F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 03:44

euromaster wrote:Please don't straw-man my statement, I never said they would not move. I said the time between intel and que of a cruise missile is not nearly long enough for an S-400 scale complex to all suddenly move. There are many parts of the complex, they cannot all just be up on the road. A cruise missile even fired at say a max range of 500 km takes seconds to reach the target (S-400 takes minutes to setup, let alone moving out of missile radius). And many cruise missiles, most notably newer block tac tomahawks can loiter as I told Richnunes. You could have a couple of loitering missiles at the very edge of projected SAM range at the same time as an intel vehicle, say a UAV or a satellite is being positioned ready for the off. You could have several from different angles of attack as well.

Either you are very bad at Math or you didn't read what you wrote
Let take a simple cruise missile: Storm shadow.
Top speed around 1000 km/h
It will take about 33 minutes to cross 560 km.
S-400 take about 10 minutes to pack up and move away from the original location. Something like Tor-M1, Buk will take less than a minute to move from their original location. No, they don't have to go outside your cruise missile's radius. They just have to be at a different place from their original location.
and you can't have your missiles at the edge of the projected SAM range if you have no idea where they are in the first place.
Besides, how long do you think it will take from when the satellite passes over the country and when they finished image processing to find the location of SAM site? It will take hours.
Furthermore, one thing about satellite is that: they can't change their course, they follow the same route over and over and over again with the same orbit velocity, they are not stealthy by any stretch of imagination either. Your enemy will know exactly where are the satellite, where they will be all the time. Which means they will know when these satellite comes and when to move to a different location as soon as they passed away.
So unlesss, these SAM haven't moved at all for several hours, your cruise missiles attack will miss them
Either that happened or 99% of your storm shadow will hit these decoys:
4104df9c9a3947eeaf58208a270a0aae.jpg

WlbcU5Y.png


euromaster wrote:What I have actually said is the exact truth. The assumption that stealth allows you to get within 100's of km range is a dubious one but I will not talk of classified information but let us speak more of risk again, the military does not, and will not risk that aircraft unless it is against lesser systems, that are not part of a larger complex/IADS. Not when it can fire cheaper cruise missiles. Do you understand the disaster of losing an F-35 to a Russian system? not just the plane and the pilot, but sensitive frame information that may be recovered and the media fanfare. Would be enough to make even Lockheed gulp.

It is not always about what you want.
Just like you want to protect your fighters, your enemy want to protect their SAM, and they will do so by camouflage and shoot-scoot tactic.

euromaster wrote:Nobody mentioned "all sams", this is an exaggeration. I am talking about a projected path where you want to send an aircraft. Instead, you rely on sat intel, forces on the ground, covert ops and more recently, high end UAV's and/or battlefield surveillance. The later has come a long way in modern warfare, you can literally scan hundreds if not thousands of kilometers per second at long range with some systems, including through cloud cover.

_ Remind me again what happened in Viet Nam and Yugoslav war when they send aircraft over a projected path over and over again?
_ If even fighters can't go in, what make you think it is feasible to send ground troops hundreds miles into your enemy territories?
_ High end UAV can be shoot down too, one RQ-4 was downed very recently in fact. Before you say UAV are cheap, well not always, the one that is capable of wide-area SAR is very expensive. RQ-4 cost about 131 million USD



euromaster wrote:No, it will not. Sorry but I have to keep contradicting you here. Your stating something I know to be incorrect. Your stating it probably because you think the F-35 was developed to be able to threaten an S-400 deep in enemy territory? Or entire complexes? Not at all. What your referring to in the earlier conflicts were against inferior IADS and even they were extremely dangerous to aircraft of the time, S-400 and later Buk series etc are all so far beyond that its not even a fair comparison and the distribution of different SAM's of varying capabilities for a larger/more developed military such as Russia and even China is even more dangerous for any aircraft.

The F-35 is designed to be able to strike at mild IADS, nothing like S-400 or better. They could probably threaten earlier Buk vehicles if they are already known to be scarce in the area and not supported by hostile aircraft.

No, It is not just what i think
F-35 was designed to penetrate S-400 and its cousin. High level of IADS is the whole reason why all 5 gen and 6 generations aircraft are stealthy. All military with F-35 intended to use their stealth fighter to fly within the high level SAM umbrella
Besides, The fact that you don’t want your fighters to fly within enemy air space when some long range SAM still lurking somewhere is irrelevance. Your enemy will try their best to hide their SAM and you can never be sure that they are all gone through your first cruise missile barrage.

euromaster wrote:This is unlikely because again, intel, the primary use of storm shadow and other cruise missiles is their stand-off nature, you launch it from well beyond the likely zone of control of an enemy air defense. If such an aircraft is spotted, it will just launch the munitions and from there it has all the possibility of out climbing or out maneuvering those aircraft, and using long range next gen weapons like Meteor to just destroy those aircraft beyond their effective range. Thanks to its energy they will also likely be at a disadvantage in most cases.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world where our intel always better than the opponent intel.
It is actually very likely that before Typhoon can get into position to launch Storm shadow, it gets attacked by enemy fighters/interceptor such as Mig-31, J-15, F-35..etc. Typhoon pilot has no choice but to eject 2 heavy cruise missile if he hope to survive. Due to 2 heavy cruise missile, before he ejects them, he is at a disadvantage in both speed, altitude and signature. His opponents have the chance to attack him first from higher speed, altitude while he still has to climb and accelerate after he ejects the two cruise missiles.
If Typhoon face Mig-31: Meteor could be better than R-37, but Typhoon simple can never ever match the altitude or speed of Mig-31. He is out poled horrendously and he can't even run.
If Typhoon face F-35 assuming F-35 didn't have JNAAM, AIM-260 or LREW, and Meteor is better than AIM-120D, it still doesn't change the fact that Typhoon couldn't lock F-35 at long range, he has no choice but to runaways before dozen missiles from various direction destroyed his aircraft.
If Typhoon face J-15, again, he can't run and PL-15 also has better range than Meteor as well as better sensor.



euromaster wrote:Meanwhile lets turn this on its head, as I have done already. The F-35 has just dropped its few bombs on a S-400, somehow magically avoided all detection but its bay opening, heat from its weapons and further, the obvious loss of the S-400 in the complex creates not only SAM alerts and pings but also leaves the F-35 a slow bomb boat deep in hostile territory.

Not magically at all whatsoever,
F-35 has significantly lower RCS than Typhoon, so it will get significantly closer. It is all physics.
The situation favor F-35 even more if there are support jamming in both case.
image_256721.png

jamming-burn-throgh311.png

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=j7 ... &q&f=false

Bay opening might increase RCS for a few seconds, but that doesn't mean F-35 suddenly have the same RCS as Typhoon or 747. Heat from weapons such as SPEAR, JSM, GBU-53 is negligible, much smaller than aircraft itself. Besides, one important drawback of IR system is that their max range is only achieved at minimum FoV. With wide Fov, the range is much shorter, so unless they already looking at F-35, the distance which they can detect the heat signature from the weapon is even smaller. What else? Infrared radiation can't penetrate cloud so F-35 can actually hide the missile launch very easily.
Image




euromaster wrote:It can be run down by basically all Russian/Chinese fighters and there is no projected missile even looking to the 30's that it can use to try and out-reach those aircraft and if it tried, its energy is so poor it will never match the higher altitude fighters. If it gets locked by a SAM (and it will) the pilot may as well eject if hot enough. If its just a couple of pings an F-35 may be able to rely on some jamming but the cost of sending a poorly armed aircraft with a poor frame in a hostile zone is nonsensical. It just will never happen.

Kinda hard to run down someone when you don't know their exact location or how many of them are there. Your scenario is based on the assumption that they know exactly 1 F-35 is there and it has run out of missile. Reality is that when they fixated on chasing down the fleeing F-35, they likely run into another group of F-35 waiting for them.
FYI, Typhoon won't outrun Su-35, J-15 or Mig-31 either.





euromaster wrote:No, I was thinking 60-65k+ feet for "only the highest quality", but even you must realize that if your aircraft can only climb to 40-50k like F-35 (I can tell you 50k is not common honestly) there are a lot more SAM's that can target you. From the lower end Buk's to the later generation Buk-ME2 you mentioned. The Buk-ME2 "can" climb to 25km, but what you seem to misunderstand is that the Buk series once it reaches above 60k feet struggles for range. The missile is not designed to hold that range for more than a few kilometers. 25km altitude is for a hit within maybe seconds.

25 km is 82k ft, that is far above the cruising altitude of Typhoon that it is laughable for you to suggest that Typhoon can stay away from SAM by flying high, what you fail to understand is that when you are not stealthy, many SAM and AAM will be coming toward your location, and you can't out climb them nor can you expect your cruising ceiling to be higher than their ceiling. Another thing you fail to understand is that at 60k ft, your fighter will be struggling for fly, because the air is too thin, your engine won't generate much thrust and your wing won't generate much lift either.




euromaster wrote:This is why high rate of climb is important and why high high end fighters will always climb to avoid SAM's. Because a SAM rocket obviously has less energy (not just fuel, kinetic/potential) and because fighters have a massive energy advantage at height a fighter can afford to burn more energy on more aggressive turns, the missile will struggle heavily at 60k feet let me tell you. This is why you would use a S-400 to ensure chase of a Typhoon that climbs to 65-70k feet. An F-35? hah, don't even waste an S-400, sortie it down with ease or launch Buk. It will never out-climb any but the obsolete missiles.

No one climb to avoid a SAM that was just launched ever, unless the SAM in question is a MANPADS. You won't out accelerate or out climb a SAM ever, doesn't matter what aircraft you fly in. It is impossible, period. The T/W of fighter is significantly lower than a rocket and jet engine will lose thrust at high altitude where the air is thin, whereas a rocket won't have this issue because their fuel consists of their own oxidizer.
And you think fighter can make aggressive turns at 60-70k feet? what world are you in? Do you know what is the sustain G value of F-22 at 30k ft? let me tell you, it is only 3.7G , and only half the altitude where you proposed that Typhoon will make super high G turn to evade SAM. The higher you fly, the thinner the air, which reduces both engine thrust and lift. Making high G there is a child's dream but far from reality, and no Typhoon won't fly at 65-70k feet, we are talking about a Typhoon, not SR-71 or Mig-25. What else?, a SAM will launch more than 1 missile, even if you managed to evade the first one by the magical hard turn, you will eat the next one destroying your tail pipe.
kpp.png




euromaster wrote:Because it is not just a question of speed and altitude is it. Its energy. I went into a little more detail above but Spy planes are not designed to be as agile as a super-maneuverable fighter. The Typhoon, much like the F-22 were both designed to a high spec for supersonic, high altitude agility AND speed/climb. Is this why you think altitude is irrelevant? why do you think any nation bothers to fly high end, high altitude air frames and not just cheaper, single engine strike craft that struggle past 45k feet?

Speed and altitude are energy, one is part of kinetic energy, the other is part of potential energy.
High altitude and super-maneuverable does not go hand in hand, you can either fly at high altitude or you can pull eyes watering turn, but not both at the same time.
The fact that you implied Typhoon can make hard G turn at 60-70k feet clearly show us you don't know anything about aerodynamics and don't have access to any classified documents like you are trying to suggest.
High altitude/ speed certainly have their benefit, no denying that, but not in the way you are trying to imply
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 04:01

euromaster wrote:
gta4 wrote:For those who thinks F-35 has moderate kinematic performance


Indeed it does. An F-35 struggles to maintain supersonic for more than short periods of time. The Typhoon can cruise, and can climb to some of the highest altitudes under a spyplane/MiG-35 class of fighter. The F-35's single engine is of no comparison to higher end twin engine fighters such as the F-22/Typhoon etc.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove. Do you think the F-35 matches twin engine fighters such as the F-22, Typhoon, SU-35 etc in kinematic performance? Or do you understand the fact is mostly comparable to legacy air-frames?



Yes, the F-35 does have better kinematic performance than types like the Typhoon. (at combat weights) :doh:

QUOTE:

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-a-vis the Boeing Super Hornet. "The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in air-to-air," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed Martin test pilot.

NOTE: Billy Flynn was also a former Test Pilot with the Eurofighter Program. (i.e. Typhoon)

QUOTE:

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only
the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006.
As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35
have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very
nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor
, Beesley explained. The
"subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can
get." Beesley said.


QUOTE:

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

Note: Jon Beesley former F-16, F-22, and F-35 Test Pilot. (latter Chief Test Pilot)
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 04:55

euromaster wrote: Like I said many times, tools in the toolbox, the F-35 relies entirely on stealth, which is dubius and can be exposed by countless threats from its own angles

Expose stealth aircraft by approach from a specific angle is a bit of a red hearing.
When looking at radar scattering graph of aircraft, one common mistake is to assume that aircraft will be detected by radar at a significantly longer distance from the side aspects or tail aspects, because radar scattering charts often show much higher radar cross section values for beam aspect and tail aspect compared to the frontal aspect of aircraft. That misconception raised from the fact that most enthusiasts treat radar return as equally valuable regardless of aspect angle. That is not the case, however
Most radar energy is transmitted and received via a main lobe aligned with the antenna’s boresight, but smaller amounts enter through sidelobes that point in almost all directions.
Image
Radar performance degrades at viewing angles where a target must be distinguished from background clutter. Clutter can enter the receiver via the sidelobes, and the processor has no way of knowing the return did not come from the main lobe. Such returns can mask that of the target. Modern radars mitigate this phenomenon with Doppler processing. A pulse-Doppler radar records the time of arrival of a return and also compares its phase with that of the transmitted wave. The difference between the two reveals the target’s radial velocity. The computer creates a 2D range/velocity matrix of all returns, which puts approaching targets in cells with no stationary ground clutter. This is why airborne radars exhibit their best detection ranges against approaching targets. But if the target is being chased, its radial velocity will match some of the ground clutter, and it will be harder to detect.
Image
For example, the Sukhoi Su-35’s Irbis-E radar in high-power, narrow-beam search can detect a 3-m2 (32-ft.2) target at 400 km (250 mi.) from the front but only 150 km from behind, and these ranges drop by half in normal search mode. The hardest airborne targets to see are those moving perpendicular to the radar, because their Doppler profile matches the ground directly below the aircraft. For ground-based radars, the same principles apply, but the antenna is stationary. Fleeing targets stand out as much as approaching aircraft. But ground-based radars are especially challenged in detecting targets moving perpendicularly, because their Doppler profile matches the stationary clutter all around. A tactic used by fighter pilots against ground radars, called “notching,” is to turn perpendicular to the radar, placing the aircraft in the “Doppler notch” in which the radar suffers significantly reduced range.

euromaster wrote: launching weapons

Opening weapon bay might increase aircraft RCS for a few seconds, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be detected.
Even if it was detected and enemy launch a counter attack right at that moment, they still have nothing to guide their missiles once the weapon bay close.


euromaster wrote:evolving radar and most notably IRST/different radar bands.

_ Evolving radar is a common argument, but while an evolving radar might detect stealth fighter from longer distance, they will be even more effective against conventional aircraft, and as radar evolve, jamming also evolve and jamming always favor low RCS target over conventional target, the effects can be estimated by the equation i gave earlier.
_ IRST is another common argument, but IRST can't see through cloud, affected by weather, require narrow FoV to achieve long range, require LRF/kinematic ranging/triangulation to provide basic information such as range and velocity. Nevertheless, F-35 also employs plenty of IR reduction techniques to reduce its IR signature, that will only get better with the new third stream engine.
_ It is another common red hearing that F-35 is only stealthy in X band. In fact, VLO at low frequency is an important part of F-35 requirements.
Image
vhf.PNG

Lockheed Martin also filed a patent claiming the first method of producing a durable RAM panel with effective band width from 0.1 Mhz-60 Ghz
sos-ram_chart4.jpg

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=pate ... 271253.pdf


euromaster wrote:
Sorry but is not that easy. First of all, "getting in" is a complicated series of goal posts by itself. I may be tagged by a pop up SAM which will then communicate with others connected to the complex, which leads to a downed fighter. Being low altitude means there are far more SAM's capable of this, and far more likely that the human eye will see it as well. As fighters flying at above 50k-65k or so feet are "above" the cloud layer.

One significant advantage of VLO is cutting down the distance which enemy can detect and engage you, the pop up SAM likely get detected by F-35 long before it got the chance to track and engage F-35. Typhoon is far more vulnerable to this as the detection bubble against a conventional aircraft is significantly better.
You try very hard to overestimate the difference in operational altitude between Typhoon and F-35, but in reality, at most Typhoon fly 5-10k feet higher than F-35, and I am being very generous with that number. No, Typhoon won't cruise at 65k feet where it can barely maintain level flight and even that altitude won't keep it safe from legacy SAM like S-75 and S-200, nevermind the newer one
FYI, cloud layer is at around 20-26k feet.

euromaster wrote:
Then we have the "destroy 92N6E" , again, good luck getting out because you have just created a spike in RCS (door opening, weapon drop) and Heat (weapon launch) and the loss of an asset in a connected system. This gives your general location

Open weapon bay increase RCS for 2-3 seconds, but that doesn't mean you will gain the lock on stealth fighter regardless of distance, another small note is that if your Typhoon is at higher altitude you won't see the bay open either. A spike in RCS is also a good opportunity for F-35 pilot to launch jammer such as SPEAR-EW or MALD-J and IADS will track and follow that instead
Heat isn't an issue as long as F-35 fly higher than the cloud layer at 20k feet.

euromaster wrote:
Further, SU-35? again, unlikely. With AMRAAM (AIM260 not out yet, not sure why its being brought up all the time) your effective range of around 60-80 km with C-7 variant (generous) will bring you dangerously close to potential detection through radar and will certainly give IRST an easy time. Funny thing is, being low altitude is good against IRST, but bad against SAM's, so your in a quandary. Do you want to climb to avoid low altitude SAM's or descend to 20-30k or below where you still may be vulnerable to most medium range SAM's but will be more and more visible to IRST at longer ranges.

Actually, it is very likely
OLS-35 frontal detection range against Su-30 size target is 35 km
Range of LRF on OLS-35 is 15-20 km.
That put it well within the lethal distance of AMRAAM C-7 and C-8
Don't even think a fighter's small radar gonna help you detect a stealth target.



euromaster wrote:
There is also the question of "first kill/first shot" this is a common error for stealth claims at least for those using legacy missiles such as AMRAAM. First kill with a single shot, or even a couple is highly unlikely what with jamming, decoys and chaff/flares (as the embarrassing show of the AIM-9X showed, alas....the US military has been hit hard over the past decade, luckily it has chums to help it out). In fact, it is suggested against a 4.5+ gen target to use up to 3/4 in a salvo using legacy weapons, and this is at under 60km. I cannot see the F-35 surviving, even if it managed to unlikely task of shooting down a SU-35.

Who says F-35 will only shoot a single missile?
Who says there is only a single F-35 in the area?
I would love to see how a Su-35 want to press forward after half his friend just got shotdown

euromaster wrote:
You think so? Well thing is, so will an F-35, hence why, like I keep telling you, you do not send aircraft into high end defended IADS. If the Typhoon pilot is forced onto this sort of mission by you personally (the military would not, nor would it do so to an F-35 pilot) he would enjoy the advantage of higher ceiling, at 60-65k+ feet he will only need to worry about S-400 and Buk mk3 (the Mk3 missile has a little more legs, even at high altitude). But the thing is, he will never have to worry about adversary aircraft, why? because they are all of lesser performance and have yet to equip next generation BVR missiles. Typhoon could loft Meteor (up to 6 if also carrying SPEAR/Brimstone. ) well beyond the effective range of pretty much any adversary aircraft to the point even if detected, it may just create a no fly zone as it moves. Meaning it will only be targeted by S-400+ sams. The F-35 has to worry about everything from medium altitude SAMs, to every potential fighter, including legacy aircraft since it does not outperform them.

Your scenario is pretty much wishful thinking. You can't assure that the air space which your fighters flew in is not defended by IADS. Because your enemy, if they are competent won't let all of their SAM got destroyed by the first cruise missile barrage. They will hide at first, and suddenly the middle of the conflict when your fighters flying CAP or CAS, they will strike. This is the kind of stuff that happened in Yugoslav Wars.
On to the advantage of Eurofighter. As said before, it doesn't fly high enough to ensure safety from medium /long range SAM. Even short-range ancient SAM such as S-75 dvina can climb to 25 km height, ancient long range SAM such as S-200 can climb to 40 km height, and those 2 are very common ancient SAM. Needless to say about more recent SAM like Patriot, HQ-9, S-300, Buk-ME2..etc they can all climb much further than Typhoon service ceiling and will destroy it with else.
Regarding your claim that " Typhoon doesn't have to worry about potential adversary aircraft because they are of lesser performer and aren't equipped with next-generation BVR missiles". That can't be any further from the truth.
_ Rafale, Gripen: carry the same Meteor as Typhoon, sure they might be slower than Typhoon, but then it is irrelevant given that they can detect each other is well within the effective range of Meteor.
_ Mig-31: fly faster, higher and its missile far surpass Typhoon's
_ Su-35: slower cruising speed but faster top speed than Typhoon, carry far more powerful radar than Typhoon and should be able to detect Typhoon from outside Meteor effective range. RVV-BD should be quite competitive compared with Meteor.
_ J-15: slower cruising speed but faster top speed than Typhoon, carry far more powerful radar than Typhoon and should be able to detect Typhoon from outside Meteor effective range, PL-15 has better range and better sensor than Meteor.
_ F-35: slower than Typhoon but can also carry Meteor, and it will even get access to better missiles such as JNAAM. The important part, however, is that, the distance which Typhoon can detect F-35 is well within the lethal range of AIM-120D whereas F-35 can track and target Typhoon from great distance


euromaster wrote:
Size, you said it yourself. Its range is going to be short. Also;

There are many other important factors for a missile aside from range, for example: sensor capability, maneuverability, acceleration


euromaster wrote:
Sorry but this is never an excuse. Its a media/marketing pitch for a short range missile sure but this is not a reality, just wishful thinking. Yes maybe it can get closer to some legacy systems, but short range also increases your likelihood of detection, why do you think their trying to link F-22 with AIM-120D if 120C was enough range? Range is always preferred so long as you can maintain decent PK at range. Meteor does this thanks to its Ramjet, it can save energy and has a high end/ECM resistant seeker designed for high ECM battle-space. The SACM is touted as a cheap, small missile for filling internal bays. AIM-260 and later LREM (not likely for bays due to its projected size) are a higher end missile made for range/high ECM environments.

F-35 will always able to get closer than Typhoon, not just against legacy systems but any systems. Newer system which can detect F-35 from longer distance will be even more effective against Typhoon.
Furthermore, small missiles have their own advantages such as acceleration and maneuverability, they don't just make difference class of missiles for nothing.


euromaster wrote:
They do not need it because there is no aircraft that will be required to get within 300-500 km of one. No air-force would expect that from its pilots, I doubt even Russia would unless desperate.

Oh but that happened time and time again.
If airforce think their fighter will never have to fly within the engagement bubble of SAM, they wouldn't make ALARM, HARM, AARGM-ER, MARTEL, KH-31, KH-58 ..etc

euromaster wrote:
Do not bring up the LREW for internal bays, this is not likely to be the case. Given a few years AIM-260 may enter on the F-35, but LREW and what it will transform into is a ways of, from what I personally know, it will be more for a 6th gen fighter, where carriage will not be so cramped, not F-35 unless it gets degraded from a very long range weapon to a shorter ranged one below Meteor.

It is pretty clear from what you said earlier about high altitude and agility that you don't personally know the LREW, nor you are a person involved in the development of any air to air missile, so please don't pretend. You won't fool anyone.
There are no details of LREW at the moment other than that it is a long range multi role weapon and the only photo of it was shown in a presentation last April by Chuck Perkins, the principal deputy to the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, and that image show it launched from F-22 internal weapon bay, F-22 weapon bay is actually smaller than F-35's bay, so if it can fit F-22's bay, it will fit F-35's bay.
yourfile.jpg

Capture.PNG



euromaster wrote:
Problem is, Typhoon is already flying with Meteor, which is superior to AIM-260 according to all specs/requirements of that missile and further, AIM-260 is out years after Meteor, a superior missile has been released. Not ideal really if US wants to claim it can be a runner up in air superiority. Like I said before, they should consider buying Meteor.

oh please, you don't know the specs and requirement for AIM-260, stop pretending like you do.



euromaster wrote:
Again, not true. Performance works both ways. Even if we took the fictional idea of an invisible F-35 and allowed it to get into firing it's "first shot", you still have to contend with high end maneuvering, jamming, decoys etc of the target, its possible an F-35 carrying only two AMRAAM (if on your strike mission) or even 4 will have to empty its internal bay just to make sure the target is downed. Further, a faster frame lends energy to the missile, so even the stealthy aircraft, like the F-22 benefit dramatically from higher altitude/speed. The F-22 and F-35 questions of stealth aside would not have the same chance of hitting a target even with the same missile. The F-22 and Typhoon will exceed the PK of a missile launch from a F-35 in most scenarios.

Missiles launch from Typhoon will excess the PK of a missile launch from F-35, but it won't matter if Typhoon can't lock the F-35 and he also too busy dodging SAM coming his way.


euromaster wrote:
I thought we would get to some of the old information. The 50-60km range is dated, for legacy IRST. Newer IRST, like PIRATE also have Search and passive track combined and can be slaved to the radar/vice versa if needed. The early pre-upgraded tests some users cite found that PIRATE could detect/track at 100km+, for a subsonic target at 30k feet. Anyone who has made even limited research into how an IRST works and its capabilities will understand that 30k feet is not an ideal altitude for an IRST, nor is subsonic flight, its capability increases dramatically at every 10k feet, and as supersonic is reached. I am not as knowledgeable on newer Russian/Chinese IRST although reports do indicate they are not far behind the west in terms of IRST but because the US has put so many of its eggs into the F-35 basket it has given both of those nations, especially China as it grows into a more modern military a high interest in developing ever more advanced IRST.

To begin with, I would like a source for that number
Furthermore,
100+ km may sound impressive at first glance but it ignores many important facts:
_ What is the target? F-4 is not the same as F-5, B-52 is not the same as B-2. Simply say that it detects a target mean nothing.
_ what is the aspect? from tail aspect OLS-35 can achieve 90 km detection rang with else.
_ Was the Typhoon at higher or lower altitude than the target? since that make significant different.


euromaster wrote:
You could be looking at an F-35 being detected by future IRST (2020's?) well beyond its effective missile ranges (100-200 km's).

_ The distance which an IRST can detect/track a target is not the same distance that it could generate firing solution. From tail aspect OLS-35 can detect target as far as 90 km, but the LRF is only 15-20 km.
_ F-35 will get better and better missiles: Meteor, JNAAM, AIM-260, LREW
_ F-35 already have many techniques applied to reduce its IR signature, and that will only get better with the new 3 stream engine.
For example:
Cooling scope for nacelle bay cooling
Image
Image

Masked nozzle
Image
Image

Engine nozzle with cooling vents and serrated feather to cut down plume length
Image
Image

High bypass engine
Image
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 10:20

euromaster wrote:
Only at VERY low altitudes. Like below 30k feet. Again your referring to older IRST, mostly those on American aircraft before the F-35, where the US did not rate IRST highly and their development suffered. The new one on F-35 has just as much if not better clarity than most current IRST including eastern designs and may even be able to match PIRATE in some areas ( F-35 has 360 degree coverage thanks to DAS). Software updates since the early 2000's have made systems like PIRATE have little issue differentiating ground clutter, that said, ground clutter has always been the red herring, its not been nearly as much as an issue post later 90's.

Not just at very low altitude, an infrared sensor by itself doesn't generate range information, unlike radar, IR sensor need to relied on LRF, triangulation or kinematic ranging to measure range. So whether you are closer to the ground or not is unimportant for IRST. What important is the temperature of the ground, the hotter the background, the shorter the detection distance and because ground surface is hotter than cold sky, look down range is alway shorter than look up range
Newer systems still can't change physics.
Image
Image

euromaster wrote:
It is already better. Future Typhoon will be more effective still thanks to a fighter unique next generation swivel plate AESA. Giving it more of a wide brim searchlight to look for potential threats at long range rather than what most fighters have today, a low angle flashlight.

Is that why Typhoon lost against F-35 in Denmark evaluation? also lost against Rafale in Swiss internal evaluation ?
1.PNG

2.PNG

euromaster wrote:
Apart from the rear, where such an improvement would have minimal impact the engine and its plume make for a small percentage (under 6%) of what an IRST detects. It relies more on frictional heat from high speed travel through a cold ambient background temperature. Some things on aircraft can never be cool enough to deny IRST, even at long range, aside from frictional heat, unless you want your F-35 to freeze up at altitude you need heating. It cant hug the ground and never detect/see opposing aircraft while being vulnerable to all SAM's (including manpads if low enough) just to avoid IRST :wink:

Actually, it depends on the aspect and third stream engine don't just cool the plumes, it also helps cool the airframe skin thanks to the third stream outside the core.
infrared-percentages.png

Image
Without 3 streams the back fuselage can get very hot.
Image
Last edited by garrya on 13 Aug 2019, 10:29, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

euromaster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 15:42

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 10:21

garrya wrote:didn't read what you wrote


Your right I meant minutes, what happens when your typing about WVR HOB's combat in one discussion and cruise missiles in another. Sorry! :oops:

S-400 take about 10 minutes to pack up and move away from the original location.


At what point? It is not doing this every few minutes so when does it know a stealthy cruise missile is coming in? Why do you think it will pack up suddenly when it has no idea of any incoming threat to the system and all its connected parts? The 10 minutes or so per launcher is based on the S-400 command either shooting something and being comfortable in the knowledge there is nothing else for the S-400 to target (cannot know this, and the state between active, standby etc happens in minutes as well, indeed, the missile being ready to fire can be minutes depending on level of readiness). An S-400 does not pack down immediately as soon as it tracks a UAV (assuming it does) or sattelite coverage is know, as those things are a given. Assuming the complex has 20 minutes to impact of a stormshadow or Tomahawk, takes 10 minutes to prepare to move, it then has minutes to get out of a potential blast radius. Highly optimistic.

you can't have your missiles at the edge of the projected SAM range if you have no idea where they are in the first place.


Your taking my comment out of context where I pointed out intel will take place. Also, you can, like I said have loitering missiles, you could have these within range of other targets of interest if need be. The areas were discussing that are likely to be covered by S-400's are high value, otherwise you would not want to move your aircraft through these areas to begin with.

Which means they will know when these satellite comes and when to move to a different location as soon as they passed away.


Sorry this shows a lack of understanding. A lot of what you said about satellites is too simple of an explanation. Russia has satellites going over it 24/7, many of them. Their not so easy to follow as your suggesting either to a command level team for a S-400. Their not going to be told every hour when a sattelite is coming and then be forced to move otherwise the answer would be to just have a sattelite go over the S-400, force it to move and then attack it during the 20 minute set down/setup phase. This is not how the S-400 works. The S-400 command will likely be on standby, this phase will escalate to readiness if the command crew of the command unit "believes" there is an impending attack (from their own intel) or detect something they can determine may fire. This is not possible with submarines firing Tomahawks, so they may detect a tomahawk before the launch vehicle, with a plane, they can detect the launch vehicle. They do not immediately however start packing up upon seeing a threat.

So unlesss, these SAM haven't moved at all for several hours, your cruise missiles attack will miss them


Where did "several hours" come from? only if a tomahawk is launched from its max range. Were talking 20-30 minute times at best. And this is only if the S-400 crazily starts the set down as soon as a target is in potential range. This is not standard procedure to set down as soon as an enemy appears on radar.

Either that happened or 99% of your storm shadow will hit these decoys:
4104df9c9a3947eeaf58208a270a0aae.jpg

WlbcU5Y.png


Well great, if you think mixed intel from satellite, drone and outside ops is not good enough to determine real S-400 locations then perhaps the F-35 is going to go hot emptying its internal bay bombing a blow up decoy which is even more of a disaster, congratulations. :D


_ Remind me again what happened in Viet Nam and Yugoslav war when they send aircraft over a projected path over and over again?
_ If even fighters can't go in, what make you think it is feasible to send ground troops hundreds miles into your enemy territories?
_ High end UAV can be shoot down too, one RQ-4 was downed very recently in fact. Before you say UAV are cheap, well not always, the one that is capable of wide-area SAR is very expensive. RQ-4 cost about 131 million USD


Special forces ops can be used in a deep strike role and often are as forward recce behind enemy lines, it is their job. You seem to be cherry picking the information while unaware apparently of the countless ways to form intel on a large IADS complex. If not special forces, drones, if not drones, sat, if not sat you have intel that may have been gathered by intelligence services, even publicly Russia likes to jabber about its S-400 placements and how well defended it is, moving a complex is not a quiet operation.

yes UAV's can be shot down, as can F-35's and stealth aircraft, as you brought up Yugoslav again lets count the one stealth fighter of only a couple of allied fighters actually lost. Your whole scenario of an F-35 bombing a high end is even dubious based on real world outcomes. Also their vastly cheaper than what you lose if a manned, new gen fighter is lost, and when I say cost, I do not just mean in dollars.



F-35 was designed to penetrate S-400 and its cousin. High level of IADS is the whole reason why all 5 gen and 6 generations aircraft are stealthy. All military with F-35 intended to use their stealth fighter to fly within the high level SAM umbrella


They were designed to be able to infiltrate the outer edges of a lower end SAM, like Buk. Why you think it was designed against S-400 I have no idea. Like I said I know this is not the case. If this is what you wish to believe/assume then fine. I am not here to convince, only inform.

Your enemy will try their best to hide their SAM and you can never be sure that they are all gone through your first cruise missile barrage.


So you run the intel again and launch another barrage. You don't just send in F-35 pilots that will get shot down behind enemy lines, be used as a bargaining chip (if they survive) and cause mass humiliation to the entire US air-force.


Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world where our intel always better than the opponent intel.


Right and you can never assume your stealth is going to be efficient at any range, even at long range against the rapidly changing sensor arena, in both software/hardware. Stealth is not a static system, you can say a missile has 100 km range but you cannot say a radar can only detect a stealth target at 100 km with certainty, these are all estimates and change based on like I said, angle, what the stealth target is doing, altitude and the list goes on. Its why the F-35 will never be sent into a heavily clustered IADS such as a Russian one.

It is actually very likely that before Typhoon can get into position to launch Storm shadow, it gets attacked by enemy fighters/interceptor such as Mig-31, J-15, F-35..etc.


You gave no reasoning. There is no reason for this to occur. It has a longer range/more capable stick and more sophisticated avionics and support. There is no reason to think western intel is going to be so bad it will clear a stand-off cruise missile strike at 400-500 km in a zone (with thousands of square km around the potential target being possible) where it considers a possible exclusion zone is formed by MiG's and SU's. Also the F-35 is not going to be attacking a Typhoon launching missiles at a S-400 so I am not sure why you included it.

Typhoon pilot has no choice but to eject 2 heavy cruise missile if he hope to survive. Due to 2 heavy cruise missile, before he ejects them, he is at a disadvantage in both speed, altitude and signature. His opponents have the chance to attack him first from higher speed, altitude while he still has to climb and accelerate after he ejects the two cruise missiles.


This scenario shows a lack of understanding of aviation or how such a system would work. Again why would the Typhoon only be aware of such threats as they get into weapon ranges, which are far shorter than its launch weapon AND its AA weapons? This scenario basically assumes western intel is, again so flawed that the USSR is having a field day. At this rate I may as well assume that the F-35 squadron in your optimistic scenarios is actually moving in with just bombs and its low end legacy BVR weapons against S-400 when in actual fact, they were only decoys and undetected high altitude SU-35's/MiG's pounce from the rear from nowhere.

If Typhoon face Mig-31: Meteor could be better than R-37, but Typhoon simple can never ever match the altitude or speed of Mig-31. He is out poled horrendously and he can't even run.


Could? R-37 is designed more against slower, heavier craft. It can only perform long range intercept at glide speed. Its performance against even a legacy fighter would be questionable, let alone a Typhoon. Also not horrendously, the MiG-31 bests it in altitude and speed but not in any other kinematic comparison, nor in weapons or sensors. If a MiG-31 has somehow managed to reach out to a stand-off launch, then somehow threaten a Typhoon level target something has gone wrong.

A F-35 in a similar scenario however being more on the level of a legacy bomb boat would have no chance but to eject.

If Typhoon face F-35 assuming F-35 didn't have JNAAM, AIM-260 or LREW, and Meteor is better than AIM-120D, it still doesn't change the fact that Typhoon couldn't lock F-35 at long range, he has no choice but to runaways before dozen missiles from various direction destroyed his aircraft.


A Typhoon does not have to lock on at long range. The F-35's effective range with AIM-120C is well within estimates of high end radar detection of a stealth aircraft and this before jamming, decoy and so on has been considered. Chances are at low altitude an F-35 would struggle finding the Typhoon at its high perch anyway.


If Typhoon face J-15, again, he can't run and PL-15 also has better range than Meteor as well as better sensor.


The only thing you said here that "may" be true is the better sensor. It is estimated that China does not have the electronics edge as the west or the software advantage.



F-35 has significantly lower RCS than Typhoon, so it will get significantly closer. It is all physics.
The situation favor F-35 even more if there are support jamming in both case.


Well not necessarily, since its also lower its going to be the target of more SAM's, including camouflaged/pop up threats so don't omit the issues of the F-35. You also moved the goalposts, we were not discussing support jamming. Both sides could have support jamming, were discussing the F-35.


Bay opening might increase RCS for a few seconds, but that doesn't mean F-35 suddenly have the same RCS as Typhoon or 747.


No, indeed, funny how exaggeration seems to be the answer to a valid point which you then handwaved. Are you aware of the boost in RCS of a bay opening on a stealth aircraft? Its also what cost the Nighthawk its stealth funnily enough. I can tell you the obvious, the bay opening is not as in-significant as you seem to want to imply. It is like someone not too knowledgeable of submarines saying putting the stereo on for a few seconds is no big deal while deep inside a forward destroyer picket.

Heat from weapons such as SPEAR, JSM, GBU-53 is negligible, much smaller than aircraft itself. Besides, one important drawback of IR system is that their max range is only achieved at minimum FoV. With wide Fov, the range is much shorter, so unless they already looking at F-35, the distance which they can detect the heat signature from the weapon is even smaller. What else? Infrared radiation can't penetrate cloud so F-35 can actually hide the missile launch very easily.


Cloud cover is such a common counter to IR/IRST tracking as if its a battlefield tool that can be wheeled into place when stealth aircraft need it :D

You must be talking about low end IR/IRST or those that are not installed on current fighters with software packages that came out in the 2010's and so on. If the F-35 has just opened its bay/launched a weapon a whole host of radar/IRST's likely detected a spike in heat and emissions. If the F-35 is low enough to ensure more cloud cover then its likely under 20k feet where yes, even MANPADS and the naked eye may be able to see it, and no stealth aircraft (or any aircraft really) is going to enter a cloud itself in any realistic scenario.

Modern IRST with the newer software packages as I mentioned before can perform far quicker/more accurate wide angle detection at longer ranges. I mean what range do you think the IR systems are going to be at in regards to distance from the S-400 complex exactly? The potential cover aircraft like the SU-35/MiG's could be performing a circuit of denial only tens of kilometers around the Complex radius. Different angles alone may detect the F-35 even before launch with radar, then you have IRST which with overlapping fields of multiple aircraft would be even more likely to detect it, before/after (more so) launch.

You seemed to omit the fact that actually succeeding in destroying a part of a complex will also give your potential area to further shrink the radius of operations required.

Kinda hard to run down someone when you don't know their exact location or how many of them are there. Your scenario is based on the assumption that they know exactly 1 F-35 is there and it has run out of missile. Reality is that when they fixated on chasing down the fleeing F-35, they likely run into another group of F-35 waiting for them.
FYI, Typhoon won't outrun Su-35, J-15 or Mig-31 either.


No the F-35 being alone/having no missiles is just gravy. The Scenario is simply outlining the fact that the F-35 with limited weapons of a legacy era and its low end air-frame is effectively lost once it narrows its position by actually launching weapons from within the radius of hostile sensor coverage.

25 km is 82k ft, that is far above the cruising altitude of Typhoon that it is laughable for you to suggest that Typhoon can stay away from SAM by flying high


25km for Buk is for a slower target at high altitude coming towards it. Like i said a Buk mk2 (mk3 could do this) will struggle to continue to gain against an evading fighter over 50-60k feet.

What you fail to understand is that when you are not stealthy, many SAM and AAM will be coming toward your location


I understand this is what you believe but my point was there are far more SAM's that can target a 20-30 to at best sub 50 altitude Jet that can target a 65km-70 altitude jet. When you claim the 25 km altitude, you seem to misunderstand the fact that chasing a target at that range for a Buk class missile bleeds its energy dramatically, whereas if the same system targeted the far closer (to its radar and all supporting sensor assets too) 30-40 altitude F-35, its effective range is dramatically higher, as in, 40-60, even 100 km's. The missile bleeds its effective range to target at altitude.

Another thing you fail to understand is that at 60k ft, your fighter will be struggling for fly, because the air is too thin, your engine won't generate much thrust and your wing won't generate much lift either.


I never misunderstood this. By 60k feet the missile is going to be bleeding energy at an alarming rate as well. Again, far beyond if it was reaching out to a 30k-40k ft target. At this altitude the Typhoon could afford to launch weapons far earlier than the F-35 as well. Especially if using glide munitions and supercruise. You realize it takes less energy/fuel to gain speed at high altitude even on low thrust right? This is basic physics. Drag goes down dramatically in thin air, jet stream etc



No one climb to avoid a SAM that was just launched ever, unless the SAM in question is a MANPADS. You won't out accelerate or out climb a SAM ever, doesn't matter what aircraft you fly in. It is impossible, period. The T/W of fighter is significantly lower than a rocket and jet engine will lose thrust at high altitude where the air is thin, whereas a rocket won't have this issue because their fuel consists of their own oxidizer.


You just making a contradictory statement to mine does not actually affect my initial statement. I stand by my point that climbing is used to escape a SAM. This is literally the only course of kinematic action you can take in order to defeat a SAM. If the aircraft is already at high altitude, like say a Typhoon may be, then it does not need to climb, just turn tail and run, meanwhile the SAM is climbing, which takes a huge amount of energy. At this stage, sure, the thin air at high altitude may not be as much an issue on its fuel but its already burned a large amount of its fuel reaching 60-70k ft to begin with at that stage a Bukmk 2 is at the very limit of its capability, as in by that point it should have already hit the target. The fact your discussing the rocket at high altitude contending with the energy of an aircraft already at altitude implies some lack of knowledge I would say.

Making high G there is a child's dream but far from reality, and no Typhoon won't fly at 65-70k feet, we are talking about a Typhoon, not SR-71 or Mig-25.


Again your making a straw-man of my argument again, I already asked you to dispense with the logical fallacy. I never said anything about "high-G" or the levels your stating. And yes, a Typhoon can climb/fly at a ceiling of 70k feet if it is required to do so, which in this ridiculous scenario of Jets, be it F-35/Typhoon finding themselves trying to get within the missile ranges of a very high end IADS it will no doubt be doing.

To fill in the holes in your knowledge and information since you seem to be lost a little in my scenario. If a Buk2 level of weapon is trying to hit a 65-70k ft target, by the point the missile has climbed to only 60k feet its already bled so much energy, I have already said this. At this point, how do you think a rocket that is reaching the end of its energy is going to make a terminal strike? it never will against a high end fighter like the Typhoon, the Typhoon will have an easy time at this stage. Indeed, any turn will be aggressive in that context in regards to a Bukmk2 missile. It will be literally on the verge of dying just trying to chase a Typhoon a few kilometers.

At 40k ft? The F-35 is not so lucky. And due to its lower performance, struggling to maintain supersonic it will be run down quite easily.

What else?, a SAM will launch more than 1 missile, even if you managed to evade the first one by the magical hard turn, you will eat the next one destroying your tail pipe.


No the first missile will be burned down through ECM. So far from the launch vehicle and at the very edge of its performance envelope where its PK is already plummeting fast ECM would likely be able to defeat most missiles at that point of their performance from a Bukmk2. If the second missile seems to be gaining Typhoon has two decoys. If that fails, flares etc. Again, at this rate it will likely just out-run. The pilot could do a slight turn as I said before and the missile will struggle to follow.

Its why SAM's outside of the higher end ones are not the asset of choice against a high altitude jet. You will use an interceptor or another high end air-frame.

The fact that you implied Typhoon can make hard G turn at 60-70k feet clearly show us you don't know anything about aerodynamics and don't have access to any classified documents like you are trying to suggest.


Your straw-mans are getting out of hand. The fact you seem to omit the advantages of climb against a SAM, or altitude and the fact you seem to be discussing a rocket at the edge of its capability envelope is going to challenge a high altitude, high end air-frame while its gasping for energy proves that clearly you the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest you dissuade yourself from attacking the poster and instead try and learn from my information, don't just keep discrediting when obviously, we both know your far from omniscient in terms of aviation.

I will thank you not to suggest/ask anything concerning classified information. I did not suggest anything, and I will not do so. I am pointing out constant attempts to make claims on something you have no idea on to try and discredit my information is fallacious at best and just bad form.



High altitude/ speed certainly have their benefit, no denying that, but not in the way you are trying to imply


A great many benefits including the avoidance of sams. Hence why a lot of high altitude aircraft were developed for that very purpose. There are a long list of advantages, which the F-35 does not enjoy.

Corsair1963 wrote:Yes, the F-35 does have better kinematic performance than types like the Typhoon.


It does not. Fact is, its very under-powered thanks to only having 1 engine no doubt. Kind of like Rafale, which is one thing it has in common with the other aircraft that is the primary subject in this thread.

Expose stealth aircraft by approach from a specific angle is a bit of a red hearing.


"a bit of a red herring" or is it one? I was pointing out the fact that angles matter. The fact I did not go into a verbose discussion does not make it a red herring does it? Rhetorical question.

But if the target is being chased, its radial velocity will match some of the ground clutter, and it will be harder to detect.


Most of your statement was a verbose way of saying older radar designs struggled with ground clutter. Radar has come a long way during the 2000's, current software radar (and IRST as previously mentioned) has had so many updates, bringing up ground clutter again suggests to me your basing your information on older sources from the early 2000's or 90's. Also if your rear is to the chasing aircraft, good luck against IRST :)

called “notching,” is to turn perpendicular to the radar, placing the aircraft in the “Doppler notch” in which the radar suffers significantly reduced range.


But there are multiple radars that make up an IADS, potentially from different angles, not counting support aircraft/vehicles. Again, this is a specific point that is true but not so useful in regards to our scenario we were discussing. If the F-35 has only one early 2000's generation radar to worry about then sure. it has a higher chance, especially with stealth. This is why the F-35 was designed (not to fly up to S-400 class IADS' :shock: ) . So that it can pressure lower end/less sophisticated IADS' or lower end SAMs like early BuK models.

Evolving radar is a common argument, but while an evolving radar might detect stealth fighter from longer distance, they will be even more effective against conventional aircraft


Indeed, but the mission of a conventional aircraft is not to get close to SAM's, it will as I have said exhaustively launch a stand-off weapon, said weapons and their software evolve faster than the air-frames that launch them, dramatically so in fact. For example the F-35 airframe has the dubious proposition of being in service into the 70's (that said, the US does hold onto its legacy designs decades after they should, just the way they roll). Meanwhile multi projectile, stealthier and faster cruise missiles (mid to high supersonic to hypersonic) are in western development (and exist in eastern inventories in small numbers).

Meanwhile the vast logistical bucket that you have your foot in the whole time you try to fly stealth aircraft, not to mention the limitations of current stealth design (weapon load, internal bay length for weapons, poor kinematic performance in terms of the F-35 etc) have no projected fix.

IRST is another common argument, but IRST can't see through cloud, affected by weather, require narrow FoV to achieve long range, require LRF/kinematic ranging/triangulation to provide basic information such as range and velocity. Nevertheless, F-35 also employs plenty of IR reduction techniques to reduce its IR signature, that will only get better with the new third stream engine.


Always with the clouds, a common counter to IRST. Again, Clouds are not a US tool, not unless you have developed a weather control device I am unaware of. Clouds are useful at low altitudes, a place where no jet aircraft wants to be outside of the sole purpose of avoiding IRST. Doing so sacrifices energy in droves for weapons, makes it less likely to detect higher altitude targets and further makes the platform more vulnerable to ground based defenses (or just being seen by eye if low enough).

IRST has excellent long range in modern variants, IRST like PIRATE could see a supersonic fighter at high altitude before most radars and include passive track while search. Considering almost all modern weapons seem to have mid-course guidance, 2 way data link and LOAL you don't need a lock at max range, only detection. This is, again why I wonder if some of this information is not from the early 2000's/late 90's where needing a lock at max range was required to have any accuracy with a weapon system.

I have already informed you on how small of an impact engine signature has on IRST outside of the rear hemisphere where it is so hot the difference will be negligible until the someone develops a fully cold state engine.

One significant advantage of VLO is cutting down the distance which enemy can detect and engage you, the pop up SAM likely get detected by F-35 long before it got the chance to track and engage F-35.


See this is just bias, apparently the F-35 can detect all the SAMs, including pop up threats (which by their very nature have not been previously detected). Yet previously all intel for stand-off attack just sees blow up decoys?

You try very hard to overestimate the difference in operational altitude between Typhoon and F-35


I don't because there is no use in trying, its just a flat fact there is a huge difference between a high end airframe like an F-22/Typhoon and a more legacy frame that the F-35 more compares to.

FYI, cloud layer is at around 20-26k feet.


Cloud cover depends on the type of cloud, I am talking globally, above 40-50k feet your not going to get any cloud cover in almost any part of the world outside freak storms.

Heat isn't an issue as long as F-35 fly higher than the cloud layer at 20k feet.


If you fly above the cloud layer then any aircraft (almost all over them) seeking you with IRST have clear atmosphere which is where IRST has the longest ranges.

I would love to see how a Su-35 want to press forward after half his friend just got shotdown


This is not even a response to what I said. Your simply re-claiming the F-35 group will somehow shoot all the SU-35's down again despite having been informed how unlikely that is again a high end target with only AMRAAM. Your not getting any long range shots, not with bad PK and not enough missiles to burn. Unless your saying you want a whole squad of F-35's to expend their bays for every one SU-35....

They will hide at first, and suddenly the middle of the conflict when your fighters flying CAP or CAS, they will strike. This is the kind of stuff that happened in Yugoslav Wars.


Again were back in the late 90's. Detection has come a long way since then for all kinds of asset, especially UAV's. The same could happen to stealth aircraft if they fly too close to radar/use their weapons.

That can't be any further from the truth.
Rafale, Gripen: carry the same Meteor as Typhoon, sure they might be slower than Typhoon, but then it is irrelevant


You say that then mention two "allied" aircraft. I said adversary. And no it is not irrelevant, a high altitude, super cruising Typhoon (Rafale and Gripen are lower spec/low altitude planes a lot more like F-35) has far more reach with its two way data linked meteor (Rafale uses one way) than the other two aircraft, so it will still swat them beyond their range, its just not as absurd an advantage between Typhoon and legacy armed fighters.

Mig-31: fly faster, higher and its missile far surpass Typhoon's


Just wrong, no missile currently surpasses Meteors capability.

Su-35: slower cruising speed but faster top speed than Typhoon, carry far more powerful radar than Typhoon and should be able to detect Typhoon from outside Meteor effective range. RVV-BD should be quite competitive compared with Meteor.


Again, none of the current Russian long range missiles are designed for taking out fighters at their maximum range. The heavy R series are anti-tanker/awacs weapons. If used against fighters their expected range is in the hundred or so kilometers.

F-35: slower than Typhoon but can also carry Meteor, and it will even get access to better missiles such as JNAAM. The important part, however, is that, the distance which Typhoon can detect F-35 is well within the lethal range of AIM-120D whereas F-35 can track and target Typhoon from great distance


First, no, not until 22's and only in the UK. A US peer missile to Meteor is a long way off. Further, detecting Typhoon flying far higher than the F-35? Not so likely. And again, your overly optimistic when you mention lethal range of AMRAAM. I suspect your knowledge on missiles is somewhat light considering some of these statements.

There is no missile on the level of meteor, period today and projected missiles may not match it for a good half a decade or longer if your talking about the US missile development.

There are many other important factors for a missile aside from range


Indeed and the meteor is high spec in all of these as well as its ECM resistance but range is key. If you have a high PK and long range you have no fear from an adversary that has far shorter range AND lower PK (like AMRAAM and other legacy missiles).

[quoteIf airforce think their fighter will never have to fly within the engagement bubble of SAM, they wouldn't make ALARM, HARM, AARGM-ER, MARTEL, KH-31, KH-58 ..etc[/quote]

no these are just weapons for different targets. Their existence does not imply the F-35 or any aircraft will have to get within the bubble of a 400+ km range SAM.

It is pretty clear from what you said earlier about high altitude and agility that you don't personally know the LREW, nor you are a person involved in the development of any air to air missile


I am uninterested in yours or anyone elses evaluation. I never said I was involved in missile development.

Typhoon can't lock the F-35 and he also too busy dodging SAM coming his way.


I weary of the continued "cant lock" claims. Thanks to LOAL and data links (2 way etc) you do not have to lock upon firing at all. All a Typhoon would need to do is use PIRATE passively to scan and track the F-35 then launch. At long ranges 100 km+ the Typhoon has plenty of time to gather more data to improve terminal kill with missile like Meteor while if the F-35 merely has AMRAAM is need not worry at all since at only about 30-40k ft the F-35 with an already low PK missile will likely just run at which point the Typhoon can chase, a chase it will almost certainly succeed in :D

100+ km may sound impressive at first glance but it ignores many important facts:


Fighter sized, also please don't ask for sources on military information, I cite the first rule of the guidelines. I can only suggest you do some research and limit your search (if you use an online platform, I suggest actually talking to people or requesting FOI data from your defense ministry) to post 2010's.

Newer systems still can't change physics.


Again you did not actually address the information I gave you. Newer software aids how the system differentiates between targets and can block out background clutter. Again your mostly talking about old IRST's. Also;

ground surface is hotter than cold sky


A Typhoon above 30-40k ft is not going to be looking at the ground, its going to be looking at clouds, which are not as hot as the frictional heat of a jet aircraft. Combined with the updates to software in the 2010's and more recently your still talking about legacy IRST if their having issue finding a high subsonic target at 30+ k feet.

Is that why Typhoon lost against F-35 in Denmark evaluation? also lost against Rafale in Swiss internal evaluation ?


Neither us know what all the parameters were, what points were given or if any other outside reason (political or economical) formed the evaluation there. I wonder if their evaluation included the abysmal maintenance/per hour of stealth aircraft that even brings the US to its knees as well.


Corsair1963 wrote:Lockheed Martin is claiming


Of course it is, it makes a lot of claims, because it is trying to sell regardless of whether its putting low capability platforms in the hands of pilots. Also, notice how every bolded quote is vague? like literally you can interpret those quotes many different ways. Its marketing for you. For example;

The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics


Could mean anything. Comparable is open, you could say a Spitfire is comparable to a F-22, it does not mean anything, could just mean every comparison is negative. Better could be when the F-35 has only 4 missiles while the Typhoon is fully loaded with 8-10+ weapons with more on double racks.

The rest is just someone given a potentially paid for opinion and holds very little weight especially when speaking for the seller.

juretrn wrote:Guys, if you want to discuss effectiveness of stealth in general or effectiveness of F-35 vs SAMs, then I would suggest moving to a different topic as this topic is "F-35 vs Rafale".


Well the discussion is loosely related because the F-35's discussion of stealth and its effectiveness being wrongly assessed affects the comparison to the Rafale. As does the F-35's other issues but essentially I guess your right to say there are more dedicated threads for the SAM discussion but that was just part of a greater whole.

I think I am pretty much done here anyway, the newbie post limit gets on my nerves and I have assessed the general level of knowledge of aviation and I think a lot of it is out of date and without any surprise reading from other threads the worth/value of a statement is based on whether or not it supports the F-35 (seen favorably regardless of information or factual data) or outlines its flaws (discredited regardless of knowledge of the information).

Course there is nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about your nations systems on a fan site, just like my analogy earlier of sports fans always playing up their team, its not like the US does not know its own limitations, the information I have provided is not new, the circles of people that know are well aware of what their aircraft can and cannot do.
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 15:26

There are just so many lies and inaccuracies in euromaster's comments that I don't know where to start. He is literally just making things up. Take it to another website where the posters can't see through the outright lies and delusions would be the best advice.

I will say this: the only thing we need to settle these disputes is to look no further than any competition where the f-35 has participated in. It has won every one, while the typhoon was not even the winner in competitions without the f-35. How about we listen to the pilots who have admitted that it really isn't even close, rather than some Bs made up on the internet.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2218
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 15:48

optimist wrote:Seeing this is Rafale thread, from the article and it doesn't Say if they are talking block I or II. I still like seeing this comparison in print.
"Dassault Rafale, in the 1-3m² range. The F / A-18E / F, which Boeing says employs the most extensive RCS abatement measures of any non-poaching, is reported at 0.66-1.26m²."

This doesn't specify it's actual load but it still isn't shabby

Image


Well, my take specially when taken into account what was written in the next sentence just after the part that you quoted and which I quote below:
As a rule, “Generation 4.5” fighter aircraft will have a combat configuration RCS in the range of 1-3m², depending on the type of external cargo.


I would say that the 0.66 square meter value for the Super Hornet would be clean while the 1.26 square meter value would be with some "generic" loadout.
Regarding to which block this is referring to I'm also not sure but if I had to guess I would say Block II, because:
- At the time when Super Hornet Block I was around and being built I saw reported somewhere (in an aviation magazine) a RCS value of 0.9 square meter for the Super Hornet.
- Moreover the source above is quoting the new RCS values for the F-35 and when those values came up, the version being build and fielded was the Block II.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Aug 2019, 06:23

euromaster wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yes, the F-35 does have better kinematic performance than types like the Typhoon.


It does not. Fact is, its very under-powered thanks to only having 1 engine no doubt. Kind of like Rafale, which is one thing it has in common with the other aircraft that is the primary subject in this thread.


Really, the F-35 has very respectable thrust to weight. In addition that is only one part of the equation. As aerodynamics play a very big part. You really think any Combat Loaded 4th Generation Fighter (like Typhoon) has drag coefficient remotely close to that of a F-35 clean....


Plus, only having one engine hardly makes the F-35 "underpowered". Especially, when it makes as much or more than two smaller engines in the M88/EJ200/F414 Class. In addition much more power is in the works for the F-35 and just around the corner. (F135 Growth Option 2.0, XA100 and XA101)


Speaking of the F-35 and Power. It is often quoted by F-35 Pilots. The massive "thrust" of the P&W F135......One USMC Pilot remarked that of his first flight in the F-35B. It was like flying an F/A-18 Hornet with "FOUR ENGINES". (endless quotes on the subject matter)

Honestly, your whole line on this subject like most of the others is "ABSURD"....



Corsair1963 wrote:Lockheed Martin is claiming


Actually, the source is Test Pilot Bille Flynn. You can't get more credible than him....Do you even know who he is??? :roll:


The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics


Could mean anything. Comparable is open, you could say a Spitfire is comparable to a F-22, it does not mean anything, could just mean every comparison is negative. Better could be when the F-35 has only 4 missiles while the Typhoon is fully loaded with 8-10+ weapons with more on double racks.


For your information Billie Flynn is a former Typhoon Test Pilot. So, you think he may know more than you.... :wink:
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post14 Aug 2019, 12:07

ricnunes wrote:
As a rule, “Generation 4.5” fighter aircraft will have a combat configuration RCS in the range of 1-3m², depending on the type of external cargo.


I agree with this statement. Especially for SH and Rafale. In Air to Air configuration (AAM and EFT) around 1m2 and in an air to ground mission a bit more.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post14 Aug 2019, 12:11

euromaster wrote:At what point? It is not doing this every few minutes so when does it know a stealthy cruise missile is coming in? Why do you think it will pack up suddenly when it has no idea of any incoming threat to the system and all its connected parts? The 10 minutes or so per launcher is based on the S-400 command either shooting something and being comfortable in the knowledge there is nothing else for the S-400 to target (cannot know this, and the state between active, standby etc happens in minutes as well, indeed, the missile being ready to fire can be minutes depending on level of readiness). An S-400 does not pack down immediately as soon as it tracks a UAV (assuming it does) or sattelite coverage is know, as those things are a given. Assuming the complex has 20 minutes to impact of a stormshadow or Tomahawk, takes 10 minutes to prepare to move, it then has minutes to get out of a potential blast radius. Highly optimistic.

As soon as it tracks an UAV that UAV will be attack or destroyed, just like what happened to the RQ-4 recently.
Also they will change locations all the times even if they detected no threats, the goal is never to stay too long in one location, just like what our enemy did in Yugoslav and Viet Nam Wars.
Besides, no they don't just have only 20 minutes to impact of a Storm shadow or Tomahawk. Typhoon with 2 Storm shadow will be very sluggish and if it get close, it will be destroyed, the pilot will need to launch missiles from 450-500 km away if he don't want to be shot down. That will take at very minimum around 27-30 minutes till impact.
and satellite image will need very significant processing time as well, after satellite took image of the enemy territories, it will take several hours for them to find locations of all SAM site. So actually, they have plenty of time to move


euromaster wrote:Your taking my comment out of context where I pointed out intel will take place. Also, you can, like I said have loitering missiles, you could have these within range of other targets of interest if need be. The areas were discussing that are likely to be covered by S-400's are high value, otherwise you would not want to move your aircraft through these areas to begin with.

So somehow your enemy will just look at your loitering missiles and be like " well they haven't attack us yet so we shouldn't shot them down???.

euromaster wrote:Sorry this shows a lack of understanding. A lot of what you said about satellites is too simple of an explanation. Russia has satellites going over it 24/7, many of them. Their not so easy to follow as your suggesting either to a command level team for a S-400. Their not going to be told every hour when a sattelite is coming and then be forced to move otherwise the answer would be to just have a satellite go over the S-400, force it to move and then attack it during the 20 minute set down/setup phase.

No, you are showing a lack of understanding.
Satellite aren't aircraft, they can't change course. They have constant velocity and altitude as well as the constant orbit.
You have something pass over your country 365 days a year, in several years, you will be able to keep track of all of them.It is that simple, they even have a map of all satellite on earth orbit. Furthermore, as satellite aren't stealthy they can be tracked with radar too, there is nothing secret about satellite, and no you can't just send a satellite over S-400 location so you can attack them while they move. Do you even understand how hard it is to launch a satellite?


euromaster wrote: This is not how the S-400 works. The S-400 command will likely be on standby, this phase will escalate to readiness if the command crew of the command unit "believes" there is an impending attack (from their own intel) or detect something they can determine may fire. This is not possible with submarines firing Tomahawks, so they may detect a tomahawk before the launch vehicle, with a plane, they can detect the launch vehicle. They do not immediately however start packing up upon seeing a threat.

Readiness phase including shoot and scoot. And never stay at one location for too long. Do you think that they are so idiotic that they don't know satellite photos can generate location?



euromaster wrote:Where did "several hours" come from? only if a tomahawk is launched from its max range. Were talking 20-30 minute times at best. And this is only if the S-400 crazily starts the set down as soon as a target is in potential range. This is not standard procedure to set down as soon as an enemy appears on radar.

Several hours come from the processing time of satellite images, do you think satellite just took images of a country which could be millions of square km and you immediately get the location of all SAM site?


euromaster wrote:Well great, if you think mixed intel from satellite, drone and outside ops is not good enough to determine real S-400 locations then perhaps the F-35 is going to go hot emptying its internal bay bombing a blow up decoy which is even more of a disaster, congratulations. :D

Satellite intel as I said before is very easy to counter by simply moving away, which is exactly what they do in several conflicts already.
UAV can be shoot down too, in fact, a very expensive one was shot down recently https://time.com/5611222/rq-4-global-ha ... shot-down/
and sending ground special force hundreds of km inside enemy territories to find the location of SAM site is wishful thinking.
On the other hand, F-35 getting closer can assess the target not only with Infrared sensor but also SAR and ESM, needless to say, it will be far better at decoys discrimination compared to satellite images.



euromaster wrote:Special forces ops can be used in a deep strike role and often are as forward recce behind enemy lines, it is their job. You seem to be cherry picking the information while unaware apparently of the countless ways to form intel on a large IADS complex. If not special forces, drones, if not drones, sat, if not sat you have intel that may have been gathered by intelligence services, even publicly Russia likes to jabber about its S-400 placements and how well defended it is, moving a complex is not a quiet operation.

Ground special force won't be used to find SAM location. Because you can't expect them to travel hundreds of miles in unknown direction hopping they will find something on the way while not get eradicated by the enemy ground force. This is especially stupid idea because the threat will be even more significant on ground.
Satellite intel as mentioned earlier, extremely easy to fool when the enemy is competent and don't put their asset at one location all the time.
Don't mistake Russian political move with how they will actually use their assets in real war condition. The current constant announcement of Russian about how they will move their S-300/400 into certain area in Libya ,Syria is meant as a political move to threaten their enemy. Just like how they costantly use Tu-95 to fly near US carrier fleet or border. Just because they do that as a tease now doesn't mean that will happen if the war between the two nation broke out. Or the recent ramming between Russian and US Navy ship, it doesn't mean in real war condition they will be used that way.

euromaster wrote:yes UAV's can be shot down, as can F-35's and stealth aircraft, as you brought up Yugoslav again lets count the one stealth fighter of only a couple of allied fighters actually lost. Your whole scenario of an F-35 bombing a high end is even dubious based on real world outcomes. Also their vastly cheaper than what you lose if a manned, new gen fighter is lost, and when I say cost, I do not just mean in dollars.

Anything can be shoot down, but not equally easy, MQ-9 or RQ-4 is much easier to shot down compared to F-35, just like a person is easier to kill by machine gun than a tank.
How many F-117 has been lost? , a single one, and F-117 has no Radar, no RWR, no ECM, no MWS, no Supersonic..etc. It fly the most dangerous mission, yet only a single one was downed.


euromaster wrote:They were designed to be able to infiltrate the outer edges of a lower end SAM, like Buk. Why you think it was designed against S-400 I have no idea. Like I said I know this is not the case. If this is what you wish to believe/assume then fine. I am not here to convince, only inform.

Cut out your BS, to be able to inform someone, you must know more about the subject at hand than them.
You don't know more than anyone else here, so don't pretend like you do, you are a fanboy of the Typhoon and you came here hoping that if you throw some acronym here and there and mixing it with an authority tone as if you are in the know, people will start to take your words as truth. Not gonna happen, especially considering that you are in the forum with some actual pilot and aerodynamic engineers, you have to try harder than throw out claims.
FYI, when I said F-35 was designed to penetrate air space defended by S-400 and their cousin, it is not my words but the words from General Hostage.
Now before you say that is just a generic claim with no weight, in Denmark evaluation, they also take into account S-300P (SA-10) and S-300PMU-2 (SA-20) in their simulation.
Air Interdiction scenario:

Air Interdiction scenario:
Air-Interdiction.jpg

Air Order Of Battle:
- Six SU-30mk. Four aircraft förväntas be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on "ready state 15" at the Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.
- Six MiG-29 SMT. All aircraft can be expected on "ready state 30" to Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, Gardenia jammer pod.

Missile Order Of Battle:
Radio-frequency seeking SAMs:
- Unknown number of SA-eighth The SA-8s förväntas be distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.
- Three SA-10th 44 Accurate locations are unknown.
- Four SA-11th Accurate locations are unknown.
- Unknown number of SA-15th The SA-15s are expected to be distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.
Infrared seeking SAMs:
- Unknown number of SA-14
- Unknown number of SA-18,
- Unknown number of SA-24th
The Infrared seeking SAMs are distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory

Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defence scenario
Suppression.jpg

Air Order Of Battle:
- Six SU-30mk. Four aircraft kan förväntas be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on ready state 15 to "Charlie Papa" air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.

Missile Order Of Battle:
Radio-frequency seeking Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM):
- One SA-20 GARGOYLE battery in vicinity of "Bravo Hotel" town.
- Eight SA-11 Gadfly beskytte the SA-20th
- Unknown number of SA-22 organic two army units.
Exact positioning of the SAMs are unknown. HOWEVER, the SA-22s can be expected close to the SA-20 site for protection.
Infrared (IR) Seeking SAM:
- Unknown number of SA-14s.
- Unknown number of SA-18s.
- Unknown number of SA-24s.
The Infrared seeking SAMs are expected to be distributed army units and are located Throughout The adversary territory.

Electronic Order Of Battle:
Adversary early warning radars and ground-controlled intercept network are assumed two be intact and Capable of Providing botheration early warning and control two adversary platforms

Needless to say, the survivability of Typhoon is horrendous, no better than F-16 or F-18 in such scenario
Image

Even US themselves obtains some S-300 complex to use in Red flag exercise.
US S-300.jpg




euromaster wrote:So you run the intel again and launch another barrage. You don't just send in F-35 pilots that will get shot down behind enemy lines, be used as a bargaining chip (if they survive) and cause mass humiliation to the entire US air-force.

You don't seem to understand the simple fact that you can't be sure that all long rang SAM are destroyed and you can't be sure that intelligent will give you perfect information of how many SAM are left and where they located. The point with F-35 is that even if you don't have perfect information and there are some long range SAM hidden somewhere, it won't suffer heavy lost like what will happen to Typhoon if it is in defended air space.


euromaster wrote:Right and you can never assume your stealth is going to be efficient at any range, even at long range against the rapidly changing sensor arena, in both software/hardware. Stealth is not a static system, you can say a missile has 100 km range but you cannot say a radar can only detect a stealth target at 100 km with certainty, these are all estimates and change based on like I said, angle, what the stealth target is doing, altitude and the list goes on. Its why the F-35 will never be sent into a heavily clustered IADS such as a Russian one.

Actually, F-35 has spike management software which will classify kind of radar detected by ASQ-239 system, take into account information such as aspect and velocity and let the pilot know exactly at what distance he will be detected by that threat radar.
F-35batSignalTravelSim.gif

F-35 cockpit 5.jpg

Furthermore, you are making a false equivalent, it takes years or even decades to develop a new radar system, and even then if you got hold of one, your enemy still can't afford to replace all their radars of that type. On the other hand, it takes 10 minutes for a SAM battery to pack up and move to another location, their plans and route can be changed at any moment.

euromaster wrote:You gave no reasoning. There is no reason for this to occur. It has a longer range/more capable stick and more sophisticated avionics and support. There is no reason to think western intel is going to be so bad it will clear a stand-off cruise missile strike at 400-500 km in a zone (with thousands of square km around the potential target being possible) where it considers a possible exclusion zone is formed by MiG's and SU'.

Longer range??? No, combat radius of Typhoon is far shorter than Su-35, J-15, Mig-31 or F-35
If you are talking about radar detection range then again, CAPTOR-E won't have better range than Irbis-E, Zaslon-M or APG-81. A clean Eurofighter will have RCS advantage over Su-35, Mig-31, J-15 but with 2 storm shadow, that became questionable
If you are talking about missiles kinematic, I can agree that Meteor is better than AIM-120D, R-77. While, RVV-BD should be equal to it. Meteor definitely won't have better kinematic than PL-15 from J-15 or R-37 from Mig-31.

euromaster wrote: here is no reason to think western intel is going to be so bad it will clear a stand-off cruise missile strike at 400-500 km in a zone (with thousands of square km around the potential target being possible) where it considers a possible exclusion zone is formed by MiG's and SU'.

Actually very simple, Typhoon can't take off from a carrier, it can't perform short or vertical take-off and it doesn't have the combat radius to fly thousands of km around a country border to find a location where there is the less force concentrated. Beside with new missile such as PL-15 having 400 km engagement range, it is actually very easy to tag the Typhoon coming from any direction.

euromaster wrote:This scenario shows a lack of understanding of aviation or how such a system would work. Again why would the Typhoon only be aware of such threats as they get into weapon ranges, which are far shorter than its launch weapon AND its AA weapons?

What are the Typhoon main advantages? speed, altitude, and somewhat low RCS.
What of these above retains once Typhoon has 2 Storm Shadow and very likely 2 Fuel tank under its wing? None.
Can Meteor out range R-37 launch from Mig-31? No.
Can Meteor out range P-15 from J-15 ? No.
Can Meteor out range RVV-BD from Su-35? 50/50 chance, but a Typhoon with 2 Storm shadow is a sluggish target compared to Su-35.


euromaster wrote:Could? R-37 is designed more against slower, heavier craft. It can only perform long range intercept at glide speed. Its performance against even a legacy fighter would be questionable, let alone a Typhoon. Also not horrendously, the MiG-31 bests it in altitude and speed but not in any other kinematic comparison, nor in weapons or sensors. If a MiG-31 has somehow managed to reach out to a stand-off launch, then somehow threaten a Typhoon level target something has gone wrong.

AIM-54 and R-33 was designed mainly against slow bomber
Not the newer R-37, RVV-BD and P-15, they can be easily be used against fighter too.
and big missiles doesn't equal unmaneuverable. Thanks to their massive rocket engine, they will be able to climb to a significant altitude where the air is very thin and coasting there, thus in the terminal stage where they dive down to enemy location, they actually have very significant speed. Meteor main advantage is the fact that it doesn't carry oxydizer and that will give more space for fuel, and because it can throttle back, it can conserve the limited fuel it has if the target is at long range instead of wasting all that fuel on initial acceleration. But that doesn't mean it will suddenly match the kinematic of a much bigger missile, launched from much higher altitude, and speed.
About sensor, Typhoon can beat Mig-31 in IRST, but certainly not radar, the size disparity is simply too big.


euromaster wrote:A F-35 in a similar scenario however being more on the level of a legacy bomb boat would have no chance but to eject.

No, because thanks to stealth, F-35 won't be locked by Mig-31 and therefore don't get out poled like Typhoon.


euromaster wrote:A Typhoon does not have to lock on at long range. The F-35's effective range with AIM-120C is well within estimates of high end radar detection of a stealth aircraft and this before jamming, decoy and so on has been considered. Chances are at low altitude an F-35 would struggle finding the Typhoon at its high perch anyway.

If you you mean high end radar detection as in detection range of surface-based radar such as 91N6E or SPY-1 then that a possibility. If you mean high end radar as in any fighter radar then that it is nothing but wishful thinking, but far from reality. It is quite funny given that even Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of the future requirements capture when boasting about Eurofighter's capability mentioned that Eurofighter require support from AWACS located at very specific angle to the F-35 attack path to deter it.
In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says.

According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of the 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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 35-345265/
It is a bit ironic that you would mention jamming, without knowing that the same jammer put on F-35 will be significantly more effective than on Typhoon due to the low RCS characteristics of the fighter.

euromaster wrote:The only thing you said here that "may" be true is the better sensor. It is estimated that China does not have the electronics edge as the west or the software advantage.

P-15 can reach 400 km, it is equipped with both IIR sensor and AESA seeker. There is no doubt that it beat Meteor in both kinematic and sensor metric.


euromaster wrote:Well not necessarily, since its also lower its going to be the target of more SAM's, including camouflaged/pop up threats so don't omit the issues of the F-35. You also moved the goalposts, we were not discussing support jamming. Both sides could have support jamming, were discussing the F-35.

As i already showed you, even Viet Nam era SAM such as S-75 and S-200 can climb far higher than Typhoon service ceiling, flying high no longer a practical proof against SAM in this day and age, unless we talking about MANPADS which F-35 can stay away just as well.
Both side can have support jamming, but because F-35 has lower RCS, the S/N ratio will be lower, hence the burn-through distance will be 10 times shorter for an F-35. Assume they use the same kind of jammer.



euromaster wrote:No, indeed, funny how exaggeration seems to be the answer to a valid point which you then handwaved. Are you aware of the boost in RCS of a bay opening on a stealth aircraft? Its also what cost the Nighthawk its stealth funnily enough. I can tell you the obvious, the bay opening is not as in-significant as you seem to want to imply. It is like someone not too knowledgeable of submarines saying putting the stereo on for a few seconds is no big deal while deep inside a forward destroyer picket.

You know what, if you have the radar scattering chart of F-35 opening its bay then go ahead and post it. I have the scattering chart of F-35 with weapon bay close. Then we can compare. A general claim of RCS boost mean nothing.
Furthermore, opening bomb bay was not what cost the Nighthawk its stealth. It was tracked by a very low frquency VHF radar at very close distance. It was detected at around 24km, so not all that far actually.



euromaster wrote:Cloud cover is such a common counter to IR/IRST tracking as if its a battlefield tool that can be wheeled into place when stealth aircraft need it :D

You must be talking about low end IR/IRST or those that are not installed on current fighters with software packages that came out in the 2010's and so on. If the F-35 has just opened its bay/launched a weapon a whole host of radar/IRST's likely detected a spike in heat and emissions. If the F-35 is low enough to ensure more cloud cover then its likely under 20k feet where yes, even MANPADS and the naked eye may be able to see it, and no stealth aircraft (or any aircraft really) is going to enter a cloud itself in any realistic scenario.

Modern IRST with the newer software packages as I mentioned before can perform far quicker/more accurate wide angle detection at longer ranges. I mean what range do you think the IR systems are going to be at in regards to distance from the S-400 complex exactly? The potential cover aircraft like the SU-35/MiG's could be performing a circuit of denial only tens of kilometers around the Complex radius. Different angles alone may detect the F-35 even before launch with radar, then you have IRST which with overlapping fields of multiple aircraft would be even more likely to detect it, before/after (more so) launch.

You seemed to omit the fact that actually succeeding in destroying a part of a complex will also give your potential area to further shrink the radius of operations required.

You seem to prefer using "modern sensor from 2010", "high end sensor" as the generic answer to everything.
Sorry but "modern" and "high end" sensor still have to follow physics, infrared radiation is significantly absorbed by clouds so regardless of how modern your IRST is, if there is a cloud between you and the target, you won't see them. And IRST(and others optical system) trade between FoV and detection range because zooming-in/zooming out affect how much photons will be hitting the sensor.
And expecting Su-35 or Mig radar to detect F-35, especially with support jamming is similarly to expect a hand gun bullet to penetrate a tank.
You also seem to over-exaggerating the launch signature of JSM, SPEAR, SDB II ..etc, their engines produce far less IR signature than any fighter's engine.

euromaster wrote:No the F-35 being alone/having no missiles is just gravy. The Scenario is simply outlining the fact that the F-35 with limited weapons of a legacy era and its low end air-frame is effectively lost once it narrows its position by actually launching weapons from within the radius of hostile sensor coverage.

Knowing the general direction of something is quite different from able to track or target it
Your scenario is basically the same as, a platoon who just have one of their men killed by a sniper somewhere in the forest and they decided to charge forward because a sniper doesn't have many bullets and maybe he go alone. That exactly what it sounds like.

euromaster wrote:25km for Buk is for a slower target at high altitude coming towards it. Like i said a Buk mk2 (mk3 could do this) will struggle to continue to gain against an evading fighter over 50-60k feet.

Well, no, actually the engagement bubble against fast target target will be bigger because a bigger fraction of the engagement range will be flying by the target itself.
At 60k feet, your fighter will be barely flying and evading at 1-1.5 degrees/seconds, so SAM won't be struggling to gain at all.

euromaster wrote:I understand this is what you believe but my point was there are far more SAM's that can target a 20-30 to at best sub 50 altitude Jet that can target a 65km-70 altitude jet. When you claim the 25 km altitude, you seem to misunderstand the fact that chasing a target at that range for a Buk class missile bleeds its energy dramatically, whereas if the same system targeted the far closer (to its radar and all supporting sensor assets too) 30-40 altitude F-35, its effective range is dramatically higher, as in, 40-60, even 100 km's. The missile bleeds its effective range to target at altitude.

Firstly, Typhoon won't be crusing at 65-70k feet, it has never done that, and it won't ever do that.
On one hand, you use an altitude 20kft lower than F-35 can do as its cruising altitude, one the other hand, you also pump up crusing altitude of Typhoon by 15-20k feet, then you use that as the evidence for "many SAM can reach F-35 than they can reach Typhoon".
New flash, even when you do such disingenuous thing, the majority of SAM, even legacy SAM from Viet Nam era such as S-200 and S-75 can still reach Typhoon with else, and the SAM which can't even reach 60k feet, won't have the kind of radar needed to engage F-35 either.
Furthermore, air at high altitude is thinner so chasing target there won't bleed much energy.






euromaster wrote:I never misunderstood this. By 60k feet the missile is going to be bleeding energy at an alarming rate as well. Again, far beyond if it was reaching out to a 30k-40k ft target. At this altitude the Typhoon could afford to launch weapons far earlier than the F-35 as well. Especially if using glide munitions and supercruise. You realize it takes less energy/fuel to gain speed at high altitude even on low thrust right? This is basic physics. Drag goes down dramatically in thin air, jet stream etc

It take more energy to climb to higher altitude, it doesn't more energy flying at high altitude because air thinner meaning the drag is lower.
However, when I said your plane will be struggle to fly at 60k feet, it is not because the drag is higher. It is because as the air is thinner, you will need to fly much faster, just to generate enough lift needed for level flight, and because the air is very thin, you don't have excess lifts to maneuver, so any maneuver heavier than 1.5 G and your plane will start to lose altitude, you have little excess for sustain turn.
It takes less fuel to fly at high altitude but you will accelerate slower despite thinner air, because your thrust will reduce significantly.
For example: F-15 acceleration chart
F-15 acceleration.jpg



euromaster wrote:You just making a contradictory statement to mine does not actually affect my initial statement. I stand by my point that climbing is used to escape a SAM. This is literally the only course of kinematic action you can take in order to defeat a SAM. If the aircraft is already at high altitude, like say a Typhoon may be, then it does not need to climb, just turn tail and run, meanwhile the SAM is climbing, which takes a huge amount of energy. At this stage, sure, the thin air at high altitude may not be as much an issue on its fuel but its already burned a large amount of its fuel reaching 60-70k ft to begin with at that stage a Bukmk 2 is at the very limit of its capability, as in by that point it should have already hit the target. The fact your discussing the rocket at high altitude contending with the energy of an aircraft already at altitude implies some lack of knowledge I would say.

Climbing has never been used as a method to dodge SAM. Except maybe for MANPADS, you can go as any pilots what happen if you see a SAM coming your way and decided to climb. The actual course of action that they follow are beaming or diving down.
It is quite clear that in the contest of altitude and high speed, SAM has won decisively, no one produce or make any aircraft like YF-12, TSR-2, Avro Arrow, XB-71, SR-71 anymore.
Your suggestion that Typhoon doesn't have to climb and just need turn tail and run is rather laughable. How long do you think a missile such as BUK-ME2, S-75 or S-200 need to climb to 60k feet? how long do you think an aircraft with barely 0.5 G excess to maneuver will take to turn 180 degrees? Let me tell you, the SAM will be at Typhoon location before it can even make 1/5 the circle.




euromaster wrote:Again your making a straw-man of my argument again, I already asked you to dispense with the logical fallacy. I never said anything about "high-G" or the levels your stating. And yes, a Typhoon can climb/fly at a ceiling of 70k feet if it is required to do so, which in this ridiculous scenario of Jets, be it F-35/Typhoon finding themselves trying to get within the missile ranges of a very high end IADS it will no doubt be doing.

To fill in the holes in your knowledge and information since you seem to be lost a little in my scenario. If a Buk2 level of weapon is trying to hit a 65-70k ft target, by the point the missile has climbed to only 60k feet its already bled so much energy, I have already said this. At this point, how do you think a rocket that is reaching the end of its energy is going to make a terminal strike? it never will against a high end fighter like the Typhoon, the Typhoon will have an easy time at this stage. Indeed, any turn will be aggressive in that context in regards to a Bukmk2 missile. It will be literally on the verge of dying just trying to chase a Typhoon a few kilometers.

At 40k ft? The F-35 is not so lucky. And due to its lower performance, struggling to maintain supersonic it will be run down quite easily.

No, Typhoon has never demonstrated the ability to fly at 70k feet, even at 60k feet is already quite pushing it since we can clearly see Typhoon pilot have no pressure suit, which should tell us quite clearly what altitude they actually fly at.
You didn't said high G, but you said Typhoon has agility over SR-71 and Mig-31 at high altitude. It won't, period.
A missile that can climb to 82k feet won't be struggling at 60k feet, especially considering that a Typhoon at that altitude will be making 0.5-1 degree/second turn whereas a SAM will have a constant course adjustment while it climbs as well.

euromaster wrote:No the first missile will be burned down through ECM. So far from the launch vehicle and at the very edge of its performance envelope where its PK is already plummeting fast ECM would likely be able to defeat most missiles at that point of their performance from a Bukmk2. If the second missile seems to be gaining Typhoon has two decoys. If that fails, flares etc. Again, at this rate it will likely just out-run. The pilot could do a slight turn as I said before and the missile will struggle to follow.

Its why SAM's outside of the higher end ones are not the asset of choice against a high altitude jet. You will use an interceptor or another high end air-frame.

Flares don't work against missiles such as Buk, S-75, S-200, so you better hope your ECM can deceive them, otherwise there will be a death pilot.
Because missiles make constant course adjustment from low altitude while it was climbing, it won't be struggling to follow a Typhoon which can barely maintain 1.5G at 60k feet



euromaster wrote:Your straw-mans are getting out of hand. The fact you seem to omit the advantages of climb against a SAM, or altitude and the fact you seem to be discussing a rocket at the edge of its capability envelope is going to challenge a high altitude, high end air-frame while its gasping for energy proves that clearly you the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest you dissuade yourself from attacking the poster and instead try and learn from my information, don't just keep discrediting when obviously, we both know your far from omniscient in terms of aviation.

I will thank you not to suggest/ask anything concerning classified information. I did not suggest anything, and I will not do so. I am pointing out constant attempts to make claims on something you have no idea on to try and discredit my information is fallacious at best and just bad form.

It is not strawman to point out the fact that no aircraft will be agile at high altitude or that aircraft don't have the acceleration required to out climb a SAM, it is stating facts. While I am not omniscient in aviation, I know when someone pretends to know something that they don't.



euromaster wrote:A great many benefits including the avoidance of sams. Hence why a lot of high altitude aircraft were developed for that very purpose. There are a long list of advantages, which the F-35 does not enjoy.

Avoidance of MANPADS and Flak, sure. Against medium/long range SAM, No.

euromaster wrote:Most of your statement was a verbose way of saying older radar designs struggled with ground clutter. Radar has come a long way during the 2000's, current software radar (and IRST as previously mentioned) has had so many updates, bringing up ground clutter again suggests to me your basing your information on older sources from the early 2000's or 90's. Also if your rear is to the chasing aircraft, good luck against IRST :)

You like to bring up the generic term of "modern" and "current software" alot, yet, not things of substance about how your so called "modern radar" suddenly impervious to side lobes and clutter. Rhetorical question, they don't. Modern systems still have to follow physics sadly.



euromaster wrote:Indeed, but the mission of a conventional aircraft is not to get close to SAM's, it will as I have said exhaustively launch a stand-off weapon

Which Frankly won't always work, because your enemy won't always be idiotic to let their SAM site location exposed by satellite.



euromaster wrote:Always with the clouds, a common counter to IRST. Again, Clouds are not a US tool, not unless you have developed a weather control device I am unaware of. Clouds are useful at low altitudes, a place where no jet aircraft wants to be outside of the sole purpose of avoiding IRST. Doing so sacrifices energy in droves for weapons, makes it less likely to detect higher altitude targets and further makes the platform more vulnerable to ground based defenses (or just being seen by eye if low enough).

Clouds aren't US tool, but just like ground clutters, they are there and can be taken advantage of. Also, not all cloud are at low altitude

euromaster wrote: Considering almost all modern weapons seem to have mid-course guidance, 2 way data link and LOAL you don't need a lock at max range, only detection. This is, again why I wonder if some of this information is not from the early 2000's/late 90's where needing a lock at max range was required to have any accuracy with a weapon system.

This again is why I wonder if you have no idea what you talking about. Locking aka knowing the distance to target, their speed and heading because unlike video game. In real life, missiles don't fly at target current location, they fly toward target predicted location instead of flying a direct path, this is especially important when what you need to intercept is an aircraft instead of a slow-moving ship
Air to air missiles also follow a curved ballistic arc so that they can conserve energy by cruising in thinner atmosphere of high altitude.
All of these aren't possible without locking target.
For your information, LOAL aka Lock on after launch referring to the fact that sensor on the missile (mostly infrared) not having to lock on the target before they leave the rail. This is possible because recent infrared guided missile have automatic target recognition ability, but LOAL doesn't mean the aircraft's radar/eo system don't have to lock on target before launching their missiles.
Firing missiles without lock only work at very short range.

euromaster wrote:I have already informed you on how small of an impact engine signature has on IRST outside of the rear hemisphere where it is so hot the difference will be negligible until the someone develops a fully cold state engine.

and I have shown you that you are wrong
infrared-percentages.png

3 stream engine also help cool the back fuselage
aircraft engine pic.jpg

Image
euromaster wrote:See this is just bias, apparently the F-35 can detect all the SAMs, including pop up threats (which by their very nature have not been previously detected). Yet previously all intel for stand-off attack just sees blow up decoys?

This is not bias when enemy detection bubble is smaller, there is higher chance that the pop up threat is detected by F-35 first before it can detect F-35
Considering that burn through against F-35 is at least 10 times shorter than Eurofighter, this is basically the different between 40 km and 400 km, it is a lot more likely for a pop up SAM to be able to lock and attack Eurofighter, and it is also a lot more likely for F-35's EOTS and APG-81 to find a SAM site only 40 km away than for Eurofighter's sensor to find a SAM site 400 km away.
Image
Last edited by garrya on 14 Aug 2019, 19:29, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post14 Aug 2019, 18:44

euromaster wrote:I don't because there is no use in trying, its just a flat fact there is a huge difference between a high end airframe like an F-22/Typhoon and a more legacy frame that the F-35 more compares to.

There are differences but simply not even remotely close to the level you are suggesting, certainly no where near the Typhoon crusing 20-30k ft higher than F-35.


euromaster wrote:If you fly above the cloud layer then any aircraft (almost all over them) seeking you with IRST have clear atmosphere which is where IRST has the longest ranges.

I am talking about ground IR system, and if you fly higher than F-35, it will be easier for its EOTS to find you than vice versa

euromaster wrote:This is not even a response to what I said. Your simply re-claiming the F-35 group will somehow shoot all the SU-35's down again despite having been informed how unlikely that is again a high end target with only AMRAAM. Your not getting any long-range shots, not with bad PK and not enough missiles to burn. Unless your saying you want a whole squad of F-35's to expend their bays for every one SU-35....

I have already explained to you how, F-35 don't need long range shot when the LRF of OLS-35 is only 20 km maximum and certainly Irbis-E won't be useful against a stealth fighter at long range.
Furthermore, pardon me but you should stop using the word "inform" , you don't inform anyone, you make baseless, sourceless, unsupportable claims and you aren't a person of authority in the subject so stop pretend to be one


euromaster wrote:Again were back in the late 90's. Detection has come a long way since then for all kinds of asset, especially UAV's. The same could happen to stealth aircraft if they fly too close to radar/use their weapons.

Again, you haven't provide a single reasoning or evidence of what exactly change, you just keep making the same tiring baseless argument of "oh things have changed". What changed exactly and how exactly it affect the situation ?, simply repeating the "modern sensor" and "modern software" while you don't even understand what they do like in case of LOAL doesn't help support your argument.


euromaster wrote:And no it is not irrelevant, a high altitude, super cruising Typhoon (Rafale and Gripen are lower spec/low altitude planes a lot more like F-35) has far more reach with its two way data linked meteor (Rafale uses one way) than the other two aircraft, so it will still swat them beyond their range, its just not as absurd an advantage between Typhoon and legacy armed fighters.

It is irrelevant actually, for example if you can only detect someone at 150 km, and they can also only detect you from roughly that distance then that is a bit irrelevant if one have 200 km missiles and the other has 230 km missiles.

euromaster wrote:Just wrong, no missile currently surpasses Meteors capability.

No, Meteor is a decent missile, but it is not the perfect, there is no way for it to beat the kinematic of something launched from a high/fast asset such as Mig-31.


euromaster wrote:Again, none of the current Russian long range missiles are designed for taking out fighters at their maximum range. The heavy R series are anti-tanker/awacs weapons. If used against fighters their expected range is in the hundred or so kilometers.

and that based on what evidence exactly? there is nothing that prevents the R-37 or RVV-BD from hitting fighter target, these missiles are normally intended against AWACS because they have very long range, not because they can't hit fighter.



euromaster wrote:First, no, not until 22's and only in the UK. A US peer missile to Meteor is a long way off. Further, detecting Typhoon flying far higher than the F-35? Not so likely. And again, your overly optimistic when you mention lethal range of AMRAAM. I suspect your knowledge on missiles is somewhat light considering some of these statements.

JNAAM is a Japan missile, based on Meteor body but with AESA seeker.
and FYI, a target at higher altitude is easier to detect by both radar and Infrared system

euromaster wrote:There is no missile on the level of meteor, period today and projected missiles may not match it for a good half a decade or longer if your talking about the US missile development.

Meteor is good, but it isn't the king of missile
R-37 from Mig-31 will without any doubt far surpass the kinematic of Meteor, its sensor is likely better too due to the simple fact that its radar aperture will be bigger,
P-15 from J-15 will without any doubt, far surpass Meteor in both sensor (AESA +IIR) and kinematic.


euromaster wrote: If you have a high PK and long range you have no fear from an adversary that has far shorter range AND lower PK (like AMRAAM and other legacy missiles).

Actually, you do if you can only detect the enemy within the lethal distance of their missiles. Just like how a surface ship have to fear a submarine.


euromaster wrote:no these are just weapons for different targets. Their existence does not imply the F-35 or any aircraft will have to get within the bubble of a 400+ km range SAM.

They are anti radar missiles, specially designed to target the fire control radar of surface to air batteries. They have very high speed because they need to engage the radar before the fighter got shot down.
They exist because it is impossible to assure that all long/medium range SAM are all eradicated when yourfighter flying in enemy territories.



euromaster wrote:I weary of the continued "cant lock" claims. Thanks to LOAL and data links (2 way etc) you do not have to lock upon firing at all. All a Typhoon would need to do is use PIRATE passively to scan and track the F-35 then launch.

As I said before, LOAL (Lock on after launch) mean the missile's seeker can recognize the target in terminal stage by itself and doesn't have to rely on the operator manually cue the missile's sensor to lock on target before it leave the rail. It doesn't mean the fire control system of the fighter don't have to lock on target and generate the launch parameters for the missile.


euromaster wrote:Fighter sized, also please don't ask for sources on military information, I cite the first rule of the guidelines. I can only suggest you do some research and limit your search (if you use an online platform, I suggest actually talking to people or requesting FOI data from your defense ministry) to post 2010's.

Oh please, pardon me but no one gonna believes that you have any link to the military or have any access to classified information especially given that you have demonstrated that you don't even understand half the thing you talk about, even the most simple stuff like high altitude maneuver and LOAL.
You are a fanboy who made a claim that you can't support, so you pretend that you know that from some super-secret insider, jezz, I can't count how many people like you that I have talked too, always those exact tactics.

euromaster wrote:Again you did not actually address the information I gave you. Newer software aids how the system differentiates between targets and can block out background clutter. Again your mostly talking about old IRST's. Also;

No they can't, they can have higher resolution that help target discrimination, especially at close range
But they can't block out the effect that clutter will have on S/N ratio which will reduce detection distance.
You mostly don't understand very simple physics.


euromaster wrote:A Typhoon above 30-40k ft is not going to be looking at the ground, its going to be looking at clouds, which are not as hot as the frictional heat of a jet aircraft. Combined with the updates to software in the 2010's and more recently your still talking about legacy IRST if their having issue finding a high subsonic target at 30+ k feet.

leading edge heating isn't that hot actually.
Image
Cloud also emmit infrared radiation considering that they are heated up by the Sun
Image
A Typhoon at higher altitude than F-35 will be finding it in the ground clutter.
Image

euromaster wrote:Neither us know what all the parameters were, what points were given or if any other outside reason (political or economical) formed the evaluation there. I wonder if their evaluation included the abysmal maintenance/per hour of stealth aircraft that even brings the US to its knees as well.

The parameters are all on the charts, they also create simulated scenarios to assess the survivability of these aircraft.
It is quite funny when the evaluation is done by people go have access to classified information, Typhoon simply lose. It can't even win against Rafale.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post15 Aug 2019, 01:35

garrya wrote:
euromaster wrote:I don't because there is no use in trying, its just a flat fact there is a huge difference between a high end airframe like an F-22/Typhoon and a more legacy frame that the F-35 more compares to.

There are differences but simply not even remotely close to the level you are suggesting, certainly no where near the Typhoon crusing 20-30k ft higher than F-35.


I'm not allowed to call anyone a troll, I got a warning for it. But this like-a-atr*ll person, could check the RAF website, before making stuff up. Max alt and cruise alt are also entirely different things. That also varies with load.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/typhoon-fgr4/
Maximum Altitude : 55,000 feet
Aussie fanboy
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post15 Aug 2019, 03:06

optimist wrote:I'm not allowed to call anyone a troll, I got a warning for it. But this like-a-atr*ll person, could check the RAF website, before making stuff up. Max alt and cruise alt are also entirely different things. That also varies with load.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/typhoon-fgr4/
Maximum Altitude : 55,000 feet

He pretends to have been there done that, but he doesn't even have the manual
I would love to see he prove me wrong with Eurofighter's manual page :wink:
Capture.PNG

Watermarked because I don't want him to bring it to another forum.
Offline

dat_boi

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2018, 01:52

Unread post15 Aug 2019, 04:22

It's funny that euromaster is speaking this way about stealth when the French and Germans are going to be using stealth a lot more in their next aircraft program.

Looking at the F-35 order book from various countries as well as the supposed far ahead Europeans is evidence enough of its success :D
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5816
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Aug 2019, 05:08

dat_boi wrote:It's funny that euromaster is speaking this way about stealth when the French and Germans are going to be using stealth a lot more in their next aircraft program.

Looking at the F-35 order book from various countries as well as the supposed far ahead Europeans is evidence enough of its success :D


You won't find any former Typhoon Pilots now flying the F-35. That would prefer to switch back....(speaks volumes) :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests