Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 06:27

southerncross wrote:Does it have a fixed antenna?

Could be

southerncross wrote: Do you have numbers about what a F-22 / Su-57 type of fighter, flying (i.e) @1.8 M and 20 km could do against such AAMs, considering they are supposed to have much better maneuverability than a MiG-31 and TVC? Would such missiles be effective at all?

IMHO, neither F-22 or Su-57 will cruise at 20 km altitude.
southerncross wrote:I have seen other sources mentioning the AMRAAM's RCS to be between 0.1 and 0.5 sqm.

I don't think that is possible. Frontal RCS of AGM-86 is only between 0.001- 0.01 m2 and AIM-120 is significantly smaller
Image
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 08:40

garrya wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I am considering the previously described scenario about a MiG trying to shoot down an AWACS with the massive R-37 while being defended by an AMRAAM equipped aircraft. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is an F-15, then the MiG can lock it up at the same time the F-15 fires it's AMRAAM. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is so much as a Super Hornet then it will be fired upon before finding the aircraft on radar.

From your simulation, which fighter can deal with Mig-31?
I assume F-15 is a non-starter as its RCS is too high and AMRAAM is shorter range than R-37.
F-16 unlikely to work, even though its RCS is lower , APG-80 detection range is still rather short, and AMRAAM is not long range enough
F-18E/F might or might not work, I give it a 50% chance, decent radar and low RCS but still limited by AMRAAM range.
Su-35 with R-37 might work 50% of the time? very powerful radar and long range missile, but the key weakness is high RCS
Rafale should work 70% of the time, weak radar but low RCS and it can use Meteor
Eurofighter should work 80% of the time, decent radar, low RCS and can carry Meteor
F-22 should work 90% of the time, very powerful radar, very low RCS, AMRAAM launched by F-22 will have good range
F-35 should work 90% of the time, powerful radar, very low RCS, it can be equipped with Meteor or JNAAM as well.

I do not understand why you consider the eurofighter better than the Rafale. If you have looked at the specifications of their radar, you will see that the rbe2 aesa is superior to the Eurofighter radar. In addition the rcs of the Rafale is better too, see the air intakes serpentine Rafale, the eurofighter has nothing comparable.The Rafale is not a stealth aircraft, strictly speaking. It was not designed to be, stealth is not part of the specifications of the Rafale, contrary to the US F-22 or TU-50 Russian for example. First, the delta-ducks pair is incompatible with stealth; no delta wing aircraft are stealthy. Also, for an airplane to be stealthy it is necessary that its stacks are embarked in bunkers, which is not the case of the Rafale. These are the two main features that make it impossible for the Rafale to be stealthy. However, steps have been taken by Dassault to significantly reduce its radar signature. These measures are mostly classified for obvious reasons but some are still known. It is known that the Rafale canopy is finely coated with gold to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft, that composite materials also contribute and that the provision of the air intakes in a semi-ventral way makes it possible to reduce the reflection of the waves. of these, and this arrangement thus makes it possible not to have a "direct view" on these air intakes. Also, the "shark teeth" present on the trailing edges of the wings and ducks make it possible to reduce the radar signature of the Rafale.
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 09:06

wil59 wrote:
garrya wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I am considering the previously described scenario about a MiG trying to shoot down an AWACS with the massive R-37 while being defended by an AMRAAM equipped aircraft. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is an F-15, then the MiG can lock it up at the same time the F-15 fires it's AMRAAM. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is so much as a Super Hornet then it will be fired upon before finding the aircraft on radar.

From your simulation, which fighter can deal with Mig-31?
I assume F-15 is a non-starter as its RCS is too high and AMRAAM is shorter range than R-37.
F-16 unlikely to work, even though its RCS is lower , APG-80 detection range is still rather short, and AMRAAM is not long range enough
F-18E/F might or might not work, I give it a 50% chance, decent radar and low RCS but still limited by AMRAAM range.
Su-35 with R-37 might work 50% of the time? very powerful radar and long range missile, but the key weakness is high RCS
Rafale should work 70% of the time, weak radar but low RCS and it can use Meteor
Eurofighter should work 80% of the time, decent radar, low RCS and can carry Meteor
F-22 should work 90% of the time, very powerful radar, very low RCS, AMRAAM launched by F-22 will have good range
F-35 should work 90% of the time, powerful radar, very low RCS, it can be equipped with Meteor or JNAAM as well.

I do not understand why you consider the eurofighter better than the Rafale. If you have looked at the specifications of their radar, you will see that the rbe2 aesa is superior to the Eurofighter radar. In addition the rcs of the Rafale is better too, see the air intakes serpentine Rafale, the eurofighter has nothing comparable.The Rafale is not a stealth aircraft, strictly speaking. It was not designed to be, stealth is not part of the specifications of the Rafale, contrary to the US F-22 or TU-50 Russian for example. First, the delta-ducks pair is incompatible with stealth; no delta wing aircraft are stealthy. Also, for an airplane to be stealthy it is necessary that its stacks are embarked in bunkers, which is not the case of the Rafale. These are the two main features that make it impossible for the Rafale to be stealthy. However, steps have been taken by Dassault to significantly reduce its radar signature. These measures are mostly classified for obvious reasons but some are still known. It is known that the Rafale canopy is finely coated with gold to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft, that composite materials also contribute and that the provision of the air intakes in a semi-ventral way makes it possible to reduce the reflection of the waves. of these, and this arrangement thus makes it possible not to have a "direct view" on these air intakes. Also, the "shark teeth" present on the trailing edges of the wings and ducks make it possible to reduce the radar signature of the Rafale.

Please note that for the Rafale the meteor will only be used for high strategic value targets such as awacs, tanker aircraft, etc. The new Mica ng will be used for fighters with improved scope and a new electronic search ir / em.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 14:25

southerncross wrote: there is no way to ignore Voronezh, Container and other high-end radars that would essentially void the whole scenario (they are claimed to see a target of the size of a soccer ball at 8000 km) since they would greatly reduce the RCS disadvantage of the MiG and its unawareness about the presence of opposing fighters and incoming missiles.

Firstly, Voronezh is a VHF/UHF early warning radar, Container is a over the horizon early warning radar. They can't provide firing solution for Mig-31. Secondly, 8000 km detection distance claimed for Voronezh is only true if target fly at 3800 km altitude, no aircraft can fly that high, Container is an OTH-B radar, OTH-B is notorious for having a giant blind area 1500-2000 km in length right in front of the radar. Last but not least, they are stationary



southerncross wrote: Also electronic warfare would need to be considered given there are systems like Krasukha designed to nastily jam AWACS and other airborne radars.

Ground jammers are stationary or slow moving so you can destroy them by AARGM-ER or LRASM.
Last edited by eloise on 07 Sep 2019, 15:24, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 14:42

ricnunes wrote:
knowan wrote:R-27P/EP never entered service; they're offered by the manufacturer for exports, but nobody has bought them.


Thanks knowan! :thumb:

That explains the "export version" sentence on fidgetspinner's source regarding the R-27P/EP.


Russia has proposed or even offered for export passive radar homing and IR homing variants of the R-77 too, but nobody has shown the slightest bit of interest in them, so it looks like they just aren't regarded as useful weapons.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 14:56

@eloise:
I am not trying to start a new discussion about such assets, only to remind that such high-end equipment does very much exist and is in fact central to the whole force structure of any military. Voronezh is claimed to have some serious OTH capabilities, too (6000 km horizontal range). Modern Russian lower frequency radars are claimed to be capable of providing firing solution and besides R-37M has a modern active seeker, so it could be guided and activate for the endgame phase just like the AMRAAM in the example above. EW assets can be destroyed of course, everything can be destroyed.

Bottom line: if we stick to 1 vs 1 analysis we get a much clearer picture than if we throw in the mix every other potential assets, scenario, theater and tactic possible. IMHO this leads to a much better quality discussion overall.

garrya wrote:IMHO, neither F-22 or Su-57 will cruise at 20 km altitude.

Why, if I may ask? The whole example illustrates the advantage fast, high-flying aircraft have vs. AAMs, to the point that I am doubting the classical coasting AAM can be of any practical effect against a F-22 or similar plane. What would be a better cruising altitude in your opinion?
I don't think that is possible. Frontal RCS of AGM-86 is only between 0.001- 0.01 m2 and AIM-120 is significantly smaller

I don't know how those two compare in terms of RCS and I think it is relatively irrelevant what the exact value is. In any case it seems the detection range would be bigger than MAWS activation distance, so relevant for any potential evasive maneouvers.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4483
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 18:49

garrya wrote:APG-80 can detect a fighter with RCS of 10 m2 from approximately 110 nm (203 km)
Zaslon-M can detect a fighter with RCS of 1 m2 from approximately 180 km


I don't consider the APG-80 because it was only equipped to the UAE F-16 Blk60. We already discussed why the APG-80 is more capable than the SABR because it has liquid cooling while the SABR does not.

As to cruising alts of the F-22, I checked my notes and see service ceiling listed at >65kft. 20km is 66,000ft. However, the highest supercruise alt I see in my notes is 50k at 1.5M with A-G load (almost no difference in weight from A-A load).
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

shania

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2015, 15:27

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 18:56

Any fighter is always only one part of much bigger system which make them effective.There is no way for spurt to make realistic comparison with these systems and he shouldn't even try... His great model is already to complex and revoked too many times:D Impressive work spurt!

If someone wants more insight how these system interact, maybe Command: Modern Operations will help there in near future.
Anyway, if somebody wants more complex comparison, what about missile supply?


R-27 have many proposed improved variants, everything was canceled after fall of SSSR. Even ARH variant especially was canceled because R-77, which Russians newer acquire for theirs air force. And even now, when they procuring R-77-1, they have at most 300-500 missiles... so it will take years to have useful stock.

So theirs fighters still depends (and this wont change if near future) on soviets R-27, R-63 and few R-77-1.
R-37 stock is probably far worse that R-77-1... And failure rate for R-27 must be pretty bad*

R-27 T/ET is not useful in bvr, seeker must see target before launch, or launch in uncaged mode. Big motor is there for attack from rear. Buts I think its fine to use it in comparison, because there are others IR missiles with bvr capability.

Meteor stock (like will wrote before me) wont be much better in near future, so mostly limited to HVT.

* another from many factor for realistic scenarios, system reliability, human error - 10-20% missiles will fail, or other systems on aircraft wont work)...
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 19:04

southerncross wrote:@eloise:
I am not trying to start a new discussion about such assets, only to remind that such high-end equipment does very much exist and is in fact central to the whole force structure of any military. Voronezh is claimed to have some serious OTH capabilities, too (6000 km horizontal range). Modern Russian lower frequency radars are claimed to be capable of providing firing solutionis

Early warning radar have many application, but providing firing solution for air to air missile isn't one. When was the last time you heard anyone use Jindalee, TPS-71 , FPS-118, Duga, SBX , FPS-115 to guide an air to air missile? even in test?. The radar cell is enomous at such range and what datalink to you use for 6000 km range? . Secondly voronezh, Container are huge and stationary, their locations are well known.
Voronezh isn't an OTH radar because it operate in UHF and VHF. For over horizon sky wave effect you must use lower frequency such as HF. 6000 km horizontal range refer to LoS range. The second tell tale sight is receiver and transmitter at the same location, for sky wave effect they must be far apart. Thirdly, the represent detection volume of Voronezh on maps is a cone instead of fan shape. Fan shape detection volume is a tell tale sight of sky wave radar.
3DA32CAA-C51F-455E-BF84-C95C84DE78D0.jpeg

2143C005-D3B9-4F6F-8300-50C8615445E8.jpeg
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1259
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 22:36

wil59 wrote:I do not understand why you consider the eurofighter better than the Rafale. If you have looked at the specifications of their radar, you will see that the rbe2 aesa is superior to the Eurofighter radar. In addition the rcs of the Rafale is better too, see the air intakes serpentine Rafale, the eurofighter has nothing comparable.


The inlets of Typhoon sweep upwards and the engine face is on a higher plane so very little of the face is exposed head on. It also has higher composite composition as well as able to retract its fuel boom which the Rafale designers seemed to have forgot and which will cause RCS problems. BAE said on release its RCS was second only to F-22 and have quoted detection figures in the past vs F-35 which suggested a sub 0.1 sq m RCS. The Captor-M was also found to have superior range to the original RBE2 PESA so the AESA had ground to make up and if it is superior, not by much. Captor-E will restore its superiority with ~50% more modules.

Image

Look at the sideways profile of the Typhoon, it's obvious the inlets are directly inline with the wings, the upper part with the rear and lower part with all, not the engines whereas Rafale inlet is directly inline with its engine.

Image
Last edited by marsavian on 08 Sep 2019, 05:41, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 22:57

@eloise: if I answer here in detail it is going to be a bit too much of off-topic. But I will say the following: these radars allow to have a big picture of the airspace and cue other radars or direct other assets as needed. They form the backbone of the IADS so to say and with them online it is difficult to hide any significant air activity.
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:As to cruising alts of the F-22, I checked my notes and see service ceiling listed at >65kft. 20km is 66,000ft. However, the highest supercruise alt I see in my notes is 50k at 1.5M with A-G load (almost no difference in weight from A-A load).

Why is it so? I thought the reduction in air density would reduce drag more or less the same that it reduces engine thrust. Are the fixed intakes maybe responsible? Or maybe the increase in AoA due to reduced lift creates an additional source of drag?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4483
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 00:06

southerncross wrote: Or maybe the increase in AoA due to reduced lift creates an additional source of drag?

This is a big culprit. Also, an engine may make proportionally less thrust as it enters the turbine section the "same" as drag, but the turbine section has to extract a fixed value of power. so if (simple numbers) at a fixed mach and altitude 1 you have 100 drag and 110 thrust, but the turbine pulls out 10 thrust, then you can make your speed. If you go up to altitude 2 and have 50 drag and 50 thrust, but the turbine pulls out 10 thrust, you are now only producing 80% of the net thrust you need.

This is an oversimplification, but the principle is sound. An afterburner adds thrust back in AFTER the turbine section. Even then, there will come a point where the engine core only makes 10 thrust, and once the turbine extracts the 10 thrust there is nothing left to go to the afterburner.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 03:48

southerncross wrote:Why, if I may ask? The whole example illustrates the advantage fast, high-flying aircraft have vs. AAMs, to the point that I am doubting the classical coasting AAM can be of any practical effect against a F-22 or similar plane. What would be a better cruising altitude in your opinion?

Mig-31 is very fast, at Mach 2.5 cruising speed, it is significantly faster than F-22 and Su-57 at Mach 1.8. Lift is proportional to square of velocity so the faster you fly, the more lift you can generate. Moreover, pilot in aircraft fly above 50k feet will need pressure suit. It is obvious that Mig-31 pilot have different flight suit from Su-57 or F-22 pilot
BF04B67B-9C93-460B-AFDD-3BD7510EC2D4.jpeg

3813D1E6-A016-4A76-90FC-422E847A4A04.jpeg


southerncross wrote:I don't know how those two compare in terms of RCS and I think it is relatively irrelevant what the exact value is. In any case it seems the detection range would be bigger than MAWS activation distance, so relevant for any potential evasive maneouvers.

The measured value of AGM-86 is 100-500 times smaller than your estimated value for AIM-120. That is a big gap in warning time.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 04:04

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:As to cruising alts of the F-22, I checked my notes and see service ceiling listed at >65kft. 20km is 66,000ft. However, the highest supercruise alt I see in my notes is 50k at 1.5M with A-G load (almost no difference in weight from A-A load

@southerncross: is important to remember that service ceiling is not where fighter cruise, rather it is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft where the margin to stall is only 1.5 G
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4483
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 04:10

I know, hence why I mentioned that the highest cruise alt I could find was 50k
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests