F-35 vs Mig-31 + A-50

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 14:10

hornetfinn wrote: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.


The fins on Asters booster are fixed. It uses thrust vectoring for maneuver in the boost phase. The fins are for stability only. Also, there's "high altitude" and there's HIGH altitude. Nike Hercules was designed to go after targets as high as 150,000 feet. Neither PAC-2 or S-400 is touching anything that high. Either would be at a disadvantage at even the 80,000 foot range compared to something like SM-6 with it's body strakes for additional lift. And AIM-120? Would the C variant even be able to keep the pointy end forward at 80,000 feet? Strike that. . . check this out:

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeops/17Nov04/Berkel.ppt

Pages 7-9 target is straight and level.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 14:12

hornetfinn wrote:
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.

this kind of make me wonder, would MiCA actually far better than both Meteor and AIM-120D at high altitude ?
hornetfinn wrote:
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.

from what i understand 48N6E ( the big missiles on S-400 have TVC)
Image
you are right about PAC-2 though, i cant find source that state it have tvc or rocket control
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 14:16

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

how about PAC-3MSE


Sure. Either could if you just shot them off ballistically. Thing is they're not designed for those higher altitudes. The MSE's larger motor gives it more speed and range but altitude is going to be about the same most likely. Note with MSE they had to trim the control surfaces so it'd still fit in the same canister.


Also TVC only works while the motor is burning. The S-300 has vanes in the exhaust, and a somewhat longer burning motor.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 14:26

sferrin wrote:
Sure. Either could if you just shot them off ballistically. Thing is they're not designed for those higher altitudes. The MSE's larger motor gives it more speed and range but altitude is going to be about the same most likely. Note with MSE they had to trim the control surfaces so it'd still fit in the same canister.


Also TVC only works while the motor is burning. The S-300 has vanes in the exhaust, and a somewhat longer burning motor.

i didn't say they are optimum for high altitude, the question is can they still turn at 70k ft
btw both the TVC and forebody-mounted ACM only turn the missile while motor still burning, so if Aster can operate at high altitude, i dont see why NCADE, PAC-3 MSE cant do the same
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 14:32

eloise wrote:btw both the TVC and forebody-mounted ACM only turn the missile while motor still burning,


Nope. TVC only works while the motor is burning but, depending on the style of RCS, the divert motor system can work LONG after the main motor has burned out.

eloise wrote:so if Aster can operate at high altitude, i dont see why NCADE, PAC-3 MSE cant do the same


Because you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand it.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 14:53

sferrin wrote:Nope. TVC only works while the motor is burning but, depending on the style of RCS, the divert motor system can work LONG after the main motor has burned out.

i said "turn" ( change the direction of travel) , when the motor still running, the divert motor system can "turn" the missiles, when the motor burning out, they wont "turn" missiles anymore

sferrin wrote:Because you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't understand it.

At high altitude, when motor still running, Aster turn mainly due to TVC,
ACM can also turn PAC-3 when its motor is running
so why would Aster work at high altitude while PAC-3 MSE wouldn't ?
btw, what wrong with you? why are you always have such aggressive attitude towards me? :shock:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 15:08

sferrin wrote: And AIM-120? Would the C variant even be able to keep the pointy end forward at 80,000 feet? Strike that. . . check this out:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeops/1 ... Berkel.ppt

Pages 7-9 target is straight and level.


Screenshot_2015-08-10-20-34-47.jpg

to be fair intercept target flying at mach 3, 80K ft from 90 nm ( 166 km away isn't that bad)
Last edited by eloise on 10 Aug 2015, 15:43, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24283
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 15:42

14.3Mb Berkel .PPT made into a 3Mb PDF attached:

Joint US/UK AQM-37 SUPERSONIC TARGET SERVICES 17 Nov 2004 Steve Berkel
Attachments
Joint US-UK AQM-37 SUPERSONIC TARGET SERVICES 17 Nov 2004 Steve Berkel PPT.pdf
(3.08 MiB) Downloaded 1401 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 10 Aug 2015, 16:20, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 15:44

eloise wrote:i said "turn" ( change the direction of travel) , when the motor still running, the divert motor system can "turn" the missiles, when the motor burning out, they wont "turn" missiles anymore


You're confusing changing the direction the nose is pointing with turning. With PAC-3 the divert system can keep changing the direction the nose is pointing (body/fin lift is what makes the missile actually change it's DIRECTION of flight) long after the main motor has burned out. They're separate systems, with the divert system in PAC-3 being a cluster of single-shot motors. The divert system in ASTER is not like that. It's got the main motor grain and then one separate one for the divert system. Once the grain in the divert system has been lit it goes until it's gone, with the hot gases being directed to the different thrusters. This means if it doesn't need to turn it exhausts out all four nozzle so it doesn't move. Those four nozzles are on the CG. They don't turn the missile. They translate it laterally. Not the same thing at all, and is only for fine tuning.

eloise wrote:why are you always have such aggressive attitude towards me? :shock:


Not aggression, frustration. You don't listen.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 16:08

sferrin wrote:
You're confusing changing the direction the nose is pointing with turning. With PAC-3 the divert system can keep changing the direction the nose is pointing They're separate systems, with the divert system in PAC-3 being a cluster of single-shot motors.

if the nose point to a new direction, and the motor still produce thrust, then the missile will move to new direction, does it not?

sferrin wrote:
Not aggression, frustration. You don't listen.

go to previous page, you actually quote and replied to wrong person
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 16:11

eloise wrote:
sferrin wrote:
You're confusing changing the direction the nose is pointing with turning. With PAC-3 the divert system can keep changing the direction the nose is pointing They're separate systems, with the divert system in PAC-3 being a cluster of single-shot motors.

if the nose point to a new direction, and the motor still produce thrust, then the missile will move to new direction, does it not?


IF
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post10 Aug 2015, 16:14

sferrin wrote:
IF

the ACM can change the direction of the nose, simply because they can produce unsymetrical thrust
Image

the JDRADM also intended to use divert rocket motor to aid, turn the missile
Image
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post11 Aug 2015, 09:43

In this situation MiG-31s would most likely be flying at subsonic speed at about 40,000ft or so to maximize their time on station. Supersonic speed would cut that time too short to be really useful unless there was huge amount of MiGs to use. Subsonic speed would mean the cruise altitude would be relatively low. So MiG-31 would need to accelerate to high supersonic speed and climb up 20,000ft or more to have real advantage against F-35s in this situation. I doubt the MiGs would have time or space to do that before being engaged or before A-50U is shot down. Even though F-35s are not super fast, stealth will likely give very short time to react against them before they launch their AMRAAMs (if there is any warning time in this scenario). The effective range of AIM-120D against A-50U is likely rather substantial. If the roles were reversed and MiG-31s were attacking AWACS defended by F-35s, then they might be able to use superior speed and altitude as they'd possibly have time and space to do that before getting into range. Then the warning time would be relatively short due to high speed and altitude of attacking MiG-31s. I think that F-35s would have much better chance of success than MiG-31s though.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post11 Aug 2015, 10:14

hornetfinn wrote:In this situation MiG-31s would most likely be flying at subsonic speed at about 40,000ft or so to maximize their time on station. Supersonic speed would cut that time too short to be really useful unless there was huge amount of MiGs to use. Subsonic speed would mean the cruise altitude would be relatively low. So MiG-31 would need to accelerate to high supersonic speed and climb up 20,000ft or more to have real advantage against F-35s in this situation. I doubt the MiGs would have time or space to do that before being engaged or before A-50U is shot down. Even though F-35s are not super fast, stealth will likely give very short time to react against them before they launch their AMRAAMs (if there is any warning time in this scenario). The effective range of AIM-120D against A-50U is likely rather substantial. If the roles were reversed and MiG-31s were attacking AWACS defended by F-35s, then they might be able to use superior speed and altitude as they'd possibly have time and space to do that before getting into range. Then the warning time would be relatively short due to high speed and altitude of attacking MiG-31s. I think that F-35s would have much better chance of success than MiG-31s though.


The debate boiled down to a spherical horse in a vacuum.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post11 Aug 2015, 12:55

I definitely agree that missiles designed for high altitude operations against high altitude aircraft benefit from having larger control surfaces. However, it's noticeable that older missiles did have much larger wings and fins even if they were designed for low altitude. Missiles like Roland, Crotale and Sea Cat for example had huge wing/fins while max altitude was about 15,000ft . Modern similar missiles have very small wings/fins while being able to maneuver several times harder even at long ranges and having much superior range and altitude. So comparing modern missiles to old ones (like R-40) is not going to give any answers about altitude limitations of modern missiles. Especially since modern medium/long range AAMs are much more sophisticated guidance systems which means the engagement geometry is going to be totally different. Old semi-active missiles were going in very straight trajectory towards their targets which is very inefficient compared to modern missile trajectories, especially active radar guided with datalink midcourse updates which can use much more optimum engagement profiles.

There is not much published about engagement altitudes, but Russian RVV-AE/SD is supposed to have similar altitude capabilities to R-33 with max engagement altitude of 25 km which translates to 82,000 ft. All I'm saying that MiG-31 does not have the altitude capabilities nor speed to stay safe from interception by modern medium-range missiles like AIM-120D, RVV-SD or Meteor. I doubt even SR-71 would be safe as Russians considered R-33 being able to shoot down SR-71.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests