F-35 vs. Mig-29

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

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post18 Jan 2018, 00:39

ricnunes wrote:No, I don't think you can say that or reach that same conclusion.

And specially I believe that what you said below is a somewhat wrong conclusion:
swiss wrote:The IRIS-T should be faster (mach3), more maneuverable (100g?) and also have a better seeker then the AIM-X. A combination of a FPA and mechanical scan.


What you posted (in your previous post) was a "bunch of specs" about the IRIS-T. And how about getting the same "bunch of spec" for the AIM-9X in order to get a comparison?
It's a bit hard to find specs for the AIM-9X but this doesn't mean that it's outright inferior to the IRIS-T, even if we refer to the AIM-9X Block 1.
Like hornetfinn said the AIM-9X has 128x128 staring array seeker (since Block 1) which probably means that the AIM-9X seeker is NOT inferior to the one found in the IRIS-T. Like hornetfinn said, lets say they are "equivalent".
About the agility, I cannot understand where can you reach the conclusion that the IRIS-T is "more agile" than the AIM-9X?

Besides, I found this interesting web-based book:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=oOw2Cg ... ed&f=false

There you can read that the IRIS-T has a speed of Mach 3 and a Range of approximately 25 Km.
A bit below in the next page you can read that the AIM-9X (presumably Block 1) has a speed of Mach 2.5 and a Range of approximately 35 Km.
What can we conclude in the link above?
The IRIS-T is indeed faster than the AIM-9X like you said, however the range of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the IRIS-T (almost 30% more).


Hello Ric. Like i said this are specs from the German Wiki. And they mentioned the IRIS-T can do over 100g. Don't no if this is true.

And in the Link from steve you can read, that only the blk 2 aim-X has a LOAL mode. That i was meaning with close the gap. I should have written it better. I have no doubt, this missiles are very close in performance.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post22 Jan 2018, 14:29

If my memory serves, aim-9x has smaller fin than 9L and is less draggy, so it can reach Mach 3 despite the same rocket engine.

And this used to be a feature in aim-9x brochure.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post22 Jan 2018, 17:09

I wonder how the 9x being "tail-turned" will be different than "nose-turned" of previous generation Sidewinders in terms of endgame maneuverability?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Jan 2018, 10:11

SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder how the 9x being "tail-turned" will be different than "nose-turned" of previous generation Sidewinders in terms of endgame maneuverability?


I'm no aerodynamics expert, but here is some interesting info about missile aerodynamic control systems:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/we ... 0158.shtml
https://www.aticourses.com/sampler/Mode ... alysis.pdf

It seems like tail control system is much better for high-AoA maneuvering and pretty much all newer air-to-air missile designs are tail control systems. Canard control systems (like previous AIM-9 versions before AIM-9X) is easier and cheaper to implement because the guidance section is very near the control fins. I would say that tail control system allows much higher maneuverability in the end game and having lower drag, higher stability and uniform weight distribution allows higher speed also. Top speed might not be that much different, but I'd bet the deceleration is much slower and thus the average speed is significantly higher at longer ranges. Thus there is much more energy available for maneuvering.
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post23 Jan 2018, 14:25

Don’t forget about it’s TVC capability. That alone enhanced high g maneuverability.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Jan 2018, 14:33

tailgate wrote:Don’t forget about it’s TVC capability. That alone enhanced high g maneuverability.


True, but that matters "only" during the few seconds when the rocket motor is burning. Of course that's when the hardest maneuvers are required for HOBS shots.
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post23 Jan 2018, 14:46

I think the engineers wanted this missile to maneuver straight off the rail, so as to take advantage of its limited “ burn” time time. Great advantage for HOBS, LOAL ( and HHOBS).
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3066
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 12:21

tailgate wrote:I think the engineers wanted this missile to maneuver straight off the rail, so as to take advantage of its limited “ burn” time time. Great advantage for HOBS, LOAL ( and HHOBS).


Definitely so. That's the time when missile can do pretty insane maneuvers as it has enormous amount of thrust to use for maneuvering. I'd say AIM-9X for example has much higher maneuverability than missile like R-73 used in MiG-29 (to keep on topic). It has TVC and better control system for high maneuverability at longer ranges, not to mention much better seeker technology.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 16:01

Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 16:52

mixelflick wrote:Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..


If you are talking about the 22, you are incorrect.....I cannot go into some load outs ( some are still classified), but AMRAAM, 9X have been carried since late 2015 in varying numbers and in combat although not fired in anger yet. When I retired, the talk was still trying to get HCMS up and trying to get the MALD system viable again.....
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4785
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 17:59

tailgate wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..


If you are talking about the 22, you are incorrect.....I cannot go into some load outs ( some are still classified), but AMRAAM, 9X have been carried since late 2015 in varying numbers and in combat although not fired in anger yet. When I retired, the talk was still trying to get HCMS up and trying to get the MALD system viable again.....

No, tailgate, mixelflick is talking about the F-35 here.
"Spurts"

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

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 469
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 19:08

Edit: it seems I must have confused the aim9x with something else. Dunno but sry :X
Last edited by nutshell on 25 Jan 2018, 19:13, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 19:13

Trapeze launcher, just like the F-22's side bays.

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 21:02

If its going to require bay doors to be open anyways it should just use the door itself as part of the arm.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 469
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post26 Jan 2018, 00:33

Bay doors need to be as light as possible, actuators have to open and close the bay really fast.

Then there's all the mechanical stress.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests