2.1…
Glad to see this thread is firmly rooted in reality as usual. Just a dead thread without TR-1 or Berkut.
FBWNo response on your absurd claims on he APG-79, 63 huh haavarla? Well that’s to b expected when you talk out of your rear.
FBWAnd you seems to be out of touch regarding radar service hours
The AESA on both SH and F-15 had TERRIBLE sustainment hours..
What are you babbling about “sustainment hours”? Are you talking about MTBF, or maintenance hours?
And secondly, where exactly are you getting this information.
Edit- forget it, I know exactly what you are referring to. F-18E/F dot&e. Too bad you didn’t actually read it. The problem with early versions was software instability of the APG-79 (which was improved by newer software drops). Nothing on the APG-63v3. Both are worlds better in reliability and maintenance ease than any mechanical array. The use of LRU solves the maintenance headaches of legacy radar systems.
FBW[ATTACH=CONFIG]261877[/ATTACH]
Wow, helps to read article and what flightradar24 is.
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself. But really, the aviationist article even explains how sites like flightradar24 work and transponders. And we get a heading of a thread about “Lebanese air traffic controllers”.
FBW@Spud, RAND did a study on turbofan acquisition that had the thrust figures directly from OEM’s and USAF. Also, War college paper on the Super Hornet had accurate thrust figures.
FBWThrust at altitude is what matters.
Using SLS thrust provided by engine manufacturers in a test stand does not give insight into thrust at altitude.
Exactly, that was one example I broke down on previous page using the F100.
The F414 is a low bypass turbofan though, and flight thrust at higher altitudes likely doesn’t drop off as severely as previous generation turbofans (but still too many unknown variables such as inlet performance, drag). Remain sceptical of Gripen E possessing usable supercruise.
Yes the NG reached Mach 1.2 (in a clean configuration). And while the inlets on the NG were not optimized for the F414, it also didn’t have the fuselage stretch and widening, increased wing area, wingtip ECM, weight gain. Parasitic drag increased, profile drag, and likely trim drag with a higher GW. If the test program reveals the Gripen E can supercruise at Mach 1.2 or above when armed with more that two missiles, I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong (I think it more likely that it can slightly exceed Mach 1 when light on dry thrust, just like the “C”)
Sign In
