Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 May 2019, 05:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The massive diameter (We are talking twice the diameter, four times the area.) and fins grab a lot of drag.

shouldn't having thrust counter that?
AIM-120 is less draggy but its motor operates for only 7.5 seconds, contrasting to 30 seconds of AIM-54
Shouldn't AIM-120 without thrust should lose energy/speed quicker than AIM-54 with thrust?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4113
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post11 May 2019, 15:18

That is why I wrote timestamps. A Phoenix is only peered for the first 25 or 30 miles of fight.
"Spurts"

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

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2183
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post11 May 2019, 17:40

The interesting thing would be is to see how the F-14 would be able to turn the tide if itself deployed SPAMRAAM as you called it. The F-14 could cover more area and play defense in depth against the Hornet, but once the Hornet's missiles are in the air the Tomcat is at a distinct disadvantage. F-14 pretty much would have to launch and try to stay out of detection range for the entire melee.

It really probably boils down to awareness of incoming missiles. Not sure you could put those radar detectors out on the F-14 wingtips, but if you could surely it would have provided some excellent positioning for locating signals when open. On the flipside, when you're basically in delta mode its going to work against you for the less spread.
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post11 May 2019, 18:16

The lateral shifting of the swinging wingtips makes them a poor location for RWR mountings. It's already bad enough with the stab mounted rear receivers giving inaccurate azimuth readings every time you deflect them.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4113
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post11 May 2019, 18:34

lbk000 wrote:It's already bad enough with the stab mounted rear receivers giving inaccurate azimuth readings every time you deflect them.

Which is modeled in DCS for the F-14
"Spurts"

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 May 2019, 08:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That is why I wrote timestamps. A Phoenix is only peered for the first 25 or 30 miles of fight.

For the first 7 seconds => AIM-120 accelerate better due to lower drag and lower weight
For the next 23 seconds => AIM-54 is better since AIM-120 already burn out
After that AIM-120 is better in thick air because AIM-54 is a heavier and draggier?
Shouldn't AIM-120 already decelerated significantly before AIM-54 burn out?
And due to lower wing loading, shouldn' AIM-54 need less AoA when turning than AIM-120?
Last, AIM-54 lose energy faster at low altitude than AIM-120 but it will turn better at high altitude than AIM-120
So the answer to AIM-54 is diving low, but going low will reduce range and speed of your own missiles and you have to be on the defensive completely
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8204
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 May 2019, 09:11

Don't forget that the AIM-54 was designed to fly straight towards the target, IIRC, while the AIM-120 flies a high-arching profile.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2183
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 May 2019, 09:24

AIM-54 flies ballistic. It can be straight fired, but range is very short in comparison.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1129
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 May 2019, 09:53

SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget that the AIM-54 was designed to fly straight towards the target, IIRC, while the AIM-120 flies a high-arching profile.


I think only at short range does it do that and the AMRAAM-C7/D high-arching profile used the Phoenix lofted profile as its starting basis of what was state of the art at the time as its development guide.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 May 2019, 12:37

SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget that the AIM-54 was designed to fly straight towards the target, IIRC, while the AIM-120 flies a high-arching profile.

IRCC, AIM-54 follow a high arching profile to altitude even higher than AIM-120
Only Meteor flight a low arching profile ,but its engine operate for far longer period of time than both
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 May 2019, 13:41

eloise wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget that the AIM-54 was designed to fly straight towards the target, IIRC, while the AIM-120 flies a high-arching profile.

IRCC, AIM-54 follow a high arching profile to altitude even higher than AIM-120
Only Meteor flight a low arching profile ,but its engine operate for far longer period of time than both


For long range shots, the AIM-54 absolutely flies a ballistic trajectory. Then dives downward on in most cases, unsuspecting opponents. Because of that, it was a very difficult missile to dodge and not at all the "effective against bombers/tankers only" missile some portrayed it to be.

This discussion is relevant because the Iranians have modified the Phoenix to give it even longer range and better resistance to jamming, it's lighter etc. and thus makes their F-14's a credible threat once again. The US Navy had their Phoenix's beat, but only because they knew all of its secrets. Such isn't the case with the Fakour 90, as this represents a more capable threat and shouldn't be taken lightly by SH drivers...

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... production
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 713
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 May 2019, 02:38

mixelflick wrote:The US Navy had their Phoenix's beat, but only because they knew all of its secrets. Such isn't the case with the Fakour 90, as this represents a more capable threat and shouldn't be taken lightly by SH drivers...

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... production

Let not forget this monster
Image
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 May 2019, 14:55

garrya wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The US Navy had their Phoenix's beat, but only because they knew all of its secrets. Such isn't the case with the Fakour 90, as this represents a more capable threat and shouldn't be taken lightly by SH drivers...

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... production

Let not forget this monster
Image


Very true...

I've often wondered how the balance of power may have shifted if Iran/Syria etc fielded the Mig-31/R-33 combo. Methinks it would have been quite a fight. Mig-25's were no easy day at the beach for F-15's in DS, so it makes you wonder what an F-15/Mig-31 matchup would have resulted in.

The pilots I've spoken with have a healthy respect for it, no question. IMO, we're rather fortunate it was never exported. Had it put up a good showing in DS, the ATF program may well have been accelerated and we might have bought it in meaningful numbers. Sometimes, we're the victims of our own success..
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 713
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post14 May 2019, 02:25

mixelflick wrote:Very true...
I've often wondered how the balance of power may have shifted if Iran/Syria etc fielded the Mig-31/R-33 combo. Methinks it would have been quite a fight. Mig-25's were no easy day at the beach for F-15's in DS, so it makes you wonder what an F-15/Mig-31 matchup would have resulted in.
The pilots I've spoken with have a healthy respect for it, no question. IMO, we're rather fortunate it was never exported. Had it put up a good showing in DS, the ATF program may well have been accelerated and we might have bought it in meaningful numbers. Sometimes, we're the victims of our own success..

At least, Russia often use antique electronics, but the same can't be said about China, their long range missiles are equipped with 2 way data link and AESA seeker and IIR seeker
D1TFBaDWkAACwNN.jpg

J-16_PL-15.jpg

J-10C_PL-15.jpg
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8204
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 May 2019, 06:56

There is no reason why a tanker would ever be within the detection range of an enemy AWACS. A fighter that is topping off from the tanker has 600+nmi of combat radius left. It would not be staging that close to enemy AWACS.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: milosh and 12 guests