Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

dimik wrote:

Sadly, there's not much chance for the F-16 as the short range of the AIM-120B(48km range) is just far too short, giving the Su-30MK much time to develop many options and tactics which it can employ to achieve the best position.

Don't most USAF Vipers today use the AIM-120C?

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I believe, but I might be wrong on that, that the USAF gives its best AAMs to the F-15s.

And even at that, as far as I know the range of the latest AIM-120Cs is "only" about 65km, which is about on par with the R-77 and MICA.

Imo, the AF should think about retrofitting a new engine in its AMRAAMs. It could probably be done. The same kind of motor as that of the AIM-120D could be retrofitted, increasing range by 50%. And it would be cheap because the cost of the motor is 7% of the cost of the missile.

well, i was unable to discover the range of the AIM-120C, also, in an internet database ,it states that the F-16 uses the AIM-120B

the R-77 has a range in the area of 90km, both the Mica IR and RF will have a range of 60km

do you guys know of the AA-X-13? Russian missile with 300km to be used on MiG-31, Su-35, and Su-37, also, the KS-172 RWL, missile with range of approximately 400mk

the KS-172 will be capable of destroying very agile aircraft as it is the same missile the S-400 uses to tackle aircraft hundreds of kilometers away, as for the AA-X-13 as sa replacement for the AA-9, i am not sure

dimik wrote:

well, i was unable to discover the range of the AIM-120C, also, in an internet database ,it states that the F-16 uses the AIM-120B

Just because the Viper uses the AIM-120B, doesn't mean that the Viper can't also use AIM-120C. Wink

Here's a pic of Viper armed with the AIM-120C on its wing tips. (Note: the clipped fins for internal storage on aircraft like the F/A-22.)

Here's a link that also mentions the Viper's ability to fire the AIM-20C.

http://totalairdominance.50megs.com/Fighters/F-16.htm

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Quote:

the R-77 has a range in the area of 90km, both the Mica IR and RF will have a range of 60km

That's the official number. The real range of the R-77 seems to be much less than that.

Last edited by toan on Jun 08, 2005 - 03:48 AM; edited 1 time in total

KS-172 (AAM-L) and R-37 (AA-X-13 ) are the Russian missiles that are mainly designed for destroying western AWACS. The KS-172 is the air-to-air variant of S-300V/SA-12, and R-37 (AA-X-13 )is upgraded from R-33 (AA-9).

KS-172:

Manufacturer: Novastor
Length: 6 m
Diameter: 0.4 m
Weight: 700 (KS-172-S1 for exportation) to 750 kg (For Russian AF)
Warhead: 50 kg
Maximal speed: 4.0 Mach+
Maximal effective range: 300 (KS-172-S1 for exportation) to 400 km (For Russian AF)
Effective range of altitude: 3 to 30,000 m

R-37M:

Manufacturer: Vympel
Weight: 600 kg
Warhead: 47 kg
Maximal speed: 6.0 Mach
Maximal effective range: 240 km

According to the declaration of the manufacturers, both of these two missiles will have enough capability to engage the targets like fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, and even the approaching AAM/SAM. However, because the two missiles are so big and heavy, even the large Russian fighters like Su-30MKI and Su-35 can only carry two missiles once a time, and it is needless to say that the huge missiles like these will increase the RCS of fighter significantly, while decreasing its agiity and maneuverability greatly at the same time ~ very negative effect for air-to-air combat.

The fighter must detect, track, and identify its enemy at first before it has chance to lock and then fire its missile toward its enemy. Theoretically, the maximal effective detection range and maximal effective tracking range of the most modern Russian fighter's radars today to the different targets could be:

F-15C (RCS=10 m2): 200~250 km / 135~170 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
F-18C (RCS = 3 m2): 150~185 km / 100~125 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
F-16C (RCS = 1.2 m2): 118~148 km / 78~100 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2): 95~118 km / 64~78 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
F-18E (RCS = 0.1 m2): 63~80 km / 42~54 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
EF-2K (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 53~80 km / 36~54 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 22~28 km / 15~20 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): 16~21 km / 10~14 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

If Su-35/Su-30MKI use KS-172 or R-37 to against the western fighters today, any western fighter with frontal RCS equal or less than F-16C and the BVRAAM of AIM-120D to Meteor class will be able to handle Su-35/Su-30MKI with KS-172 or R-37 very well. The very long range of KS-172 or R-37 is almost meaningless at this time, since the Su-35/Su-30MKI's radar can't track or even detect the target (Any western fighter with frontal RCS equal or less than F-16C) at the distance beyond the effective range of AIM-120D and Meteor. The fighters with extremely low RCS such as F/A-22, F-35, and perhaps EF-2K, may even be albe to conquer Su-35/Su-30MKI + KS-172 or R-37 with just AIM-120A/B theoretically.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Awesome..

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=Su-30

Viperalltheway wrote:

Quote:

the R-77 has a range in the area of 90km, both the Mica IR and RF will have a range of 60km

That's the official number. The real range of the R-77 seems to be much less than that.

What do you mean? Is it not true that its range is 90km?

Also, Toan, the Ks-172 missile is derived from the extremely long range missile incoroporated into the S-400 system, the missile in the S-400 ADS was developed by a French company

That is why you would fire these missiles from long range, where agility does not come in hadny, the RCS will change, hopefully, they can blend the missile into the body, change the missiles rack perhaps

I heard they are developing a new missile rack for the F-22 that will enable it to carry weapons on it's wings, yet remain stealthy, any idea how this works?

Yeah, the missile range is not really that important, because first you have to detect and track it, I'm just pointing out that it has some pretty sick range on it

Definitely, the F-22 will be able to take on an Su-35 with these missiles easily, i can't waiot until the T-50 flies in 2007, I want to see how it's developing, they already have an electronic model

dimik wrote:

What do you mean? is it not true that its range is 90km?

The effective range of a AAM is effected and determined by many factors: altitude of the shooter and foe, speed of shooter and foe, head-to-head engagement or tail chasing, the capability of the shooter's radar, the capability of enemy's ECM... and so on. Take R-77 for example, in the ideal situation (high altitude, head-to-head high speed engagement, the RCS of the target is big enough and doesn't display any escaping maneuver or ECM), its maximal effective range could reach 90~100 Km. However, in the tough condition (low altidude, tail-chasing engagement, the target runs away with high speed and high energy...), its maximal effective range could be greatly reduced to 5~15 km.

Actually, the real maximal effective dynamic range and NEZ range of AIM-120 family in different combat situation are top secret for USA. Even the non-USA air-forces of NATO don't know the real capability of AMRAAM they bought. As for USAF and USN, both the pilots of F-15C and F/A-18E/F have made such a declaration: "Before introducing the AESA radar into our fighter (AN/APG-63 V2/V3 for F-15C and AN/APG-79 for F/A-18E/F), the effective dynamic range of AIM-120 today (which should be AIM-120C5~C7) has exceeded the radar's maximal effective locking range of our fighters (AN/APG-63/-63V1 for F-15C and AN/APG-73 for F/A-18E/F) in the most combat condition now." Therefore, before introducing the AESA radar, the effective range of AIM-120 C5~C7 should be more than enough for the most 3rd generation fighters and even some of the 4th generation fighters without AESA radar today. That's partial reason why European AFs will not use Meteor AAM formally until post-2010 to post-2012: Their NG fighters will not be incorporated AESA radars formally until post-2010 to even post-2015.

dimik wrote:

That is why you would fire these missiles from long range, where agility does not come in handy.

As I mentioned above, in the fighter v.s fighter scenario, even the most capabable Russian fighter's radar today may not lock the target with RCS of 1 m2-class effectively 100 km away or the target with RCS of 0.1 m2-class effectively 55 km away. The very long range of KS-172 and R-37 is almost meaningless for Su-30MKI/Su-35 in this air-combat situation.

dimik wrote:

The RCS will change, hopefully, they can blend the missile into the body, change the missiles rack perhaps.

Blending a AAM which is even bigger and heavier than AIM-54 AAM and Harpoon ASM effectively into the fighter's body??? Nice try. Even the Russian can achieve this miracle, the frontal RCS of Flanker family (> or = 10 m2 class) themselves is spectacular enough.

Last edited by agilefalcon16 on Jun 08, 2005 - 05:34 PM; edited 1 time in total

Viperalltheway wrote:

Awesome..

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=Su-30

That was an incredible video Viperalltheway, I had no idea a manned aircraft could pull such maneuvers. I presume that the aircraft was a Su-30MKI, because I can't imagine ANY aircraft would be capable of such maneuvers without thrust-vectored engines. I am SO jealous that the Viper doesn't have those capabilities. I mean, even though thrust-vectoring doesn't prove it's worth very often in combat, it's like the 20mm gun the Viper carries, its better to be safe then sorry, especially if the Viper is out of AIM-9X's.

Also, from what I've heard the Raptor was designed for thrust-vectoring, which makes sence seeing that the aircraft would not see stess on the airframe from thrust-vectoring. What still confuses me though, is the Su-27 and it's family (Like the F-16) weren't designed to use thrust-vectoring, but how come the Su-30/35/37 gets to use it anyway?

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I know, and don't forget that the F-15 and F-18 have also been tested with TVC.

Here's an interesting read.
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/NTTC3.htm

As for why the AF has not upgraded its fighers with TVC, one can only wonder. From what I've heard, the F-18 HARV has won 80% of the test dogfights it was engaged in.

The thing is that if the F-15s and F-16s become too good, it's not possible to justify the F-22 anymore.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Quote:

What do you mean? Is it not true that its range is 90km?

Just to add to what toan said, you should be skeptical of the performances of russian missiles. The russians tend to give the absolute maximum range, like if a fighter at M2 attacks another fighter head on at M2, and at high altitude.

Since the range of a missile doubles every 20000 ft, you have to be careful to compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples..

The AIM-120C-7 from what I've heard has about the same range as the R-77, that is, in the order of 65 km.

Also, from what I've heard, the pk of the R-77 is not so good. In fact I believe it has missed in most tests.

Oh, yes indeed there are many factors that contribute to a missile's range in an actual combat scenario, I was just talking about optimal performance, what is stated as its range, it's the same for everything else, 48km may be the range for the AIM-120B, but in unfavourable conditions, it will lessen, I got the idea.

Well, if you launch the missile in 6 o'clock, the R-77 is significantly faster than anything in the fighter in the US Inventory

Really? Not even the pilots know its range, how can that be, a pilot must know the maximal performance of everything on his aircraft, they must give him the range of the missile, maybe they demand to keep it secret

[quote="toan"]Blending a AAM which is even bigger and heavier than AIM-54 AAM and Harpoon ASM effectively into the fighter's body? Nice try. Even the Russian can achieve this miracle, the frontal RCS of Flanker family (> or = 10 m2 class) themselves is spectacular enough.[quote]

lol, true very true, the Russians have made a new materiel to be incoprorated into their aviational projects in the future, possibly the T-50

http://en.rian.ru/science/20050606/40479961.html

More innovations from the motherlands itself, a Russian academician has made a new class of nanocrystalline material, Andrei Bochvar is his name, it obtains high strength and electrical conductivity

The wires are made out of copper-niobium(CuNb) which is as strong as steel and boasts electrical conductivity of 50-70% that of superpure copper

This will defeinitely be applied in engineering, automobile, and aerospace industries, possibly in fighter aircraft to ensure faster processing speeds

As the electrical signals would be sent significantly faster than traditional aircraft of this time

In the future, development into this technology will be capable of developing high impulse magnetic protection fields, and in a test has already created a magnetic impulse field, consisting of only 75 sets of tesla, later on, they will attempt to use 90

This will also be implemented in nanotechnology, which will radically change medicine, the energy sector, biotechnologies, electronics and other fields that will form the basis of the world economy"

The Su-35 and Su-30 aircraft do not have TVC nozzles, only the Su-30MKI and Su-37, which is an advanced prototype of the Su-35 experimenting with TVC nozzles

Really, do you mind giving me the link regarding the tests for the R-77, because i've always heard that it is significantly better than the R-27, I thought the tests were successful

Really, the range of a missile coubles every 20,000 feet? why, is it because particles are farther apart higher up, since it's mostly heated air, thus friction on the outer surface of the missile is reduced, reducing the energy loss when it is maneuvering to destroy the target? is that the reason?

Thanks for all the information guys, very interesting discussion

Russia is not the only country to do such a study and development...

AW&ST wrote:

British Visual Stealth Research Uncovered

British classified programs explore options for visual and IR signature reduction

The British Defense Ministry and BAE Systems are quietly developing a range of visual and infra-red signature reduction technologies for aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) applications in an effort that has included flying demonstrators.

[...]

Visual stealth work looked at the use of fiber-optic lighting to diminish the contrast between an aircraft and the predominant background. Light-emitting diodes are also thought to have been used as part of the Chameleon program, using a Hawk advanced jet trainer as a test platform.

The initial demonstration was funded by the Defense Ministry and BAE at a cost of 9 million pounds ($17.4 million). The work was carried out at the company's Advanced Technology Demonstration Center, at Warton in northern England. This site was also responsible for the Testbed/Replica low-observable aircraft design effort.

[...]

BAE Systems modified its demonstrator Hawk, the ZA101, for IR signature risks. A Jetstream twin-turboprop was fitted with sensors to measure the modified Hawk's IR signature. Airframe coatings, minimizing IR hotspots in the engine exhaust, and active devices were tried to reduce the IR signature. One active device is a deployable shielding system intended to limit the IR signature from all angles except directly behind, to the point where certain classes of heat-seeking missiles would be unable to acquire the target at operational ranges.

For the initial flight tests, the shielding device was fitted to the jet-pipe of the Hawk. The IR shield is designed to be deployed when an IR threat is encountered, and then retracted to a conformal stowed position.

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology - 12/20/2004

Quote:

Stealth coatings show promise - Semi-active coverings could make aircraft invisible to radar

Semi-active stealth coatings on aircraft could make them invisible to radar or even project phantom aircraft velocities and positions, say researchers at the University of Sheffield’s department of electronic and electrical engineering in the UK.

The composite panels have electronic emitters embedded in their front and rear surfaces that can pro-ject a false reflection if detected radar signals. Prof Barry Chambers says the panels can “cancel Doppler signals and even ‘reflect’ phantom signals to emulate other aircraft types or velocity signatures”.

The system works by returning an artificial signal generated by the two surfaces of the panel that is outside the frequency limits of the radar receiver. Chambers says the panels are lighter than some traditional radar adsorbent coatings and can easily be activated or deactivated “with the flick of a switch”, enabling an aircraft to hide its stealth capabilities until they are required.

The university has been developing th etechnology with external partners for about six years and says it could be retrofittable to older aircraft.

Source: Flight International via http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/f ... .php?t=785

Quote:

MBDA-France is looking at ways of applying hi-tech “active stealth technology” to a mid-life update of the Scalp EG air-to-surface cruise missile and next-generation supersonic missiles, writes Doug Richardson in the July edition of Jane’s Missiles & Rockets magazine. Active stealth systems attempt to reduce “radar cross section” by canceling the radar return created when the radar energy from a hostile radar strikes an aircraft or missile. This is done by transmitting a second signal of equal frequency and amplitude to the genuine return.

In 1999, MBDA fitted a C-22 target drone with an experimental active-stealth system, and tested this in an anechoic chamber. Late in 2000, two modified testbeds (probably C-22s) were test-flown at the Centre dEssais des Landes (CEL) range at Biscarosse in southwest France to assess their performance against ground and airborne radars. Photographs of the modified C-22 show that stealth-related hardware has been fitted to drones wings. This work is continuing, says MBDA, and the next phase will test other active devices.

Source: http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/f ... .php?t=674

One problem MBDA could face in applying active stealth to a mid-life upgrade of the Scalp EG, is that this technology is being developed for the French defence ministry and, at present, it cannot be shared with other nations. Unless this restriction is lifted, the high degree of commonality between all versions of Storm Shadow and Scalp EG could be lost during the mid-life upgrade.

This active stealth technology will also be useful for disguising the ramjet inlets of some nuclear missiles, but the company will not disclose whether it will be used in the mostly-classified ASMP-A nuclear-armed cruise missile currently being developed to replace the ASMP carried by the Mirage 2000 strike aircraft.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Quote:

really, do you mind giving me the link regarding the tests for the R-77, because i've always heard that it is significantly better than the R-27, i thought the tests were successful

I don't have a link on that, that's what I've heard people supposedly "in the know" say on other forums.

Quote:

really, the range of a missile coubles every 20,000 feet? why, is it because particles are farther apart higher up, since it's mostly heated air, thus friction on the outer surface of the missile is reduced, reducing the energy loss when it is maneuvering to destroy the target? is that the reason?

Right. It's because there's less and less friction as altitude increases. Missiles are sometimes designed to fly at high altitude and attack the target from above, in order to increase range - the AMRAAM does that I beleive.

Another example of the inacuracy of maximum range is the MICA. The official range is 40 km, while its maximum range is said to be about 60km. ( BTW that's quite extraordinary for a missile of this size.)

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 vs SU-30