Forum: F-22A Raptor

jeffb wrote:

@exec & conan

So what you guys are saying is that Kopp is some kind of fifth-column subversive. That he's making all this stuff up to undermine the morale of the west or something? No, no that's right he's in the pay of the russian aircraft manufacturers. Come on guys, that's just paranoid drivel.
That or it's a deliberate misinformation campaign against the APA analysts instigated by vested interests.

I have no vested interests, other then a genuine interest in the defence of my country, but if you can't understand that Kopp is being disingenuous then you can't understand what he is saying.

What is his current motivation? Beats me. He WAS part of a consortium that was trying to sell an F-111 upgrade to the Australian Government, along with Peter Goon. This offer was rejected in favour of the F-35 and ever since they've been trying to get this decision over-turned.

They've argued their case in the media, in front of Australian Senate Committees and Kopp does it through a defence magazine in Australia. Their arguments have swayed no-one except those like you apparently who don't bother to enquire about these issues on your own.

Ever since the F-35 beat his proposal he seems to have taken the issue to heart and has railed against the decision ever since.

And Kopp doesn't make stuff up? Aha. So telling a Senate committee that Australia's Hornets (and therefore sovereignty) are outmatched by supercruising Sukhoi SU-30 aircraft, fitted with ALF-41 engines and K-100 "AWACS killer" missiles, is the truth is it? He also testified "hordes" of these aircraft would be entering the "region" (Australia's "region" of course being as far East as Iran and as North as Russia) by 2010.

So if Kopp is not making things up, perhaps you can show me where such a force exists?

Quote:

Conan, I agree most a2a these days isn't one-to-one but if you're going to compare apples and apples then you have to get down to the base cases. The RAND study that looked at what might happen if the Chinese tried to invade Taiwan assumed that in the end 10-20 raptors would be facing 3 REGIMENTS of flankers. The raptors all escape but the surviving flankers leak through and take out the US tankers and AWACS. So if you want be more realistic about the numbers on either side in an a2a stouch, by all means be my guest.

No it did NOT. The exercise in question was a LOGISTICAL EXERCISE. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with air combat and in any case was USAF specific. USAF ran the exercise and DID NOT include the Taiwanese Air Force, US Navy/Marine Corps and other allies or indeed even the full spectrum of USAF capabilities.

RAND itself confirmed this, as did the US Air Force. No intellectually honest analyst would run an air combat wargame where only 20-30 Raptors were available and NO supporting elements whatsoever were available to fight the entire might of China single-handedly. The idea is simply ludicrous.

Why not wargame whether a single US infantry battalion could handle the entire People's Liberation Army single-handedly and then decide on this basis that the M-16 rifle is "obsolete"? It would make as much sense as this "analysis" did.

Quote:

When I read their analysis I never come away with the opinion that they are over-hyping the opposition systems or under-hyping the western ones. It's quite clear if you read carefully that they think that the american equipment is years more advanced than the russian stuff but that the russians aren't idiots and are countering by building bigger, and as they get better technology from the west, smarter systems.

Rubbish. Their figures are grossly inflated and/or over-hyped. They deliberately under-estimate developmental problems experienced in Russian programs, dismiss real world reports of Russian military equipment failings and grossly expand upon issues experienced by American equipment, with the near sole exception of the "all singing all dancing" F-22 Raptor, though I notice that even that aircraft is now coming under the same treatment with APA unilaterally declaring it to be "kinematically outclassed" by the PAK-FA, whilst inexplicably calling for a boost in production of the F-22, but an end to the F-35 program, which is similarly outclassed...

Question

Quote:

A (very)quick bit of research found that their quoted figures for missile ranges for the R-27 at least matches the stuff published most other places on the web.

I agree fully. Their ability to copy and paste from Sukhoi and Rosboronexport's websites and brochures and take them entirely on face value truly knows no bounds. What is SO disingenuous is that they don't offer the same benefit to Western manufacturers...

Quote:

I'm not a Jane's subscriber but this is available through their news website:
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/j ... _5_n.shtml

Janes? You'll be quoting Wiki next...

Quote:

So apart from Jane's who think they only range out to 110 km APA is pretty much on the nose.

Well we do agree about something at least. APA is definitely on the nose...

Quote:

I don't want to be rude here and I don't want this thread to become all about APA but as I stated above until better information can be confirmed the analyses are perfectly reasonable. Conan, of course they compare future russian developments against current western systems! That's just saying this is what appears to be coming down the pipe and if we don't move our asses this is where we'll be. Come on.

They are not the slightest bit reasonable. They HAVE stated on the basis of viewing a photograph that this flying aeroshell with NO systems whatsoever IS the end for Western airpower.

They have stated on the basis of looking at a photograph what the F-35's RCS is, not what they think, but what it IS. Now Lockheed Martin needs to put an RCS test model up high on a pole and paint it with a variety of radars to find these things out, but really why bother? They surely could have just emailed Dr Kopp a couple of photographs, couldn't they?

Quote:

Considering all this Conan I do wonder why using them immediately results in buckets of vitriol. Every time I go back and try to verify the claims of people like yourself who say that they're incompetent or liars I find (as I said earlier) that your claims simply can't be supported, that essentially, you've misread or misinterpreted sections and then emotionally rejected the site in it's entirety.

Why do you take such an interest in what I say? Clearly APA have all the answers...

Quote:

It shouldn't matter whether or not they are sworn members of a military force, attacking the person and not their arguments is pretty poor form generally. To my thinking it essentially concedes the argument if you have to resort to name calling or casting dispersions on their background and whether or not they've served in the military.

Shouldn't it? Does it ever occur to you that military forces don't perhaps put the full extant of their capability on the internet?

APA have no clearance whatsoever to access classified information. You put so much faith in their analysis, but let me ask YOU a simple question.

If you have to answer a particular addition or subtraction question and you are deliberately given the wrong figures, what chance do you think you have of getting the correct answer?

Quote:

Nice one on the Rosoboronexport, how big was your last cheque from Lockheed Martin?

I thought it was wrong to attack the man? Doesn't that detract from your argument, or does it only detract from mine?

Now you are getting the picture though. Keep on this path and continue to make enough entirely baseless accusations with absolutely no authority or evidence whatsoever to make them and you too could become a fully fledged APA member...

F-16.net Sponsor

Conan wrote:

What is his current motivation? Beats me. He WAS part of a consortium that was trying to sell an F-111 upgrade to the Australian Government, along with Peter Goon. This offer was rejected in favour of the F-35 and ever since they've been trying to get this decision over-turned.

This is all anyone needs to know if they're genuinly interested in the reasons for APA's agenda and why act as they do. Bitter spitefulness due to financial loss. Laughing

APA=irrelevant && incorrect && incompetent. Let's move along. There's nothing to see here...

-DA

that's simply a great post, Conan.

exec wrote:

jeffb wrote:

The RAND study that looked at what might
happen if the Chinese tried to invade Taiwan assumed that in the end 10-20 raptors would be facing
3 REGIMENTS of flankers. The raptors all escape but the surviving flankers leak through and take
out the US tankers and AWACS. So if you want be more realistic about the numbers on either side
in an a2a stouch, by all means be my guest.

And what about Republic of China Air Force? They're not defending their home? What about 144 F-16's, 56 Mirage-5, 127 F-CK-1 and 33 F-5E? Why are they not involved in the RAND study? What about Taiwan's air defence? What about surface-to-air missiles?

Probably burning wreckage on the ground like most of the American units at Kadena. Scenario opens with SRBM attack on Kadena and possibly MRBM on carrier groups if location known. Based on the unrefueled range of an F-18E, if the F-18's can cover Taiwan then Chinese MRBM can reach carriers.
Have you seen the RAND air combat briefing? Here's a link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fil ... iefing.pdf
There's a fun bit towards the back which has that F-35A "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" bit.

exec wrote:

jeffb wrote:

A (very)quick bit of research found that their quoted figures for missile ranges for the R-27 at least
matches the stuff published most other places on the web. If you DO have access to serious intelligence
about this stuff then by all means share (with sources).

(...)

So apart from Jane's who think they only range out to 110 km APA is pretty much on the nose.

Clearly, you have no idea how all this 'missile range' stuff works.
Missile ranges vary on different altitudes. The higher above sea level, the lower the density of air. So - higher means greater range.

All this ranges quoted by APA are probably correct, but they refer to high altitude - 20km above sea level (65 000 ft).

Look here:

F-16's HUD. Closing speed ~1000 knots (1850 km/h), altitude ~11 000 ft (3,4 km). Launch zone ~19 NMI (35km). At this altitude R-27R range is ~20km and R-77 range is ~22km.
So now explain this:

Well you need to show the whole image:

Which is about long range detection using IR and tactics the Sukhoi driver might employ. If it's to scale then AIM-120C engagement range would be about 80 or 90km which would suggest AIM-120C-6 or earlier. You would also assume that the Sukhoi driver would launch missles from his best altitude not the targets so I assume it's a best case scenario for the flanker.

exec wrote:

And what about this:

my calculations for Su-30MKI and F-18E super hornet:
Su-30MKI - 50% fuel + 2klb AAM -> T/W ratio 1,03
F-18E - 50% fuel + 2klb AAM -> T/W ratio 1,10

I must admit this one had me baffled for a bit but then I read the diagram again. The bar under the picture of SU-30MKI states AL-31F variants so your calculation for the Su-30MKI is based on the AL-31FP engines but variants means the more advanced AL-31 engines up to and including AL-41F1A which is the AL-41 engine with a AL-31 core (apparently). To add insult to injury he's included the AL-41F which is the all new (more expensive) engine and which is also a relatively simple upgrade for the flankers. The next thing was the actual title of the graph which states "50% total fuel + 2000lb AAM".
I've done you a handy dandy chart:

If you measure the lengths of the bars and compare them to the various tw ratios you'll see that the diagram is pretty much spot on. The values for the F-35 and F-22 are pretty rubbery of course but you get a feel for what he's getting at.

exec wrote:

And what about comparing Russian radars detection range vs US radars tracking range on one graph?. I have a word for it - manipulation.

One more thing - Russians show their radar and missile max ranges under optimal conditions. US radar and missile ranges are classified. For example: AIM-120 range is officially "greater than 20 miles" (and in this case we know it's much greater than that). APG-81 tracking range is officially 'greater than 80 miles'. How much greater? None of us knows. But hey, look at Kopp's graph - APG-81 tracking range - 80 miles vs 1m2 target and Bars radar (N011) detection range ~77 miles (142km) vs 1m2 target. But didn't the Russians say that the Bars max detection range is 140km vs 2,5m2 target? What about tracking range? We know that tracking range is often like 2/3 - 3/4 detection range. So if you ask me - detection range should be 61 NMI vs 1m2 target and tracking range should be ~43 NMI.

In the other diagrams like this one used on the site he only mentions Russian radars and for all those charts the vertical axis is "detection range". But this chart includes American radars which we don't know the detection ranges for but through various reports and sources we "know" the "tracking ranges" for certain targets, then you just work backwards for the range of RCS's. Quite flattering to the American radar really, don't know why you're getting so upset. If there is a discrepancy I suggest you go back and re-read based on your example above, possibly you misread that one too.

So there you go again. When you stop and think about it, it all seems quite reasonable except for the AIM-120C-6 thing. I just don't understand why you guys get so upset about it all.

Conan wrote:

What is his current motivation? Beats me. He WAS part of a consortium that was trying to sell an F-111 upgrade to the Australian Government, along with Peter Goon. This offer was rejected in favour of the F-35 and ever since they've been trying to get this decision over-turned.

Needs repeating as this most important fact seems to have fallen on deaf ears... Exclamation

jeffb wrote:

Probably burning wreckage on the ground like most of the American units at Kadena. Scenario opens with SRBM attack on Kadena and possibly MRBM on carrier groups if location known. Based on the unrefueled range of an F-18E, if the F-18's can cover Taiwan then Chinese MRBM can reach carriers.
Have you seen the RAND air combat briefing? Here's a link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fil ... iefing.pdf
There's a fun bit towards the back which has that F-35A "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" bit.

I get it now. You are actually a troll who simply likes stirring people up. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the idea of hitting US carriers with ballistic missiles. Even you can't be stupid enough to believe that myth, so I have to assume you are trolling.

In case you actually believe this nonsense, please have a read of what some blokes who actually analyse things for a living, rather than a mean-spirited, misplaced vendetta, actually think about these things...

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/bdcf ... lopments-a

Quote:

All this ranges quoted by APA are probably correct, but they refer to high altitude - 20km above sea level (65 000 ft).

Er, that high is pressure suit height. Please show me which Russian tactical fighter aircraft are so equipped....

Quote:

I must admit this one had me baffled for a bit but then I read the diagram again. The bar under the picture of SU-30MKI states AL-31F variants so your calculation for the Su-30MKI is based on the AL-31FP engines but variants means the more advanced AL-31 engines up to and including AL-41F1A which is the AL-41 engine with a AL-31 core (apparently). To add insult to injury he's included the AL-41F which is the all new (more expensive) engine and which is also a relatively simple upgrade for the flankers. The next thing was the actual title of the graph which states "50% total fuel + 2000lb AAM".
I've done you a handy dandy chart:

Trolling again, Even Vladimir Putin stated openly that the ALF-41 won't be operational for at least 8 years. Who do you believe more, Kopp or Putin?

Quote:

So there you go again. When you stop and think about it, it all seems quite reasonable except for the AIM-120C-6 thing. I just don't understand why you guys get so upset about it all.

Um, there is no such thing as an AIM-120C-6.

It's something else Carlo made up...

jeffb wrote:

Well you need to show the whole image:

Which is about long range detection using IR and tactics the Sukhoi driver might employ. If it's to scale then AIM-120C engagement range would be about 80 or 90km which would suggest AIM-120C-6 or earlier. You would also assume that the Sukhoi driver would launch missles from his best altitude not the targets so I assume it's a best case scenario for the flanker.

This is a classic case of the APA's deliberate bias with all perceived advantages being shown for the SU. Here are the main problems that I have with this graph.

1. The F-35 will not regularly fly with the AIM-120C7 (never with the C6). It's main AMRAAM will be the AIM-120D or even the D+ by the time Australia gets them.

2. The technology represented for the Flankers is NOT CURRENT technology, nor is it in the upgrade path for the Flankers.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Quote:

What happens when the existing OLS-27/30/31 series IRST is replaced with a newer longwave Focal Plane Array device - such as a single chip QWIP device? The result will be a capability to engage opposing aircraft under clear sky conditions regardless of RCS reduction measures.

4. To fire an active missile at max range the SU will need a range to the F-35. The laser rangefinder on the OLS can only work out to 20km. The only other choice the SU will have is to go active with the radar. This will fail vs the F-35. Not only that, but if the SU was undetected until this point, he has now given away his position to the F-35.

5. Any active missile needs to go active at some point in order to engage it's target. Any active missile going against the F-35 will have to get much closer to the F-35 in order to see it. This will greatly reduce the effectiveness of active radar missiles fired against the F-35.

6. No comparable, EXISTING, US tech is shown in that graph. What is the detection range where the F-35 sees the SU? Range of AIM-120D vs SU missiles? How will the MASSIVE jamming capability of the APG-81 affect the engagement?

7. How good is the F-35's IRST? Here is an image of the SniperXR (the precursor of EOTS) showing a 66km (36nm) view. FYI, the claimed, CURRENT, detection range for the OLS-30 is about 50km. The EOTS clearly outclasses that.

8. My basic point is that APA consistently trys to show the SU in the best light, will all the non-existent, unplanned, unfunded, and unknown future tech installed vs a F-35 flying with obsolete missiles and not using the F-35's advantages.

jeffb wrote:

Probably burning wreckage on the ground like most of the American units at Kadena. Scenario opens with SRBM attack on Kadena and possibly MRBM on carrier groups if location known.

Come on, you're not serious, are you?

[quote="jeffb"] Well you need to show the whole image:

Which is about long range detection using IR and tactics the Sukhoi driver might employ. [/qoute]
Well, thank you very much.
Now lets talk about this long-range IR detection tactics (one of the Carlo's favourites). He claims 50km head on detection range for OLS-35. He doesn't mention that IR detection range depends highly on the weather, clouds, humidity, dust, rain etc.
BTW - did you know that this 50km figure is also biased?

He often mentions that N011M radar performance vs F-35 would be degraded to 10-20 Nm (18-37km). How does this apply to the scale of this graph and 35km MAX detection range of the OLS-35?

jeffb wrote:

If it's to scale then AIM-120C engagement range would be about 80 or 90km which would suggest AIM-120C-6 or earlier. You would also assume that the Sukhoi driver would launch missles from his best altitude not the targets so I assume it's a best case scenario for the flanker.

1. AIM-120A and AIM-120B has a range around 20-30% greater than R-77. AIM-120C-5 has greater range than AIM-120A/B. AIM-120C-7 has greater range than AIM-120C-5. AIM-120D has 50% greater range than AIM-120C-7.

2. So, you think that Sukhois are operating at altitude of 20km? : roll:

3. Last thing - do you assume that the graph shows the best case scenario for the Flanker? If it's true this is a bias and manipulation! If you don't understand it, I'll build a best case scenario for F-16 vs F-22.

My conclusion is: F-16 is far superior to F-22. Now you understand?
I think that Carlo is not that stupid, and that he knows that both - Su and F pilots can launch missiles from exactly the same (high) altitude.

jeffb wrote:

I must admit this one had me baffled for a bit but then I read the diagram again. The bar under the picture of SU-30MKI states AL-31F variants so your calculation for the Su-30MKI is based on the AL-31FP engines but variants means the more advanced AL-31 engines up to and including AL-41F1A which is the AL-41 engine with a AL-31 core (apparently). To add insult to injury he's included the AL-41F which is the all new (more expensive) engine and which is also a relatively simple upgrade for the flankers. The next thing was the actual title of the graph which states "50% total fuel + 2000lb AAM".
I've done you a handy dandy chart:

1. There is no such thing as the AL-41F engine. As for now it's just a dream.
2. There is no such thing as the Su-30MKI with AL-41F1A, Su-30MKI with AL-41F, Su-30BM with AL-41F.
You say that there are possible future upgrades? What about F414-EDE with 20% more thrust? Oh, Kopp never mentioned it? Wht I'm not surprised...

So which one has better thurst/weight ratio? F-18E or Su-30MKI?

If you measure the lengths of the bars and compare them to the various tw ratios you'll see that the diagram is pretty much spot on. The values for the F-35 and F-22 are pretty rubbery of course but you get a feel for what he's getting at.

jeffb wrote:

In the other diagrams like this one used on the site he only mentions Russian radars and for all those charts the vertical axis is "detection range". But this chart includes American radars which we don't know the detection ranges for but through various reports and sources we "know" the "tracking ranges" for certain targets, then you just work backwards for the range of RCS's. Quite flattering to the American radar really, don't know why you're getting so upset. If there is a discrepancy I suggest you go back and re-read based on your example above, possibly you misread that one too.

Just one more funny thing:

Bars range is growing fast! Manufacturer claim that Bars has a range of 140km vs 2,5m2 target, but Carlo thinks that the manufacturer is wrong, and that the range is like 240km! How about that?

Now we know the truth - Bars - simple low power PESA has better range than the US high-tech AESA!

Hello

exec wrote:

Bars range is growing fast! Manufacturer claim that Bars has a range of 140km vs 2,5m2 target, but Carlo thinks that the manufacturer is wrong, and that the range is like 240km! How about that?

First, the question: do you have some kind of original manufacturer brochure for Bars? I've found on Wikipedia that Bars can detect target of RCS=2m^2 at 140 km.

Secondly, I suppose that first diaphgram shows the estimated detection range of Bars with AESA antenna.

Regards

Rapec wrote:

First, the question: do you have some kind of original manufacturer brochure for Bars? I've found on Wikipedia that Bars can detect target of RCS=2m^2 at 140 km.

I've seen it somewhere, and it said that Bars detectio range against small fighter (MiG-21) is 140km. Russian sources always say that MiG-21 RCS is 2,5m2. However - the difference in detection range between 2 and 2,5m2 fighter would be like ~10%.

Rapec wrote:

Secondly, I suppose that first diaphgram shows the estimated detection range of Bars with AESA antenna.

No, no - this diagram shows : "Estimated detection range chart for variants of a Flanker sized AESA equipped with a range of Transmit Receive Module power ratings per channel" plus (for comparison) Irbis-E and Bars detection ranges.

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Probably burning wreckage on the ground like most of the American units at Kadena. Scenario opens with SRBM attack on Kadena and possibly MRBM on carrier groups if location known.

I get it now. You are actually a troll who simply likes stirring people up. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the idea of hitting US carriers with ballistic missiles. Even you can't be stupid enough to believe that myth, so I have to assume you are trolling.

With all due respect, some people https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp do seem worried about such a thing.

exec wrote:

Now we know the truth - Bars - simple low power PESA has better range than the US high-tech AESA!

So what is the power output of the "low power" BARS and the "high tech" US AESA?
Btw 140 - 160 km range vs F-16 was a target figure (kind of KPP).

geogen wrote:

Darth - Straw man check..

Look, I know enough over the years from following publicly available info, history and govt released data to contribute in various subject matter punch for punch, thanks. But nice dodge on my points, replying in kind via fallacious inductions and predictable 'poisoning the well' on my behalf - I would argue is all you have established.

Let's just either argue each others statements and claims as I try to do with yours, or don't even post, OK? As a deep-thinker on various subjects (discussing/contemplating matters and predicting scenarios quite often before they are mainstream), I can hold my own I think and I'm really just trying to engage you in dialogue if you're interested.. nothing less.

If that's true, you would not be arguing for more F-22's. You would know why it's being shut down. You would know what 60 "strategic deterrence airframes" would not make any difference except to strain an already strained system with aircraft that would get very little use in all likelihood. You would understand how building then when we clearly have other priorities kills people. I don't mean to antagonize you with that last sentence. But it is important that you understand the context and meaning behind it. It's that serious.

-DA

Conan wrote:

Um, there is no such thing as an AIM-120C-6.
It's something else Carlo made up...

The AMRAAM P3I (Pre-Planned Product Improvement) program led to the AIM-120C, first delivered in 1996. The major new feature of the basic AIM-120C (P3I Phase 1) are the clipped wings and fins. Although th[url]is feature was introduced to allow carriage in the internal weapons bays of the F/A-22 Raptor, the -120C can also be used from other AMRAAM-capable aircraft. The guidance unit of the AIM-120C is upgraded to WGU-44/B standard. The first P3I Phase 2 missile is the AIM-120C-4 (first delivered in 1999), which has an improved WDU-41/B warhead. The AIM-120C-5 is a C-4 with a slightly larger motor in the new WPU-16/B propulsion section and a new shorter WCU-28/B control section with compressed electronics and ECCM upgrades. Deliveries of the AIM-120C-5 began in July 2000. It was followed on the production line by the AIM-120C-6, which features an updated TDD (Target Detection Device). The AIM-120C-7 (P3I Phase 3), development of which has begun in 1998, incorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range. The latter feature was specifically requested by the U.S. Navy to get a (somewhat) suitable replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile, which was then planned to be retired together with the F-14D Tomcat around 2007 (actual official retirement was already in September 2004). The AIM-120C-7 was successfully tested against combat-realistic targets in August and September 2003, and IOC was then planned for 2004. This has slipped somewhat, but as of early 2006, the AIM-120C-7 is beginning to be fielded. Equivalent to the -120A/B, there are also CATM-120C and JAIM-120C non-tactical variants of the AIM-120C.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Russian Stealth Fighter and premature shutdown of F-22