F-35 vs Mig-31 + A-50

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 07:35

sergei wrote:"radar like F-22, F-35 "
Ok if we talk about Zaslon/Zaslon-AM not so good with Zaslon-M
But F-15 ? :doh:


Zaslon-M performance still doesn't look that impressive though
Image
sergei wrote:"i still dont see why "
Radar A-50
Vega range of detection of air targets: 230km "
Radar MIG-31
Zaslon range of detection of air targets: 200 km

A-50 have L band radar, thus it is more suited again stealthy aircraft
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 07:50

sergei wrote:Ok hand gun can kill people ,does that mean that hand gun is rifle?
E-3 have advantage not only of higher number of crew but radar range,range flight,endurance also.
S.

yes i do aware of these advantage E-3 have over F-35, but F-35 also have advantage of itself like i mentioned before, and it can also stay forward to detect, track enemy and guide weapons in the terminal state, so it can be as much of a threat as an AWACS in that case

think about it this way Tor-M1, Tungska are meant to protect the convoy from CAS aircraft such as A-10, su-25, AH-64.. etc. now, if an F-16 suddenly appear from no where and attack the convoy, do you think the driver of Tor-M1, Tungska will just leave them alone because they aren't including in his normal mission set?
similarly, a Mig-31 may be normally tasked to intercept AWACS such as E-3, but if target of opportunities appear then he can try to attack them as well
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 12:54

eloise wrote:So at altitude of 17 km ( 51K ft) and speed of mach 2.2, Mig-31's sustain turn rate is 1.1degree per second, turn radius is 34.4 km


Thanks. So if a few missiles were synchronously fired from multiple directions at a 50,000+ ft Mig-31 travelling at M2.2 starting with the closest F-35 shooting from 28 miles while travelling at M1.2 and taking into account the following:

- Mig-31 takes 2 seconds to decide to turn
- Mig takes 1 second to roll
- It takes 3 more second of onset time before the Mig starts turning

Then at 1.1 degrees per second, the Mig will only have turned 26.4 degrees from his original heading before the first missile arrives.

sergei wrote:front length 2000km


Then that radar coverage front erodes to just 300km of coverage with 1700km of open gaps when VLO aircraft are approaching and the VLO aircraft know where the gaps are. In the F-35, the pilot doesn't even need to guess, the F-35's tactical display shows the pilot where he can fly undetected.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3537
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 15:40

sergei wrote:
munny wrote:
sergei wrote:A group of four MiG-31 is capable of controlling the air space at the front length of 800-900 km.
10 Mig-31 is capable of controlling the air space at the front length 2000km.
You will never be able to meet the 10 MiG-31 in one place and no A-50 close to them .


That's fine, but as shown by the range figures based off what is known about the actual performed of Russian l-band radar, unless the a-50 is flying right out on the front line with the migs, it won't be useful at all.

Are you going to offer any actual technical insight to debunk the scenario I discussed or just going to spam more irrelevant posts on aircraft range.

Against 10 f-35s which will detect the entire Russian force from as far as 350 miles away and can approach to firing range unseen, the migs won't be "controlling" anything at all... Least of all the fate of the high value asset


I repeat once again forget about Mig-31 and A-50 ,range radar MIG-31 renders meaningless the use of the A-50.
"aircraft range."
"front length 2000km"
incorrectly translated
It is front width overlapped radar Mig-31


That's overlapping coverage against conventional threats. There would be gaps against reduced signature targets.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3537
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 15:43

sergei wrote:
eloise wrote:
sergei wrote:All this garbage.
eloise you even read what posted?

why is it garbage ?


"Under the service’s forthcoming Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) network, Manazir said targets discovered by the F-35C’s advanced sensor suite would be passed back to a Northrop Grumman E-2D to be shared with the rest of the carrier strike group. "
Ie itself F-35 is not able to do this.
Conclusion : F-35(F-22 especially) is not airborne early warning and control aircraft .

What do E-2D/E-3/A-50... do with their sensor data? They share it with other platforms, much like the F-35/22.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1186
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 18:32

sergei wrote:I am not in any way deny the possibility of this aircrafts to conduct reconnaissance. But this does not make them AWACS.


I don't believe that they (F-22 and F-35) will take over the dedicated job of an AWACS. It seems like the overall longterm strategy is that with enough of these aircraft in the air they can collectively work as minor C&C "nodes" in an airspace. I could be wrong.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post09 Aug 2015, 21:03

charlielima223 wrote:
sergei wrote:I am not in any way deny the possibility of this aircrafts to conduct reconnaissance. But this does not make them AWACS.


I don't believe that they (F-22 and F-35) will take over the dedicated job of an AWACS. It seems like the overall longterm strategy is that with enough of these aircraft in the air they can collectively work as minor C&C "nodes" in an airspace. I could be wrong.


It's moving from the "domain" system we use now where if the "domain server" (awacs) goes down the network is severly crippled. The F-35 and F-22 are a move to a p2p network type where the loss of "the server" can hurt the productivity but doesn't kill the network. Also allowing them to form a network without the "server" nearby gives them more flexability.

Thats the way I have viewed and it simplifies it down a lot so a lot of the details are missing but gets the idea across.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 08:37

munny wrote:
Thanks. So if a few missiles were synchronously fired from multiple directions at a 50,000+ ft Mig-31 travelling at M2.2 starting with the closest F-35 shooting from 28 miles while travelling at M1.2 and taking into account the following:

- Mig-31 takes 2 seconds to decide to turn
- Mig takes 1 second to roll
- It takes 3 more second of onset time before the Mig starts turning

Then at 1.1 degrees per second, the Mig will only have turned 26.4 degrees from his original heading before the first missile arrives.
.

I dont think it would be too hard for AIM-120 to intercept and shot down Mig-31 at 50K ft, however at 70K ft, the air may be too thin for missiles fin to steer? ( i understand that mig-31 turn rate at 70k ft altitude will also reduced compare to 50K ft, but at least it can still turn)

Here are conversion table of mach 1 ground speed to EAS at different altitude ( EAS = speed needed at sea level to match the dynamic pressure)
50000 ft - 223.79 kts EAS
55000 ft - 198.45 kts EAS
60000 ft - 175.98 kts EAS
65000 ft - 156.02 kts EAS
70000 ft - 138.35 kts EAS
75000 ft - 122.69 kts EAS
80000 ft - 108.8 kts EAS

hypothetically an AIM-120 moving at mach 4 ground speed will have
895.16 kts ( 1657 km/h) EAS at 50000 ft
793.8 kts ( 1470 km/h) EAS at 55000 ft
703.92 kts ( 1301 km/h) EAS at 60000 ft
624.08 kts ( 1155 km/h) EAS at 65000 ft
553.4 kts ( 1025 km/h) EAS at 70000 ft
490.76 kts ( 909 km/h) EAS at 75000 ft
435.2 kts ( 806 km/h) EAS at 80000 ft

at sea level, does the fin of Meteor, AIM-120 able to turn them at speed slower than mach 1 ?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 09:24

eloise wrote:aren't they much less stealthy at 25-30 degree of nose compare to frontal?
According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of future requirements capture, the F-35's frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35's most likely approach path to a target .



Not sure about that. VLO aircraft might well be less stealthy from other aspects besides frontal aspect, but I doubt they are much less stealthy from 25-30 degrees as there are no big reflectors from those angles. Of course we can't know how big difference there is without real RCS tests. I really doubt the stealth can be defeated using such simple tactics. F-35 was designed to go in and bomb heavily defended targets with widely separated defenses including SAMs, surveillance and fire control radars. That would mean radars might even see F-35 side profile. I doubt the RCS is much larger in any other aspect compared to frontal aspect. Likely larger yes, but not likely that much larger as nullify the effect.

But why would F-35s fly disadvantageous route as they'd certainly know where the AWACS is?

eloise wrote:however, according to pilot, even missiles like R-40 have no maneuver capabilities at 75K feet, and R-40 have massive fin and can fly 1 mach faster than aim-120, Meteor, so i wondering if Meteor, AIM-120 can still maneuver at 70K feet ( 5K feet lower, but they have tiny fin, and fly quite a bit slower than R-40)

also at high altitude air is too thin so Mig-31 even if it cant detect F-35, can still detect the hot missiles pumes and try to evade it when pilot saw missiles launched


While old missiles had huge wings and fins, modern missiles designed even for high altitude operations don't have that large fins or wings. Just look at SM-3, SM-6, all missiles for S-400, Patriot PAC-2, Aster missile, RVV-BD and KS-172. I don't think large wings and fins are nowadays required for being effective against high altitude aircraft.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 10:49

hornetfinn wrote:
While old missiles had huge wings and fins, modern missiles designed even for high altitude operations don't have that large fins or wings. Just look at SM-3, SM-6, all missiles for S-400, Patriot PAC-2, Aster missile, RVV-BD and KS-172. I don't think large wings and fins are nowadays required for being effective against high altitude aircraft.

PAC-3 have mini rocket motor nead the nose that help them turn at high altitude
Image
SM-3 have a separate LEAP warhead that has it's own divert and attitude control system ( mini motor)
Image
Aster have massive wing and fin compared to Aim-120 and. Meteor
Image
KS-172 is designed to shot down AWACS rather than aircraft flying at high altitude so they probably doesn't need to care about maneuver at high altitude
So there are SM-6 and RVV-BD left that have small control fin, but they both have long mid body wing section that both Meteor, Aim-120 lack ( it seem that missiles intended to fly at high altitude have very big mid body wing section Ex :Aim-7)
Image
Image
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 12:47

btw i just found this
Image
Image
Tail Control
Tail control is probably the most commonly used form of missile control, particularly for longer range air-to-air missiles like AMRAAM and surface-to-air missiles like Patriot and Roland. The primary reason for this application is because tail control provides excellent maneuverability at the high angles of attack often needed to intercept a highly maneuverable aircraft. Missiles using tail control are also often fitted with a non-movable wing to provide additional lift and improve range. Some good examples of such missiles are air-to-ground weapons like Maverick and AS.30 as well as surface-to-surface missiles like Harpoon and Exocet. Tail control missiles rarely have canards, although one such example is AIM-9X Sidewinder. A selection of 23 representative missiles using tail control is pictured below.
Image


Canard Control
Canard control is also quite commonly used, especially on short-range air-to-air missiles like AIM-9M Sidewinder. The primary advantage of canard control is better maneuverability at low angles of attack, but canards tend to become ineffective at high angles of attack because of flow separation that causes the surfaces to stall. Since canards are ahead of the center of gravity, they cause a destabilizing effect and require large fixed tails to keep the missile stable. These two sets of fins usually provide sufficient lift to make wings unnecessary. Shown below are twelve examples of canard control missiles.
Image
A further subset of canard control missiles is the split canard. Split canards are a relatively new development that has found application on the latest generation of short-range air-to-air missiles like Python 4 and the Russian AA-11. The term split canard refers to the fact that the missile has two sets of canards in close proximity, usually one immediately behind the other. The first canard is fixed while the second set is movable. The advantage of this arrangement is that the first set of canards generates strong, energetic vortices that increase the speed of the airflow over the second set of canards making them more effective. In addition, the vortices delay flow separation and allow the canards to reach higher angles of attack before stalling. This high angle of attack performance gives the missile much greater maneuverability compared to a missile with single canard control. Six examples of split canard missiles are shown below.
Image


Wing Control
Wing control was one of the earliest forms of missile control developed, but it is becoming less commonly used on today's designs. Most missiles using wing control are longer-range missiles like Sparrow, Sea Skua, and HARM. The primary advantage of wing control is that the deflections of the wings produce a very fast response with little motion of the body. This feature results in small seeker tracking error and allows the missile to remain locked on target even during large maneuvers. The major disadvantage is that the wings must usually be quite large in order to generate both sufficient lift and control effectiveness, which makes the missiles rather large overall. In addition, the wings generate strong vortices that may adversely interact with the tails causing the missile to roll. This behavior is known as induced roll, and if the effect is strong enough, the control system may not be able to compensate. A few examples of wing control missiles are shown below.
Image


Unconventional Control
Unconventional control systems is a broad category that includes a number of advanced technologies. Most techniques involve some kind of thrust vectoring. Thrust vectoring is defined as a method of deflecting the missile exhaust to generate a component of thrust in a vertical and/or horizontal direction. This additional force points the nose in a new direction causing the missile to turn. Another technique that is just starting to be introduced is called reaction jets. Reaction jets are usually small ports in the surface of a missile that create a jet exhaust perpendicular to the vehicle surface and produce an effect similar to thrust vectoring.
Image
These techniques are most often applied to high off-boresight air-to-air missiles like AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T to provide exceptional maneuverability. The greatest advantage of such controls is that they can function at very low speeds or in a vacuum where there is little or no airflow to act on conventional fins. The primary drawback, however, is that they will not function once the fuel supply is exhausted.
Image
Examples of missiles employing unconventional controls are shown above. Note that most missiles equipped with unconventional controls do not rely on these controls alone for maneuverability, but only as a supplement to aerodynamic surfaces like canards and tail fins.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 13:31

borg wrote:Well tell me mr know it all, what is the resolution of the Zaslon-M radar
and the upgraded A-50U radar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h_peN1kUQk

Damn that radar dish is huge..


Thanks for that video, very nice one.

I don't know what the accuracy or resolution figures for of A-50U radar are, but the fact is that it will have fairly low resolution and accuracy compared to X-band radar used in fighter aircraft (also MiG-31) simply due to lower operating frequency which means both range and especially angular accuracy will be significantly lower. That's true to every single radar with relatively low frequency. New technology can improve resolution somewhat, but physics dictate how good resolution you can get from certain sized radar. Similar sized surveillance radars having roughly similar antenna dimensions have range resolution of about 100 to several hundred meters and angular resolution of about 1 to 2 degrees. This depends on exact antenna dimensions and efficiency, receiver capabilities and signal processing. This means A-50U can tell the target position with maybe 100 m range uncertainty and about 3 to 6 km in azimuth (and something similar in elevation) from 200 km range and half those angular accuracy figures at 100 km range. That's assuming it uses L-band. Using higher frequency means having better accuracy and resolution but shortens range especially against VLO targets.

What this means regarding guiding missiles? It means that the accuracy of tracking is very poor to guide missiles and uncertainty is large where the target actually is and where the missile should guide. Given that each detection will have uncertainty of thousands of meters, means that estimates about the target heading, speed and altitude have very large errors and missile would have to search a very large volume by itself. You have to remember that missile will be guided to position where the system thinks the target will be when missile reaches it. Especially combined with slow update rate of rotating surveillance radar, data handling latency and datalink latency, it makes the missiles job very difficult. There is good reason why all fire control radars use high frequencies.

The same will be true to all AEW and other surveillance systems, be it Russian, US, NATO or Chinese. They can be used to provide mid-course updates, but I seriously doubt AEW systems can really be used to guide missiles against fighter aircraft. It might work against very predictable (fly in straight line) cruise missiles but kill probability is likely very low against fighter aircraft, especially against 5th gen fighters with stealth and advanced SA systems.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 13:43

eloise wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
While old missiles had huge wings and fins, modern missiles designed even for high altitude operations don't have that large fins or wings. Just look at SM-3, SM-6, all missiles for S-400, Patriot PAC-2, Aster missile, RVV-BD and KS-172. I don't think large wings and fins are nowadays required for being effective against high altitude aircraft.

PAC-3 have mini rocket motor nead the nose that help them turn at high altitude
Image


You don't think large fins and wings are required today? Did the laws of physics change? :doh: You don't listen at all do you? 1. PAC-3 can't even GET to high altitude. It's strictly lower altitude stuff. 50k max. 2. Look at the location of those thrusters. They're towards the nose. ALL they do is move the nose. The missile is still relying on body/wing lift to actually make the turn. 3. Aster/Sea Snake has it's rocket thrusters on it's CG so they don't actually turn the missile. They're used in the final phase to translate i.e., line-up the missile with the target. The tail controls are used to reorient the missile and the body and big strakes provide the lift for the turn. SM-3 can't shoot at airplanes so I don't even know why it's on your list, and SM-6, again has big strakes for lift at high altitude.

Oh, and your little chart is jacked too. LOSAT is an antitank missile which would never see high altitude and THAAD doesn't shoot at aircraft and uses thrust vectoring while under power and an adjustable flare for control until it releases it's KKV. And it's KKV doesn't even turn. It translates, that's it.
Last edited by sferrin on 10 Aug 2015, 13:50, edited 3 times in total.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 13:46

eloise wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
While old missiles had huge wings and fins, modern missiles designed even for high altitude operations don't have that large fins or wings. Just look at SM-3, SM-6, all missiles for S-400, Patriot PAC-2, Aster missile, RVV-BD and KS-172. I don't think large wings and fins are nowadays required for being effective against high altitude aircraft.

PAC-3 have mini rocket motor nead the nose that help them turn at high altitude

SM-3 have a separate LEAP warhead that has it's own divert and attitude control system ( mini motor)

Aster have massive wing and fin compared to Aim-120 and. Meteor

KS-172 is designed to shot down AWACS rather than aircraft flying at high altitude so they probably doesn't need to care about maneuver at high altitude
So there are SM-6 and RVV-BD left that have small control fin, but they both have long mid body wing section that both Meteor, Aim-120 lack ( it seem that missiles intended to fly at high altitude have very big mid body wing section Ex :Aim-7)


Aster has massive fins on the booster but those work only some seconds after launch at low altitude. The missile itself has very similar layout to MICA missile, although it does have somewhat larger wings/fins than MICA comparatively.

Patriot PAC-2 and missiles for S-400 don't have huge wings/fins and also lack thrust vectoring or rocket control that works at high altitude.

I'm not saying that AMRAAM is hugely effective missile at high altitude but I doubt it's incapable of being used against MiG-31.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 13:47

sferrin wrote:You don't think large fins and wings are required today? Did the laws of physics change? :doh: You don't listen at all do you?


Sferrin, you quote the wrong person, i didn't say big wing arent required, iam the one who concerned about AIM-120 turning ability at 70K ft

sferrin wrote: 1. PAC-3 can't even GET to high altitude. It's strictly lower altitude stuff. 50k max.

how about PAC-3MSE

sferrin wrote: 2. Look at the location of those thrusters. They're towards the nose. ALL they do is move the nose. The missile is still relying on body/wing lift to actually make the turn.
.

they can turn missiles if the motor is running

sferrin wrote: Oh, and your little chart is jacked too. LOSAT is an antitank missile which would never see high altitude and THAAD doesn't shoot at aircraft and uses thrust vectoring while under power and an adjustable flare for control until it releases it's KKV

these chart show the way how missiles steer, change direction , it isn't about which one work at high altitude
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aussiebloke and 8 guests