F-35 & F-16 (Block 50 +) - Comparison of frontal view.

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

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 03:04

I can't believe I saw the idiocy on RCS until I looked at the handle of the poster who posted it. Doesn't a lower RCS mean fewer photons returned to the radar dish so the signal to noise for the VLO platform is always less? Doesn't that mean jamming works better? It's the constant "My favorite plane doesn't have VLO so VLO is overrated" garbage we've seen on how many boards for how long? Yet every new aircraft program incorporates VLO or strives for ELO. Why do we tolerate this troll?
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 04:26

EW alone is impractical since it requires constant updating and can very easily be overcome with new techniques- it's a classic cat-and-mouse process. So one sortie, the enemy won't be able to target you and the next they'll have updated software that destroys you.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 04:59

Prinz_Eugn wrote:EW alone is impractical since it requires constant updating and can very easily be overcome with new techniques- it's a classic cat-and-mouse process. So one sortie, the enemy won't be able to target you and the next they'll have updated software that destroys you.


But if you put the $ into EW instead of LO you would dominate EW.

But if you had a plane that wasn't compromised for LO it could outmaneuver/outrun the missiles.

But, but, but LO is too expensive, blah blah blah.

What a waste of bandwidth arguing with people who have their mind made up that they're smarter than the military establishment of the country that spends half of the world's military budget and every other military out there that can play in the big leagues. Look at the Russians. They abandoned the 1.42/1.44 and went for the T-50. They went for LO as are the Chinese. Not to mention the sheer idiocy and complete lack of understanding of modern warfare inherent in the idea that LO is not worth it because it requires offboard support in the form of jamming.
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 08:55

shingen wrote:I can't believe I saw the idiocy on RCS until I looked at the handle of the poster who posted it. Doesn't a lower RCS mean fewer photons returned to the radar dish so the signal to noise for the VLO platform is always less? Doesn't that mean jamming works better? It's the constant "My favorite plane doesn't have VLO so VLO is overrated" garbage we've seen on how many boards for how long? Yet every new aircraft program incorporates VLO or strives for ELO. Why do we tolerate this troll?


I take it it was Mr "Eurofighter is stealthier than the F-35" again, just skip past his screed, thats what I do.


http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... 773&page=4
(Post 118 is you want to have a giggle)
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 10:46

cola wrote:Exec, dunno where do you get your radar ranges, but you got some really wild imagination, going on there...

Those ranges were just an examples – I used them to illustrate something, but unfortunately it seems that you still don’t understand it. You can change ‘km’ to ‘x’ where ‘x’ is some kind of ‘distance unit’ – it really doesn’t matter.
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 12:41

Exec, the thing is that those ranges overlap and that's the "gray" area.
Your illustration is fine, but it lacks correct ingredients to prove the point.
USAF has a 100km HARM...S300 can't effectively shoot an F16 at that distance, due kinematic and tracking issues.
Cheers, Cola
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 13:38

Exec, the thing is that those ranges overlap and that's the "gray" area.
Your illustration is fine, but it lacks correct ingredients to prove the point.

What kind of ingredients?

USAF has a 100km HARM...S300 can't effectively shoot an F16 at that distance, due kinematic and tracking issues.

Cola, I never said it can and I agree with you on this one.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3902
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 15:30

cola wrote:Exec, dunno where do you get your radar ranges, but you got some really wild imagination, going on there...


I'd love to hear your thoughts on "more realistic" ranges, and the sources to back them up. There's a reason why new designs are VLO. It's not just a little bit better than legacy designs- it's a game changer. Even Carlo Kopp's charts on radar vs RCS demonstrate this.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3902
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 15:45

cola wrote:Exec, the thing is that those ranges overlap and that's the "gray" area.
Your illustration is fine, but it lacks correct ingredients to prove the point.
USAF has a 100km HARM...S300 can't effectively shoot an F16 at that distance, due kinematic and tracking issues.


The takeaway here is that both systems would be at a stand off here. Unless the S-300 site was emitting the F-16 wouldn't know of its presence, whereas the S-300 site could receive info from other sources, and radiate at the last moment, once the F-16 was well in the WEZ. The F-35 on the other hand could get close enough, to very like get the first look(or through NCW, get first look from a third party), and engage from much closer, giving the SAM site much less reaction time.
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 16:27

Apart from the very very latest blocks I didn't think an F-16's RWR was capable of picking up an S-300's radar set thats painting it.
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 16:59

Apart from the very very latest blocks I didn't think an F-16's RWR was capable of picking up an S-300's radar set thats painting it.

Why do you think so?
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post10 Feb 2011, 17:24

It was something I had heard several years ago. I've no idea if there's any truth too it.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28

Unread post11 Feb 2011, 08:01

wrightwing wrote:... the S-300 site could receive info from other sources, and radiate at the last moment, once the F-16 was well in the WEZ. The F-35 on the other hand could get close enough... and engage from much closer, giving the SAM site much less reaction time.


Perhaps by the 2017 IOC timeframe, various modern IADS will likely also include elements of acoustic and optical detection and tracking data (among others)... something to think about.

That's why you invest in next-gen long-range LO munitions and extended-range suppression measures in your capabilities, to maintain deterrence too - beyond next gen UCAVs being developed (to counter the challenges).

And back to the thread's topic, I've included a hopefully more accurate representation of F-16 v F-35 'Frontal views' for discussion sake (included are EFT and sidewinder on F-35 to represent loadout and range comparison). :wink:
Attachments
F16vF35frontalView.JPG
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

exec

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 240
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 11:39
  • Location: Poland

Unread post11 Feb 2011, 09:19

Perhaps by the 2017 IOC timeframe, various modern IADS will likely also include elements of acoustic and optical detection and tracking data (among others)... something to think about.

Geogen you do realize what are the limitations of such things and that they will never be primary detection methods?
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post11 Feb 2011, 09:22

Geo, external fuel tanks and CFTs come with a price, that being drag. It doesn't work how you think it does in that for all the fuel you put in the tanks only a percentage is actually used to increase range, some fuel is lost over coming the drag.
An F-16 loaded up like that is not going to top out the range of a clean combat loaded F-35, but then I get the feeling you actually know that already... ;)

And again, as much as it probably pains you to read tbis I going to leave this quote here again:

"On Flight 9, we performed the first afterburner takeoff. Flight 9 was also our longest flight to that point, 1.5 hours. We took off with 3,500 pounds short of a full fuel load and landed with about 4,000 pounds of fuel remaining. So we shorted ourselves more fuel than the entire internal fuel capacity of an F-16 and still flew for 1.5 hours without aerial refueling. During Flight 9, we also flew close formations, power approaches, and maneuver blocks to sixteen-degrees angle of attack at 20,000 feet."

^^ CFT's on an F-16 and it still wouldn't beat that.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests