J-20 VERSUS F-35

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

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 09:05

gta4 wrote:Nice. This capability was already confirmed in MK41 official data sheet. A video is good to shut somebody up.


Oops I forgot to add that I'm pretty sure that the third launch is from the the second ship back. So the closest ship (and the one the camera is on) are each firing two missiles. One each from the bow & stern cells.
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 13:51

I am really not sure how Chinese carrier group or ASBM has anything to do with this topic, but I will bite. You will not see Chinese carrier group encounter American carrier group in neutral waters anytime soon. There is a lot of effort right now going on in training crew members for all the new ships. It's hard to train this many people in a short time considering how vast the naval shipbuilding program is. Most navies around the world would be envious of the problem PLAN faces right now. They got the break of the decade when those anti-piracy patrols became sanctioned under UN. Now, they have perfectly legitimate excuse to cycle through all of the news ships they have built and construct a naval base in Djibouti. Invaluable blue water experience for a lot of fresh sailors.

The biggest issue with a Chinese carrier group is the weakness in its nuclear submarine force. It's simply too loud, which really makes them ineffective in ASW operation. Virginia subs are going to be a problem for PLAN planners for a long time. This is one area where China actually would love to get Russian help on.

ASBM is a deterring weapon system. If they can keep US carriers from getting close to the shores, thereby limiting the loiter time of F-35s. And prevent USAF from stationing F-22/35 at Andersen AFB or at Okinawa, they would have done their jobs. And there are other weapon systems that they've spent a lot of money on with this goal in mind.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 14:26

pmi wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:I have not seen 2 sec interval from any official sources, and I have seen at least one time from a video showing a Burker launches 3 missiles simultaneously during an exercise.


Post it.

1-2 second interval is what you typically see in live Tomahawk launches. The Russian cruise missile launches shown were definitely faster by comparison.




Skip ahead to 2:30

Staggered launches are due to other factors.


Yeah, those are from multiple ships. At best you have one from the front of a ship and one from the back. I should have clarified, "from each bank". Meaning you won't see more than one every second or two from each bank of 64/32 cells with the Mk41 system. A better view of what you're seeing is here at 2:15



I have seen a pretty clear video of a Tico firing one from the back and one from the front simultaneously followed up a few seconds later by a repeat of that but, again, never more than one every couple seconds from any particular set of modules.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 14:31

gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?


You can't find research papers that contradict my claim..


Basic rules of credibility: you made the claim. It's your job to back it up.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 14:34

wrightwing wrote:One of the reasons why we haven't deployed long range conventional ballistic missiles, is the concern that nuclear powers have no way to know which type of warhead is on the missile. A limited conventional attack, could have an unintended nuclear response.


There's no basis in reality to support that fear. There have been nuclear armed cruise missiles longer than nuclear armed ballistic missiles, yet nobody hesitates to let those fly. The US had TLAM-Ns in service during the Gulf War yet Russia never flipped out when we launched Tomahawk missiles by the dozens.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 14:36

gta4 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
gta4 wrote:China and Russia are not proven to have enough success rate in intercepting sea skimming and stealthy targets.


Could you direct me to "research papers that passed peer review" that support your claim?


You can't find research papers that contradict my claim.

Basic principle:

If you can't find proof of neither "having a capability" nor "not having a capability", we should pick the latter.


Sure, thing. GTA4 either knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. I guess he doesn't. See how that works?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 14:40

gta4 wrote:Nice. This capability was already confirmed in MK41 official data sheet. A video is good to shut somebody up.


You sound upset. Maybe you could produce a copy of this "official data sheet" as mine says nothing about launch rate.

mk41-strike.pdf
(27.86 KiB) Downloaded 222 times
"There I was. . ."
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 15:03

Simultaneous multiple missile launch:
MK41 vls simutaneous multiple missile launch.jpg


MK41 can get 2 missiles out of 8 cells ready for launch simultaneously:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/v ... m-vls-mk41
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 15:19

sferrin wrote:Sure, thing. GTA4 either knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. I guess he doesn't. See how that works?

Do you have to keep on insulting other people? You have a hand of attacking members who do not resonate with your thoughts.

Its rather tiresome and distracting and it brings down the level of the discussion. I'm pretty sure you can communicate like an adult, so please do so.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 16:06

botsing wrote:
sferrin wrote:Sure, thing. GTA4 either knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. I guess he doesn't. See how that works?

Do you have to keep on insulting other people?


gta4 wrote:You are a joke, completely.
Can China intercept US ballistic missile? At least US have developed several ballistic defense systems.



I didn't sling the first insult. I sometimes respond in kind. But hey, maybe he's your buddy so you let it slide. :roll:
Last edited by sferrin on 27 Aug 2018, 16:12, edited 1 time in total.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 16:10

gta4 wrote:Simultaneous multiple missile launch:
MK41 vls simutaneous multiple missile launch.jpg


MK41 can get 2 missiles out of 8 cells ready for launch simultaneously:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/v ... m-vls-mk41


From the link you posted:

"The VLS Mk 41 is a highly survivable system with missiles and associated hardware located below the armored deck. Redundant fire control and launcher interface links also enhance system survivability in casualty situations. The VLS Mk 41 capability to simultaneously prepare two missiles in each 8-cell launcher module allows for fast reaction to multiple threats with concentrated, continuous firepower. Multimode operation allows simultaneous interface and missile preparation for discrete antiaircraft, antisubmarine warfare, strike, naval surface fire support and ballistic missile defense missions. The VLS Mk 41 is highly adaptable to accommodate the latest weapon types to meet new mission requirements.

BAE Systems has developed the Mk 25 Quad-Pack canister, which can vastly increase a ship's self-defense capability. The Mk 25 Quad-Pack allows the system to store and fire four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs) in a canister space that normally contains a single weapon.

Lethal - The VLS Mk 41 capability to simultaneously prepare two missiles in each 8-cell launcher module allows for fast reaction to multiple threats with concentrated, continuous firepower.

Multi-Mission - Multi-mode operation allows simultaneous interface and missile preparation for discrete anti-aircraft, anti-submarine warfare, strike, naval surface fire support, and ballistic missile defense missions.

Flexible - Any missile, any cell.

Survivable - The VLS Mk 41 is a highly survivable system with missiles and associated hardware located below the armored deck. Redundant fire control and launcher interface links also enhance system survivability in casualty situations."


They very carefully go out of their way to not say simultaneous launch. As for the image you posted, we don't know what their criteria is for "simultaneous". Marketers tend to be very flexible when it comes to definitions.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 17:18

sferrin wrote:I didn't sling the first insult. I sometimes respond in kind. But hey, maybe he's your buddy so you let it slide. :roll:

There you go again with your immature response, insinuating that we are some buddies out there to catch you.

This is not some popularity contest so please keep the conversation on a polite level.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5437
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 17:42

botsing wrote:
sferrin wrote:I didn't sling the first insult. I sometimes respond in kind. But hey, maybe he's your buddy so you let it slide. :roll:

There you go again with your immature response, insinuating that we are some buddies out there to catch you.

This is not some popularity contest so please keep the conversation on a polite level.


Given you called me out but not him why would I not think there was bias at play? As for "immature", if it's "immature" to point out your apparent bias, then guilty as charged. :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 435
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 20:22

hornetfinn wrote:
There are two versions of RBE2. Old one was PESA and newer is AESA. Thales talks about "AESA RBE2" or "RBE2-AESA" and usually just "RBE2" (PESA version).

AESA generations are not well defined and every manufacturer uses their own definitions. Northrop Grumman has pretty decent documents about their definition of AESA generations:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... s/AESA.pdf

• First Generation: Ultra Reliable Radar - URR (1985)
• Second Generation: Advanced Tactical Fighter - ATF (1989)
• Third Generation: APG-77 (1996)
• Fourth Generation: APG-80 (F-16), APG-77(V)1 (F-22), APG-81 (F-35), and Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR)


https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... epaper.pdf

Northrop Grumman ES has been designing and perfecting airborne radar systems for over 60 years, however the heritage of the phased array radar and particularly, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) is relatively short. In fact, our first passive phased array radar was constructed in 1974 and the first active phased array was built just 17 years ago in 1985. This breakthrough in technology allowed for the demonstration of the concept of steering beams generated by distributed transmit and receive modules.

Our 2nd generation AESA was the first to fly just three years later. This 2nd generation AESA was the first AESA to proceed to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. Our 3rd generation AESA met the high performance requirements in clutter, which mechanical or passive electronically scanned arrays are unable to meet. With the high performance standard set, we focused on reducing cost and weight.

This led to our 4th generation AESA that is half the cost and weight of the 3rd generation AESA. The 4th generation AESA design requirements were the result of merging requirements for airborne, sea based, and land based platforms. Due to the nature of the changing defense environment dictating commonality across the services and our own limited research and development funds, drives one to the practical decision of seeking common solutions. This 4th generation AESA and its associated T/R modules achieve the design commonality while satisfying unique airborne, sea borne and ground based platform requirements with high performance to meet the mission needs


So first couple of generations were really prototypes and technology was also progressing very fast that those generations never saw operational use. It seems clear that USA could've had AESA radar in fighters back in early 1990s, but that would've been costly and there was also not much need back then. The cost/capability calculation was not good enough then. 3rd gen AESA in late 1990s was still big, bulky and costly but performance was already excellent.

I think AN/APG-63(V)2 in those Alaskan F-15Cs was also third gen radar using that NG definitions. AN/APG-79, RACR and AN/APG-63(V)3 are probably 4th gen radars. Of course that only refers to radar components. AN/APG-81 in F-35 likely has much better capabilities compared to SABR or AN/APG-79 for example. This is because it's not a standalone radar system, but one part of integrated sensor fusion system which allows things not possible in standalone system. Of course 4th gen systems have likely evolved a lot and latest 4th gen systems are likely much better than early ones. I'd say 5th gen is going to be using GaN technology instead of GaAs and have much better performance and reliability.

It's really impossible to say how Chinese or Russian (or even French) AESA technology compares to US tech. We would need to know the internal function and specs of the radars and their components to know that. They could easily use similar packaging as most modern US radars and still use couple of generations older internals. Or they could have pretty modern technology in the components. Then a lot would depend on computing and processing systems and software.


Thanks for your explanation Hornetfinn. Always a pleasure to read. :thumb:
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 21:06

sferrin wrote:Given you called me out but not him why would I not think there was bias at play? As for "immature", if it's "immature" to point out your apparent bias, then guilty as charged. :roll:

Let's resolve this in PM. :thumb_up:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Corsair1963 and 9 guests