PAK FA vs F-22A

[nutshell]

The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

I think BVR goal is actually to achieve the unfair advantage of shooting before the enemy, to shoot again, to shoot again (this part is crucial because heads would roll in Rytheon) and possibly, one more time.

Then, go into a merge knowing your enemy has possibly burnt too much fuel(and luck)which is again grabbing that unfair advantage.

At least, imho.

[Corsair1963]

The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

What??? The whole objective is to fight at BVR and avoid WVR.

[zero-one]

I think you are underestimating how difficult Iraq really was............

No I'm not, they were powerful for a regional power, but hilariously outgunned against the world's lone superpower at the time.

unlike Vietnam back in the 60s, they had no support from major players like Russia or Europe, hence they had no way of restocking used or lost armaments.

And unlike the Germany back in World war 2 they had no or very very little production capability. If I remember correctly, Israel was more powerful, though they were smaller, they had more modern equipment and had an actual production line of advanced aircraft, tanks, ships, missiles etc.

Okay answer me this, how many times would Iraq win against the US in 100 engagements? and by win I mean invading Washington and raising the Iraqi flag over the white house. I'm guessing zero,

What about a defensive victory where they defeat the coalition forces....I don't think thats possible as well.

The very best that they could achieve was increase the number of casualties inflicted against the coalition and maybe negotiate a case fire. But unlike Vietnam, they had no support which meant they could not sustain a high end war, it will inevitably lead to guerilla warfare. with nothing more than small arms.

[zero-one]

What??? The whole objective is to fight at BVR and avoid WVR.

I think it depends on the situation.

If you're cleared to engage a few bandits from BVR, then BVR will be used to avoid WVR all together. But as Chip and Tailgate said, there will be situations that will call for WVR even in an F-22.

So I imagine one example would be while providing CAP. Multiple bandits trying to penetrate your protected airspace, you take out as many as you can BVR which will lead to advantages when you get to WVR.

[hornetfinn]

My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.

Thats indeed a very low impact on the RCS. I assume Amraam and Meteors RCS should be higher. Whats your opinion about the RCS of fuel tanks? Would be helpful for a discussion in a other thread.

I think modern EFTs have fairly low RCS as they have clean shape and are made of composites nowadays which helps a lot. Of course they are pretty large objects hanging from aircraft and definitely increase RCS.

I found this about radar cross section for EFTs (seems pretty sound as far as theory goes from quick look): http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002901.pdf

Basically they calculated than the RCS of single EFT is something like 0.001 to 0.1 square meters from forward sector but spikes to tens of square meters directly from sides.

I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.

[mixelflick]

"However, since 2017 Paris airshow, LM has changed its PR strategy completely and F-35 is advertised to be "fully capable in dogfight and is more maneuverable than Typhoon or Superhornet without a doubt".

To me, this is one of the most impressive aspects of the F-35. Although designed as a sensor/shooter and not a pure dogfighter, it somehow has some genuine supermaneuverable moves without the thrust vectoring, etc. seen on other jets. It may not be a Raptor WVR, but anyone that jumps it thinking easy kill is in for a nasty surprise..

"The success of the Gulf War is a testament to the lessons learned in Vietnam, the USAF (and also the Navy) completely revamped their approach to fighting wars. They changed the doctrine, strategy, the tactics, the aircraft and the missiles... "


When reading this, I couldn't help think about how the F-22 and F-35 have done the same. Well, almost the same... we still need new missiles, LOL. We continually hear about how 5th gen birds have re-written the playbook, and those changes are still coming now that the F-35 is in the hands of the warfighter and present so many options. Every time I see these SU-57 vs F-22 or 35 threads I think about that. You can even hear it in the Russian's statements, saying something to the effect that "the SU-57 will be at least equal to and in many ways superior to the F-22..."

They're thinking about yesterday's war, strategy and tactics. They don't have a robust tanker/AWACS force, nor do the Chinese. Time will tell if building tactical aircraft with huge gas tanks and "supermaneuverability" was a stroke of genius or a mistake.

The first time an F-35 shoots down an SU-57 with an SM-6, it'll be the first time it hits them...

[mixelflick]

The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'...

There was no F-16D vs F-35 dogfight.

What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..

[botsing]

There was no F-16D vs F-35 dogfight.

What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..

Do you have some links to what you are talking about? I cannot remember LM spinning anything after the leaked CLAW test with an F-16 as observer/reference plane. Also after reading that CLAW test report I never got the impression that dogfighting was ever any part of that test.

Maybe we are talking about something completely different here? So please show us the links to that "dogfight" and LM's spinning of it so we can do some fact checking.

[tsl256]

What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..[/quote]

It was an AoA test, and not a dogfight.

[swiss]

My guess is that AIM-9X/ASRAAM have RCS of something like 0.001 to 0.01 square meters or better depening on materials used. Being mounted on pylons probably increases RCS somewhat, but pylon could have quite a lot of RAM to help the situation. I think two AIM-9X or ASRAAMs on F-35 will not have that huge impact on RCS. It will increase for sure and there will likely be bigger RCS spikes from some directions. IMO, F-35 will still be a lot stealthier than any other fighter aircraft (besides F-22 of course). I'd guess they will be used when tasked for air to air missions but likely omitted when on air to ground missions against fully operational defenses.

Thats indeed a very low impact on the RCS. I assume Amraam and Meteors RCS should be higher. Whats your opinion about the RCS of fuel tanks? Would be helpful for a discussion in a other thread.

I think modern EFTs have fairly low RCS as they have clean shape and are made of composites nowadays which helps a lot. Of course they are pretty large objects hanging from aircraft and definitely increase RCS.

I found this about radar cross section for EFTs (seems pretty sound as far as theory goes from quick look): http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002901.pdf

Basically they calculated than the RCS of single EFT is something like 0.001 to 0.1 square meters from forward sector but spikes to tens of square meters directly from sides.

I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.

Thanks again hornetfinn for your informative answer. Lower as expected, at least from the frontal sector. With significantly higher, we talk about one order of magnitude?

[XanderCrews]

What would you call it then? I'm not being flippant, just curious why you say that??

From the pilot comments, it sure sounded like it. It was certainly played in the media that way.. I understand the F-35 in question wasn't loaded with the latest software, but Lockheed Martin didn't do themselves any favors by (initially) saying the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight. In doing so, they lent credence to the fact it was a dogfight..

A flight control laws test? Because that's what it was.

[nutshell]

"Basic Fighter Maneuvers"

Do you really dogfight against a clean f16 with a 4.5g frame that's testing its Claws?

[icemaverick]

No I'm not, they were powerful for a regional power, but hilariously outgunned against the world's lone superpower at the time.

The same applies to Vietnam. Look at how much trouble the North Vietnamese gave the US. Look at the Russians' experience in Chechnya. On the first go of things, they were defeated by a ragtag bunch of rebels in what they claimed as their own territory.

Just because one side is better armed and better equipped than the other does not assure a victory. There are many examples of a smaller, supposedly weaker force defeating a larger, better equipped one.

unlike Vietnam back in the 60s, they had no support from major players like Russia or Europe, hence they had no way of restocking used or lost armaments.

They also had better trained pilots, better funding and better equipment compared to their enemies. Sure they couldn't restock their weapons, but it's quite amazing that they only managed to score 1 air-to-air kill. Compare that to Vietnam. Heck, even in Korea, US pilots were something like 12-1. 39-1 is truly astounding.

And unlike the Germany back in World war 2 they had no or very very little production capability.

The North Vietnamese also had no production capability but that didn't prevent them from giving the US forces fits.

If I remember correctly, Israel was more powerful, though they were smaller, they had more modern equipment and had an actual production line of advanced aircraft, tanks, ships, missiles etc.

I don't think the Israelis really had any advanced aircraft in production. The Kfir, which is basically an Israeli copy of the Mirage III was pretty long in the tooth by the early 90s. That being said, I do think the Israelis would have defeated the Iraqis thanks to their better trained military and their relative cohesion (Iraq is of course a country that has major ethnic and religious divides).

Okay answer me this, how many times would Iraq win against the US in 100 engagements? and by win I mean invading Washington and raising the Iraqi flag over the white house. I'm guessing zero,

It was never Iraq's objective to invade Washington. That's just silly. First off, how would the even get their expeditionary force across the Atlantic Ocean to attack the United States? Maybe the only country in the Western Hemisphere that would allow the Iraqis to base their forces on its territory would be Cuba. Good luck getting their forces there though!

That was never their objective. They hoped to bog the Coalition down and get them to give up....essentially turn it into another Vietnam for the US. They hoped that if they could turn it into a long drawn out war, the US public would lose its resolve.

What about a defensive victory where they defeat the coalition forces....I don't think thats possible as well.

Again, go back to the First Chechen War. This was Russia, the heir to the USSR, versus a bunch of rebels. The Russians were defeated and suffered nearly 6,000 casualties.

War is never as easy as it looks. For the US to go into a foreign country located thousands of miles away and to absolutely crush them is quite an accomplishment.

The very best that they could achieve was increase the number of casualties inflicted against the coalition and maybe negotiate a case fire. But unlike Vietnam, they had no support which meant they could not sustain a high end war, it will inevitably lead to guerilla warfare. with nothing more than small arms.

They could have definitely score more kills of Coalition aircraft. They could have inflicted much heavier casualties.

Also, do not underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare. Besides the example of the First Chechen War, look at what the Afghans did to the USSR in the 80s. That war lasted over 9 years and ended with the Soviets withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988....just 3 years before the Gulf War.

The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

[element1loop]

The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

OP "Desert Shield" build-up phase added another 6 months.

~7.5 months overall.

(best not to under state the actual duration - is all)

[hornetfinn]

I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.

Thanks again hornetfinn for your informative answer. Lower as expected, at least from the frontal sector. With significantly higher, we talk about one order of magnitude?

No problem! I think people often overestimate the RCS effect of external stores, especially modern equipment and weapons. Sure they will increase RCS of F-35 or F-22 by huge amounts, but not so much for 4th gen aircraft as their clean RCS is way bigger. I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters. I'd guess that with 2 EFTs, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9X and 2 JDAMs it will probably (my WAG) be something like 1 square meter from frontal sector (but with very large spikes from sides). Of course if it's fully bombed up with older ordnance, it will have much higher RCS. I base this on these calculated, simulated and measured RCS figures for weapons and EFTs. Also RCS reduction measures taken in advanced 4th gen aircraft would not make much sense otherwise. Far cry from VLO stealth aircraft, but better than older 4th gen fighters, which are likely at least 5 square meters from frontal sector with the same loadout (F-16 and Gripen might be slightly less though).

I think something like one order of magnitude difference in RCS between AMRAAM and AIM-9X sound about right, but that's just a guess.