Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

geogen wrote:

WW-

It will need to punch EFT just to push into a low supersonic range if required to 'evade', or maneuver into a WEZ position'. Even with the EFT gone, due to platform drag, the fuel burn rate necessary to keep at supersonic will be unsustainable for any competitive duration.

The SH doesn't need to stay supersonic after launch. In fact it'll likely speed up, fire, then break off, while another platform guides the missile. This will give the missile improved kinematics, while simultaneously putting as much distance as possible between the SH, and target.

Quote:

And as far as your expectation that the AMRAAM C7/D + Super combo will maintain a dominant AAM EZ envelope for the next 5-8 years vs non-western, 'rest of world' competition... one can assume that defense planners are not assuming this.

That's precisely what they're assuming with the D/D+ will dual pulse motor. The C7 enjoys noticeable advantages over current threats, and the D/D+ have a much larger envelope than the C7.

Quote:

I'll tell you what ww, since you're a nice guy I'll let you have 3 standard block 2.5 Supers, no IRST, equipped with 4x -120D for Red Flag 2017. I'll take 2 Supers configured with CFT, enhanced IRST and 4x AIM-162 (2 w/ a large mmW seeker + 2 w/ NCADE's IIR seeker). I'm curious to hear your reply.

That's hardly what I'm saying. Naturally if you have 2 aircraft where all else is equal, then the one with the longer ranged missile will have the advantage. If however you have better sensors than your foe, and a lower RCS, then you can still engage first, with a shorter ranged missile. However in the case of the SH, it's not currently armed with a shorter ranged missile, than its foes. By the time foes get a missile that exceeds the Ds capabilities, the JDRADM will be online.

F-16.net Sponsor

Of course, for every hand-off tactic in Red Flag 2017 the Super could employ, so too could the faster sustained flying (superior evading) and faster dash speed flying opponent employ. Thus, it's still a kinematic disadvantage for the Super - all missiles being equal.

Hence the valid argument for justifying asymmetrical AAM capability to ensure air dominance vs superior performing platforms.

And with respects to your final statement, it would indeed be great to be able to schedule the competition's missile Program, to ensure your own superior advantage, but unfortunately those convenient aspects are not in one's control. One would assume defense planners do not assess things this way as well and one would assume that 'other' missile capabilities (eg Meteor and at least a couple others) will not remain static over the the next 5+ years either.

geogen wrote:

Of course, for every hand-off tactic in Red Flag 2017 the Super could employ, so too could the faster sustained flying (superior evading) and faster dash speed flying opponent employ. Thus, it's still a kinematic disadvantage for the Super - all missiles being equal.

My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.

Quote:

And with respects to your final statement, it would indeed be great to be able to schedule the competition's missile Program, to ensure your own superior advantage, but unfortunately those convenient aspects are not in one's control. One would assume defense planners do not assess things this way as well and one would assume that 'other' missile capabilities (eg Meteor and at least a couple others) will not remain static over the the next 5+ years either.

The Meteor isn't a threat to the SH, and refer to my post above for the rebuttal of the second point you made.

Quote:

My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.

Nonsens.
A fully tooled up SH would not have any more RCS advantage over an Su-35S, not with those EXT tanks on and those weird outwards pointing Pylons/wepons/DT on the SH..
No sir.
And the lookdown range on the latest Flanker radars are impressive if nothing else.
As a SH driver, you better have the possibility to apply jammer or else you are in trouble.

My point is, the latest VVS assets have moved on from the legasy Flankers or old Mig-29(1.13) variants..

haavarla wrote:

Quote:

My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.

Nonsens.
A fully tooled up SH would not have any more RCS advantage over an Su-35S, not with those EXT tanks on and those weird outwards pointing Pylons/wepons/DT on the SH..
No sir.
And the lookdown range on the latest Flanker radars are impressive if nothing else.
As a SH driver, you better have the possibility to apply jammer or else you are in trouble.

My point is, the latest VVS assets have moved on from the legasy Flankers or old Mig-29(1.13) variants..

What year can we expect the first Su-35 squadron to be operational? If the Flanker is using long range search, then the SH will likely be able to stay EMCON, and use it's ESM systems/third party targeting, to engage. It's highly doubtful that an Su-35 with a number of missiles hanging under the wing, will not have a higher RCS than a SH. If we assume that the USN acquires the CFTs, then that'll lower the RCS considerably. If they use the stealth weapons pods, then that would give the SH a considerable RCS advantage over any Flanker variant.

Don't get me wrong here I'm a Hornet fan, But why is it called "Super" if it's climbs slower, flys slower and turns slower? Or do they mean Super radar hornet?

It's super in the sense that it has far greater range, combat radius, payload capacity, endurance, etc. to give it a bomb truck type of performance to at least compensate for the retirement of the A-6 Intruder.

wrightwing wrote:

haavarla wrote:

Quote:

My point is that all the missiles/sensors aren't equal. The SH will have a first look, first shoot advantage, until the T-50 becomes operational. The Flanker/Fulcrum have a considerable RCS disadvantage, and until a ramjet missile is operational, the D/D+ should enjoy a ~>50km range advantage over the AA10/12. Then add the EA capabilities of the APG-79 on top of that. This is what I'm getting at. The D/D+ have been designed to maintain superiority over projected threats, till the JDRADM comes on line. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly than that.

Nonsens.
A fully tooled up SH would not have any more RCS advantage over an Su-35S, not with those EXT tanks on and those weird outwards pointing Pylons/wepons/DT on the SH..
No sir.
And the lookdown range on the latest Flanker radars are impressive if nothing else.
As a SH driver, you better have the possibility to apply jammer or else you are in trouble.

My point is, the latest VVS assets have moved on from the legasy Flankers or old Mig-29(1.13) variants..

What year can we expect the first Su-35 squadron to be operational? If the Flanker is using long range search, then the SH will likely be able to stay EMCON, and use it's ESM systems/third party targeting, to engage. It's highly doubtful that an Su-35 with a number of missiles hanging under the wing, will not have a higher RCS than a SH. If we assume that the USN acquires the CFTs, then that'll lower the RCS considerably. If they use the stealth weapons pods, then that would give the SH a considerable RCS advantage over any Flanker variant.

Some facts:

The SU-35 is huge, much bigger then the SH. Just a few advantages in terms of RCS - The SH has plane form alignment, the inlets are shaped and use ram blockers. RAM is used extensively. What does the SU-35 use, how effective is it. Well other than marketing propaganda we don’t know but again we do know the US has had over 30 years of operational stealth experience. I would think they know better than anyone else how to make a plane stealthy, how to maintain that stealth in operation, and how to fight using it to advantage. Frankly, the SU-35’s eppenage is probably a greater contributor to RCS than any REMOVABLE pylon that the SH would be carrying. Lets keep in mind, unless you carry everything internally your RCS is big. The SU-35s just happens to be much bigger and the Super’s avionics and weapons carriage allow one plane to fly clean while directing the rest of the squadron’s missiles.

Look down range is but one factors that determiner’s a fighter radar’s potency. Some much more important characteristics is resiliency to jamming, target acquisition and discrimination in clutter and sharpness of beam. In fact the only better radar/FC combinations than the Super Hornet’s flying today are in the US and none of them are in squadron service other then the F-22 FCS. It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA. It’s much more than just the hardware, the software has as much if not more to do with potency than the equipment. The US has a 20 year head start on this technology and outspends everyone else on continuing development. So as far as fire control goes, unless the Russians pull a rabbit out of a hat the SU-35 will be severely disadvantaged in regards to fire control in relation to the SH.

Your point on legacy assets may be true but even Russia’s latest assets are in most respects inferior and will take years to field in active squadrons.

Now lets talk about those pylons and the SH’s supposedly slow speed. The plane is not under powered, far from it and anyone that doubts me can go search youtube to see any one of a number of demonstrations when the SH flies with 6 or 7 thousand pounds of external stores and its gear extended. The “drag” everyone tries to attribute to the slightly canted outward pylons is negligible. It’s the shape of the wing that has been optimized for high cruise speed and low speed carrier approaches that makes the plane draggy in the transonic range. But clearly it’s fast enough otherwise the Navy would have went for the upgraded engines. Perhaps they know something some of the turn and burn fan boys do not. Perhaps it’s the ability to detect, lock on and engage your enemy sooner than your enemy can that is the real strength of the SH in air to air?

Sheesh this forum is starting to look like the key complete with all the inane posters.

Quote:

It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA.

Well, if you ignore Australia's Super Hornet, Singapore's F-15SG, Japan's Mitsubishi F-2.

The Super Hornet and F-15 are both US designed jets and the F-2, IIRC, has Federated not Integrated avionics.

Case in point.

destroid wrote:

Quote:

It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA.

Well, if you ignore Australia's Super Hornet, Singapore's F-15SG, Japan's Mitsubishi F-2.

Sheesh this forum is starting to look like the key complete with all the inane posters.

WW your ~50km C7/D range superiority claim over potential opposition until the JDRADM flies into action is good for internet fanboy posts only, I'm sorry.

Otherwise, simply suspend F-35 procurement until a mature block 4 (and JDRADM) is proven and ready for mass production - save the procurement cash and accelerate SH procurement + -120D, -88E and JASSM-ER development/procurement..

Call it a day.

geogen wrote:

WW your ~50km C7/D range superiority claim over potential opposition until the JDRADM flies into action is good for internet fanboy posts only, I'm sorry.

Even if a brand new variant came out tomorrow, matching the range, how many years do you think it'd take before it was widely proliferated? You're not the only person out there, that concerns themselves with threat weapons, and their capabilities compared to our systems. You have some intriguing views- our missiles aren't good enough, so we need to work on something new right away, but our aircraft are good enough, that we can wait 10yrs before we do anything.

Quote:

Some facts:

The SU-35 is huge, much bigger then the SH. Just a few advantages in terms of RCS - The SH has plane form alignment, the inlets are shaped and use ram blockers. RAM is used extensively. What does the SU-35 use, how effective is it. Well other than marketing propaganda we don’t know but again we do know the US has had over 30 years of operational stealth experience. I would think they know better than anyone else how to make a plane stealthy, how to maintain that stealth in operation, and how to fight using it to advantage. Frankly, the SU-35’s eppenage is probably a greater contributor to RCS than any REMOVABLE pylon that the SH would be carrying. Lets keep in mind, unless you carry everything internally your RCS is big. The SU-35s just happens to be much bigger and the Super’s avionics and weapons carriage allow one plane to fly clean while directing the rest of the squadron’s missiles.

Look down range is but one factors that determiner’s a fighter radar’s potency. Some much more important characteristics is resiliency to jamming, target acquisition and discrimination in clutter and sharpness of beam. In fact the only better radar/FC combinations than the Super Hornet’s flying today are in the US and none of them are in squadron service other then the F-22 FCS. It is a fact that no other nation has yet fielded a production AESA much less a fully integrated FCS system using an AESA. It’s much more than just the hardware, the software has as much if not more to do with potency than the equipment. The US has a 20 year head start on this technology and outspends everyone else on continuing development.
So as far as fire control goes, unless the Russians pull a rabbit out of a hat the SU-35 will be severely disadvantaged in regards to fire control in relation to the SH.

And you would know the performance of the Irbis-E radar.. well then, just pull it out from you hat and show us.
If the Ribis-E will do as its promised from the manufactors. It will be harder to jam out due to wider bandwith, its more than doubled from the PERO radar. its got faster prossessors and more peak power, just as it isn't an AESA doesn't mean its automatical crap in performance.
The Irbis will be able to scann faster and scann much more volume.. hows that for disadvantage?

Quote:

Sheesh this forum is starting to look like the key complete with all the inane posters.

You can keep yor smart comments in you hat..

haavarla wrote:

Some facts:
The Irbis will be able to scann faster and scann much more volume.. hows that for disadvantage?

Yes, yes,. Of course comrade.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Super Hornet performance question