Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 06 Jun 2019, 20:06

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Look, I appreciate that a largely academic discussion on weather and how it effects IRSTs is happening, but for the purposes of my comparison I am using clear skies and standard atmosphere. I'm not going to skew anything to favor one type or another.

The problem is that the skies aren't often clear which by its turn heavily affects IRSTs. So the point is, even if an IRST would work as advertised in a completely clear weather (which again, I doubt!) in the vast majority of cases it wouldn't work "as planned" due again to weather, which for me is the purpose of all the discussion above about weather.
Resuming:
- Weather heavily affects IRST performance. So any discussion regarding IRST and their effectiveness should invariably envolve weather.

The effect above doesn't happen with Radar which can easily "see" thru bad weather (again as opposed to IRST).

At this point I'm not skewing in favor of one or another aircraft. I'm skewing in favor of one sensor (Radar) as opposed to the other the IRST which is often "touted" as being the anti-stealth sensor...

Moreover if IRSTs were that good or as good as advertised then they would be the main long range sensor and not the Radar - but they are not, the main long range sensor is the radar and this even for 4th gen fighter aircraft.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 06 Jun 2019, 20:13

I wouldn't worry, I think you will see in my comparison that the IRST of one plane will not outrange the radar of another. I am also not using "drought" conditions and any IRST range that is given WITHOUT qualifiers is being assumed to be "max range", meaning an AB tailpipe shot.

optimist · by **optimist** » 07 Jun 2019, 11:07

Some may recall it reported from Iraq. That low and upper atmosphere dust, from the bombing. Basically shut down the IR systems. They had a lot of issues. All of the details, I don't recall.

prof.566 · by **prof.566** » 07 Jun 2019, 12:27

swiss wrote:Interestingly both Rafale who were in Switzerland for Testing, had Sniper pod under there Wings

[/quote]

Absolutely. Talios integration is going to be step by step, so as to show capabilities of the weapon system they came in with sniper advanced pods. Are you sure both of them?

Edit : yes, both B354 (F3R) and B301 (testbed) were using it for the demos.

magitsu · by **magitsu** » 07 Jun 2019, 13:54

Not a big surprise given Damocles is publicly admitted to be inferior to competition, and Qatari Rafales having integrated Sniper. Better to show the best available capability (Sniper) now and sell Talios in the brochures.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-449359/

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 07 Jun 2019, 14:35

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I wouldn't worry, I think you will see in my comparison that the IRST of one plane will not outrange the radar of another. I am also not using "drought" conditions and any IRST range that is given WITHOUT qualifiers is being assumed to be "max range", meaning an AB tailpipe shot.

Ah ok. I guess that I misunderstood your previous post, sorry.

optimist wrote:Some may recall it reported from Iraq. That low and upper atmosphere dust, from the bombing. Basically shut down the IR systems. They had a lot of issues. All of the details, I don't recall.

I actually haven't hear/read about that before but that makes perfect sense indeed.

swiss · by **swiss** » 07 Jun 2019, 16:56

magitsu wrote:Not a big surprise given Damocles is publicly admitted to be inferior to competition, and Qatari Rafales having integrated Sniper. Better to show the best available capability (Sniper) now and sell Talios in the brochures.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-449359/

Yes makes sense to use Sniper pod now, who is available today. Talios integration take some time.

And for the F-35 EOTS its seems indeed it isn't top notch today. According to several articles. The ETOS seems to be the equivalent to the Sniper XR. The Sniper ATP-SE and LITENING-SE are superior today. So i would say the upgrade is necessary in Bl.4.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us ... older-jets

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... save-money

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8 ... tely-needs

optimist · by **optimist** » 16 Jun 2019, 07:47

wrightwing wrote:The bigger issue, is that assumptions have been made, that not even the manufacturer has claimed with regard to the Rafale.

I really can't understand where he is coming from. I present what the manufacturer said. It doesn't make a dent in his delusional fantasy.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 17 Jun 2019, 04:59

Okay, I'm finally happy with my Radar/ECCM vs RWR/ECM assumptions (grossly oversimplified I'm sure, but I am not a subject matter expert and no subject matter expert can legally tell me what I would need). Now to redo my CAP mission for the F-15SA, then I can figure out how I want to set up the Deep Strike Scenario. I want Red SAMs, AWACS, CAP, and possibly Interceptors to be available to thwart the strike, but where do I put everything? The Syrian example shows SAMs on the target airport itself, the Interceptors can be there too. AWACS 50nm forward? 150nm forward? Theoretically 600nm between land bases. Put CAP "with" the AWACS?

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 24 Jul 2019, 13:24

I'm sure this picture has been done before, but after searching through the 1st 35 pages. I couldn't find it.
Just decided to have some fun

Best in the following:
Mach 0.8/20K
Available G: T = F-15, F-22, F-35A
IT Rate: T = F-15, F-22, F-35A
IT Radius: T = F-15, F-22, F-35A
Sustained G: F-22
Sustained Turn Rate: F-22
Sustained Turn Radius: : F-22

Corner Velocity
Fastest: F-16
Slowest: T = F-14D, F-35C (F-22 possibly)
Available G: T = F-15, F-22, F-35A
IT Rate: F-22
IT Radius:F-22
Energy bleed: F-14D (I didn't see that coming)
G bleed: : F-14D :shock:

Sustained G: F-16C
Sustained Turn: T= F-22, F-16C
ST Radius: F-22

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 24 Jul 2019, 15:51

Those are all older models now. I do like that chart though. It is not in my current itteration of the comparison, but maybe it should be.

Anyway.

I have tuned "Deep Strike" towards a more SEAD style of mission where the aircraft needs to bomb a target defended by an S-400, but only an S-400. It took me a while to get a mechanic I was happy about for this.

I am fine tuning the final CAS mission right now, mostly how do I calculate Time on Station. ToS varies greatly depending on if the plane is simply orbiting vs making high passes vs making low passes and weather or not it drops munitions. I am so excited to have air-to-ground missions completed (even if only for the F-15SA right now) finally.

Once the F-15SA is complete I will post the report to get final feedback and decisions on what should or shouldn't be included before I move to building the new F-16V model and adding it to the comparison.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 24 Jul 2019, 16:05

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Those are all older models now. I do like that chart though. It is not in my current itteration of the comparison, but maybe it should be.

Would you still consider them relatively accurate for this type of maneuverability comparison?
If not, Would you happen to know where the most recent models are? :mrgreen:

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 24 Jul 2019, 17:04

I did a note saying that the F-14 sustained turn dropped a little and the deceleration went way up. I have not yet made new models for anything but the F-15SA and the Su-35S.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 25 Jul 2019, 03:48

Oh man, this feels cathartic. Here is the full comparison for the F-15SA. I will be open to any comments or tweeks you all may want to see until this weekend. At that time I will consider the format and content "locked" and I will add the F-16V.

Pre-emptive statement. I know my ECM and ECCM is simplified. It would be impossible/illegal to make it accurate.

nathan77 · by **nathan77** » 25 Jul 2019, 05:50

Under point "1 Aircraft" you have the F-35A as being purchased by "Austria" rather than "Australia". There's also Turkey on the list.