F-15X or F-15SE, F-35, F-22 as air fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8400
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Jul 2019, 22:21

weasel1962 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Until the F-35s TR3 hits in the next year.


The official date is 2023 from lot 15 onwards.

I think that he was talking about its first flight rather than TR3 release to the fleet.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post04 Jul 2019, 22:48

No, I was just making a general response that the MC in the F-15EX will not be the fastest for long.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Jul 2019, 00:43

quicksilver wrote: However, US would retain air superiority for as long as the missile inventory lasted.


There may be a lot of JDAMs expended in combat but the one thing that's hardly used except in live firing training/testing are AMRAAMs. "Only" ~10,000 procured by USAF thus far vis the number of planes the Chinese have.

The bigger issue are the new LRAAMs fielded hence AIM-260. Its still lopsided considering if Chinese "can't see the planes", so what do they shoot at?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Jul 2019, 01:44

wrightwing wrote:In that eventuality, the Chinese won't be able to generate high sortie rates, as their airfields will be smouldering, and the aircraft that survive will have to fly from more distant bases/rely heavily on tanking. Additionally, in addition to USAF/USN/USMC aircraft, you'd have to add in aircraft from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore, etc... as it's doubtful they'd sit on their hands.


The PLAAF fleet are still 3/4G (900+) which are at best equivalent to the F-15/16 fleets which the F-22s and F-35s are already wiping their feet on at least in training. 3 out of the 5 listed countries are already buying F-35As and Bs. The Pacific has 200+ legacies (incl 1 F-35B sqn) and 1 CVBG based there. Taiwan, Japan and Korea combined can throw up 900+ legacies.

Despite all the threat talk, China only has 20+ J-20s estimated in service. The key is not more F-22s now but how fast PCA should be fielded.

SCS is irrelevant. There is insufficient PLA basing to fight 6 CVBGs, if push comes to shove. No worries about collateral damage and those "islands" can be pummeled back to underwater coral reefs.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 05 Jul 2019, 20:32, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post05 Jul 2019, 16:30

A log of what you said makes sense, thank you.

Are you not concerned though, about the large/growing numbers of Chinese J-10B's/C's and very capable Flanker airframes? To me, those present a very credible threat to our F-15's, 16's and 18's? At least until large numbers of F-35's proliferate.

On the airfield destruction.. OK, but doesn't that go both ways?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3345
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Jul 2019, 18:19

mixelflick wrote:A log of what you said makes sense, thank you.

Are you not concerned though, about the large/growing numbers of Chinese J-10B's/C's and very capable Flanker airframes? To me, those present a very credible threat to our F-15's, 16's and 18's? At least until large numbers of F-35's proliferate.

On the airfield destruction.. OK, but doesn't that go both ways?

We don't fight platform vs platform fights (but our pilots have practiced against F-22, F-35, Typhoons, Rafales, Fulcrums, Flankers, etc...). Chinese pilots haven't had nearly the same level of DACT, large scale exercises, cross training, etc.... as US/allied pilots. China doesn't have the airbase dispersion/tanking advantages of US/allied forces, which makes it more difficult for them to affect our sortie rates vs our ability to affect theirs. After 2021, F-35Cs will be added to the mix, in addition to USAF/USMC, Japanese, South Korean, and Australian F-35s. Further into the decade, B-21s will start entering service, too.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post06 Jul 2019, 16:30

It sounds as if the F-35 got here just in time then. That, and of course training..

It worries me though, that we're a little over-confident in air superiority. Confidence is great, but several pilots I've spoken to have said (in one case word for word): "Nobody can touch us air to air...". An F-22 pilot I spoke with was rather dismissive of the SU-57, but attached great worry to Russian built Chinese platforms. He basically said China takes a lot of stuff from Russia, tweaks it and they become very capable. Further stated that they don't train to defeat Russian air to air fighters as much as Chinese Flankers. "That's what we train for", was his parting comment.

Finally, I've spent a great deal of time studying the J/C-31. It doesn't appear to convey many (if any) advantages vs. the F-35, and certainly not the F-22 (or even the forthcoming F-15EX). I'm not sure why, but the progress they displayed in the J-20 just doesn't seem to translate into the J/C-31. I could be wrong, but I guess we'll see...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3345
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Jul 2019, 19:12

Nobody's over-confident. It's an objective fact that their pilots do not have anywhere near the experience/training of western/allied pilots. When you don't have a cross pollenization of ideas/tactics (which only comes from training with myriad air forces) and based upon real world combat experience (when was the last time the Chinese air force flew in combat,) your training syllabus is going to come up lacking. Even when it comes to flight hours, their pilots don't fly as often as western/allied pilots. Now factor in platform and system superiority, on top of superior pilots. That F-22 pilot was stating fact.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 05:36

Add OPLAN 5000 thru 5077. 60 years to develop, tweak and refine. The guys up there know what they need to do both at the strategic and tactical level. The only risk is a tweet to implement a new T-PLAN at the last minute.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Jul 2019, 23:44

mixelflick wrote:It sounds as if the F-35 got here just in time then. That, and of course training..

It worries me though, that we're a little over-confident in air superiority. Confidence is great, but several pilots I've spoken to have said (in one case word for word): "Nobody can touch us air to air...". An F-22 pilot I spoke with was rather dismissive of the SU-57, but attached great worry to Russian built Chinese platforms. He basically said China takes a lot of stuff from Russia, tweaks it and they become very capable. Further stated that they don't train to defeat Russian air to air fighters as much as Chinese Flankers. "That's what we train for", was his parting comment.

Finally, I've spent a great deal of time studying the J/C-31. It doesn't appear to convey many (if any) advantages vs. the F-35, and certainly not the F-22 (or even the forthcoming F-15EX). I'm not sure why, but the progress they displayed in the J-20 just doesn't seem to translate into the J/C-31. I could be wrong, but I guess we'll see...


For all we know the J-31 may have better Stealth and Sensor Fusion (Situational Awareness) than the J-20. As a matter of fact considering it was developed after the J-20. Odds are good......

Nor, have I seen anything that would support the J-20 has better flight performance either???
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2198
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 09:37

I think we still universally agree that the Chinese are still behind the Russians in engine technology and perhaps some metals.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=54960
- The 117S engine is very good. It has 13% more dry thrust than the older AL-31F, which is already superior to the domestic WS-10.


But judging by the words of PLAAF pilots who have assessed the Su-35, it seems that the Chinese have well overtaken them in electronic components technology.

The N035E is an excellent PESA radar. It's pretty much the best PESA radar you can practically develop.

- However, it's substantially weaker than the current generation of Chinese AESAs.

- The N035E radar has some interesting features, for example it is capable of detecting a target at extended ranges (350km) if it's only required to scan a small area (about the size of the HUD). This is not particularly useful without AWACs cueing.

- ESM/ECM systems are not as good as the J-16s. If the J16 were to be rated a 10/10, the Su-35 would be an 8.5/10 on ESM and 8/10 on ECM performance.

- The IRST is also worse, due to the state of the Russian electronics/optics industry.

- The R-77 and R-73 can be used on China's older stock of Russian fighters (Su-27/Su-30MKKs).

- R-77/R-73 are unremarkable, and performance trails the Chinese PL-10 and PL-15 missiles. (Wouldn't the PL-8 and PL-12 be a better comparison?)


Is it safe to assume that Chinese front line fighters would be as capable as European or American 4th gens in sensors, ECM and weaponry. Perhaps, Super Hornet block 1 or Rafale levels
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 19:52

zero-one wrote:Is it safe to assume that Chinese front line fighters would be as capable as European or American 4th gens in sensors, ECM and weaponry. Perhaps, Super Hornet block 1 or Rafale levels


Yes that could be possible. So radar wise we would talk about APG-73/ RBE2 PESA level. Although the figures of the new Chinese AESA RADAR are not impressive compare the latest western AESA Radars. Its roughly on the same level like the Zhuk-AME. Which should be available in a view years for the Mig-35.

The radar uses a 3GHz bandwidth at the X-band, provides detection of fighter-sized targets at 170 km, tracks up to 15 targets simultaneously and engages four with air/air missiles. The radar also supports air/ground modes, with one-meter SAR resolution and terrain mapping at 300 km. Searching targets at sea, the radar can detect large targets from 200 km. The planar AESA array measures 60×60 cm and weighs 69 kg. The processor and power module weigh another less than 35 kg. The array consumes 3,200 VA of power.


Image

https://defense-update.com/20181106_lfk601e.html
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3345
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 21:03

swiss wrote:
zero-one wrote:Is it safe to assume that Chinese front line fighters would be as capable as European or American 4th gens in sensors, ECM and weaponry. Perhaps, Super Hornet block 1 or Rafale levels


Yes that could be possible. So radar wise we would talk about APG-73/ RBE2 PESA level. Although the figures of the new Chinese AESA RADAR are not impressive compare the latest western AESA Radars. Its roughly on the same level like the Zhuk-AME. Which should be available in a view years for the Mig-35.

The radar uses a 3GHz bandwidth at the X-band, provides detection of fighter-sized targets at 170 km, tracks up to 15 targets simultaneously and engages four with air/air missiles. The radar also supports air/ground modes, with one-meter SAR resolution and terrain mapping at 300 km. Searching targets at sea, the radar can detect large targets from 200 km. The planar AESA array measures 60×60 cm and weighs 69 kg. The processor and power module weigh another less than 35 kg. The array consumes 3,200 VA of power.


Image

https://defense-update.com/20181106_lfk601e.html


The question is what size fighter target are they using? (F-15/Su-27, F-16, or clean F-18/Typhoon/Rafale) As for A2G/sea search, what size is a large target? What range does it have against "small" targets?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 21:08

Back in the day, "Fighter sized" meant 5m^2.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post08 Jul 2019, 22:22

wrightwing wrote:
swiss wrote:
zero-one wrote:Is it safe to assume that Chinese front line fighters would be as capable as European or American 4th gens in sensors, ECM and weaponry. Perhaps, Super Hornet block 1 or Rafale levels


Yes that could be possible. So radar wise we would talk about APG-73/ RBE2 PESA level. Although the figures of the new Chinese AESA RADAR are not impressive compare the latest western AESA Radars. Its roughly on the same level like the Zhuk-AME. Which should be available in a view years for the Mig-35.

The radar uses a 3GHz bandwidth at the X-band, provides detection of fighter-sized targets at 170 km, tracks up to 15 targets simultaneously and engages four with air/air missiles. The radar also supports air/ground modes, with one-meter SAR resolution and terrain mapping at 300 km. Searching targets at sea, the radar can detect large targets from 200 km. The planar AESA array measures 60×60 cm and weighs 69 kg. The processor and power module weigh another less than 35 kg. The array consumes 3,200 VA of power.


Image

https://defense-update.com/20181106_lfk601e.html


The question is what size fighter target are they using? (F-15/Su-27, F-16, or clean F-18/Typhoon/Rafale) As for A2G/sea search, what size is a large target? What range does it have against "small" targets?


Like spurts said in past it was 5m2. Today 3m2 seems the norm. Also for the predecessor of the Chinese AESA Radar.

http://www.jf-17.com/avionics/

And max SAR Resolution is 1m. Thats bad even for older MSA Radars. APG-68V9 or Captor-D have a lower Resolution.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zaltys and 14 guests