Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

swiss

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 07:23

ricnunes wrote:Thanks swiss :D

And the short answer to your post is: YES

I also believe that with the example above, one can appreciate how useful and important AWACS (which you mentioned) really are :wink:


Your welcome. Yes absolutely true.

blindpilot wrote:In the interest of completeness there are OTH (over the horizon) techniques such as HF backscatter, and longwave groundwave for surface targets (ships etc.)
OTH backscatter.jpg

But these have serious limitations, working around solar issues (other noise), faint return signals, lack of fine targeting info etc. etc. At best currently these are "something may have just hit the fence" warnings, not tracking or targeting per se. I once was at the Pentagon discussing this and had to remind the "users" that the accuracy was not great. "Sure you can tell the NCA that Guam is the target if you want to, as long as you are ready to tell him it went 1500 miles north of that and it's looking more like Okinawa now, once we get the real tracking data."

There's a reason you want to have forward tracking Radars like THAAD (or AWACS) in the equation. And that has to do with more than just altitude. (basically you get a couple hundredish extra miles from being above 30,000 ish feet or so.) You need/want radars placed forward near the origin/launch locations. That's why the Navy has E-2Ds, to send them forward, the altitude certainly helps but they need the radars forward. to get more fine targeting data earlier than just a few hundred miles extra. ( A balloon on a tether can do that)

FWIW,
BP


Very interesting BP. I even didn't know such a technique exits. Maybe its more useful in a future conflict , when the OTH Radar its more evolved. Thanks also spazsinbad for the links.

So the most advantage of the E-D2 you can carry them very close to the battle zone. And you have a nearby "airport" for them.
Offline

mas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 11:07

Surely F-35 or even Super Hornet make more economic sense let alone technical ...

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ighter-buy

“The 36 Dassault Rafales that India procured after the demise of the M-MRCA program had a total cost of $9 billion. The commitment that Russia is asking for on the Su-57 is $6.7 billion, for a program that will produce around 130 aircraft,” explained one Indian military aerospace analyst.

“From the public perspective, people look at those numbers here in India and get the impression that the Russian offer is a real bargain: 130-plus aircraft for $2.3 billion less than the price of 36 Rafales. This is what they think,” he explained. “But what no one realizes is that the $6.7 billion pays only for the program set-up costs and the production of the initial four FGFA prototype aircraft. The 127 aircraft to then be license-built in India will be at least another $135 million apiece, which is another $17.1 billion on top of the initial $6.7 billion outlay.”

The final numbers put the per-unit cost of the Su-57 at $183 million compared with $250 million for the Rafale, although the same Indian analysts suggest those comparisons are not “apples for apples.” There are additional costs for weapons systems and other infrastructure expenses that are not folded into the estimate for the Su-57. However, those line items are included in the price tag for the Rafale program, they say.

“The Su-30MK was an existing, working airplane in the Russian Air Force, and turning it into the Su-30MKI was not a huge leap in capability,” said the same Indian military aerospace analyst. “Even those comparatively modest enhancements cost more than $700 million,” he added.

“The big worry for India is there is a much greater distance between the Su-57 as it exists today and the requirements for the FGFA, and there is no reliable methodology to predict that cost for closing that gap,” concluded an analyst who chose not to be named.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Nov 2017, 20:03

swiss wrote:Very interesting BP. I even didn't know such a technique exits. Maybe its more useful in a future conflict , when the OTH Radar its more evolved. Thanks also spazsinbad for the links.


However the problem is the OTH radar/systems limitations which are basically "too many". From what I could gather, here are a few:

- Susceptible to lots of background noise (generating from the waves bouncing into the ionosphere)

- Apparently highly susceptible to jamming

- Actual limitation in detection range. For example the JINDALEE Radar network detection range is said to be 3,000 km. But in fact this data is incomplete - The detection range (JINDALEE Radar network detection range) is actually between 1,000 km (minimal detection range) and 3,000 km (maximum range). So this means that this radar station cannot detect targets flying at a range inferior to 1000 km relative to the OTH radars position - This of course doesn't only affect JINDALEE but also all and any other OTH radars. This following picture originally posted by spazsinbad clearly shows this:
Image
This of course doesn't affect the "more conventional" radars which can theoretically detect targets between 0 km/miles/nautical miles/whatever (well not actually zero but I guess you get the idea) and the max detection range (whatever that might be).
And by the way, here's more info about the JINDALEE Radar network:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100ye ... /jorn.html

- Like I previously mentioned, OTH radars have very low resolutions and precision.

- Needs massive land size to install the radars and associated equipment - Nice and HUGE juicy targets.

Here's another great read about OTH radars:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474069.pdf

From what I understand, it seems that OTH radars are best used against naval contacts (although they are also capable of detecting air contacts) and also by the way, contacts that don't have jamming capabilities. Resuming they seem more fitted to a "constabulary" role than an actual wartime military role. And it also seems that OTH radars have a hard time detecting maneuvering targets/contacts.

And following the "mountain subject" earlier, I also take with a "mountain of salt" the claims that OTH radars managed to (and somehow easily) detect Stealth aircraft.
Offline

swiss

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 17:51

Thanks a lot for your explanations Ric.

It seems that the OTH Radar has a long way to go, bevor its a useful tool in a conflict. Especially against a high end threat ( stealth, modern jamming capabilities).
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3148
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post11 Nov 2017, 18:03

OTH radar has a pretty hard limit on its spatial resolution; namely, the skin depth and uniformity of the ionosphere.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post12 Nov 2017, 00:37

I really wouldn't take the released numbers on JORN seriously. Nor it's stated capabilities of detection and believe it or not, targeting. It's used by the US in their network for a reason
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Nov 2017, 00:52

swiss wrote:Thanks a lot for your explanations Ric.

It seems that the OTH Radar has a long way to go, bevor its a useful tool in a conflict.


I even dare to say the following:
- It seems that the OTH Radar will never be a useful tool in a conflict!

Independently of any technological advances you just can't break the laws of physics :wink:


optimist wrote:I really wouldn't take the released numbers on JORN seriously. Nor it's stated capabilities of detection and believe it or not, targeting. It's used by the US in their network for a reason


Agreed! Hence why I previously said that I take with a "mountain of salt" their claims.
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post12 Nov 2017, 01:07

If that was your take away from what I said, perhaps I was a bit too subtle. There is enough public stuff to say. I suppose I could have said it could be an air controller and harbour master for Guam, with what can be described as a sidelobe. We don't even point that way. :|

Here is some more public stuff in P15
http://www.defence-today.com.au/pdfs/de ... 16-web.pdf
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests