Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 04:18

Spurts, let me simplify my request then. What percentage tracking distance reduction or raw numbers would occur if EPAWSS was jamming an APG-82 ? I'm just trying to see a rough comparison against the Zaslon-M with a modern AESA with regards to jamming efficacy.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5208
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 05:46

Okay, so from what I am getting from the calculator, EPAAWS would reduce the detection and tracking ranges of one Eagle from another by 4%, not all that much. Meanwhile I am showing an F-35 doing cooperative jamming as being able to reduce the ability of a red eagle from finding a blue eagle by 52%
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 06:25

Why so much better performance for the F-35 ? Are you solely calculating for noise jamming as EPAWSS will primarily use deception jamming.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5208
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 08:17

It's because only the Barracuda suite has been able to claim jamming an APG-77. A Barracuda can "generate a wormhole" through IADS radar coverage for 4th gen to slip through. a Barracuda can blind a red F-16 from seeing a blue F-16. As far as I am concerned the Barracuda is two tech levels beyond the EPAAWS, or any other host ECM system. The ability to "generate a wormhole" and blind an F-16 means that there is still noise jamming, but it is more subtle, more capable. Deception jamming only gives a false target, it doesn't stop you from being seen.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Sep 2019, 10:26

Thanks again. So in conclusion you are just considering the noise jamming efficacy when referring to jamming even though deception jamming would produce false tracking too. Barracuda efficacy is due primarily to using the APG-81 as its transmitting antenna. EPAWSS is actually the later BAE technology.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 10:37

southerncross wrote:Of course, but it will decelerate strongly if forced to maneuver and besides will have difficulties to find the necessary lift to turn. Or maybe the best way to fight missiles of lofted trajectory is to remain low?

Spurt has taken into account the effect of deceleration when missiles maneuver, even the fins turning are considered

southerncross wrote:Sorry, what was the source of those graphs again? CFD-based analysis from other sources does not match that data.
Honestly I need to research the AIM-120D more, the range jump (essentially doubled) from earlier versions without engine change is far from clear to me. Also I need to understand what is the useful range of AAMs against maneuvering targets, it seems to be a far cry from marketing data.

It is done by Spurt, He modeling standard atmosphere from sea level to 130,000ft and CFD based wave drag profile for missiles from subsonic to above Mach 3 came from a study. Size and propellant load of missiles came from miniZAP file. Then he simulates the guidance logic.
AFAIK, there is no other simulation of AIM-120D apart from the one done by Spurt. His results have been very consistant with flight manual data and he is an aero engineer so I trust him.
But, tbh, your skepticism of AIM-120D range is normal, I and even Spurt had the same opinion before the simulation is ran.

southerncross wrote:But then they solved the issue with Russian missiles right? If not, why to buy so many of them?

Because Indian will also have Rafale and Meteor.
Furthermore, R-27ER range is good.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 954
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 15:02

Just admit it. The Feb 2019 air conflict clearly shows that the AIM120 out-ranges R-77, by a significant margin. End of the line.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 16:14

gta4 wrote:Just admit it. The Feb 2019 air conflict clearly shows that the AIM120 out-ranges R-77, by a significant margin. End of the line.

Even without that incident, Russian declassified chart of AIM-120A/B and Vympel R-77 chart show a significant advantage in favor of AIM-120B.
7F8EDA2A-BF09-4F09-B532-44AA0A2B598C.png
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 17:18

garrya wrote:It is done by Spurt, He modeling standard atmosphere from sea level to 130,000ft and CFD based wave drag profile for missiles from subsonic to above Mach 3 came from a study. Size and propellant load of missiles came from miniZAP file. Then he simulates the guidance logic.
AFAIK, there is no other simulation of AIM-120D apart from the one done by Spurt. His results have been very consistant with flight manual data and he is an aero engineer so I trust him.
But, tbh, your skepticism of AIM-120D range is normal, I and even Spurt had the same opinion before the simulation is ran.

Ok, I will look into that carefully. There is C5 simulation online which I think was also posted here that shows ranges around 100 km even with lofting. As I said, I need to a minimum of research into that before I can form an opinion.

Because Indian will also have Rafale and Meteor.
Furthermore, R-27ER range is good.

Yes, as far as I know they didn't even have updated versions of the missiles and that is why they bought massively when reality reminded them that real capabilities demand real spending.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5208
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 18:10

southerncross wrote:There is C5 simulation online which I think was also posted here that shows ranges around 100 km even with lofting. As I said, I need to a minimum of research into that before I can form an opinion.

The loft angle and loft logic have a huge impact on range. I based my missile model on the C5 and then increased range through lofting changes only.
"Spurts"

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

swiss

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 20:29

marsavian wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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.

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


First, BAE's claim that the Typhoon's RCS is "second only to the the F-22" is pure advertisement fluff.
Second the Rafale's air intake inlet is serpentine in design... perhaps more so than the Typhoons...

Image


Yes, I fully agree the claim that the Typhoon's RCS is "second only to the the F-22" is a bold overstatement and above all propaganda/advertising BS (or at best it's a statement based on very old info), specially when you have aircraft among the 4.5th gen like the Super Hornet which apparently have far more extensive RCS reduction measures compared to the Typhoon.
Like I previously said in several posts around these forums, I strongly believe and bet that the best 4.5 gen fighter aircraft in terms of RCS is the Super Hornet which is second only to the F-22 and F-35 when it comes to western fighter aircraft.

Regarding the comparison between the Rafale and Typhoon in terms of RCS, I can see another advantage on the Rafale's side, which is the usage of sawtooth edges/surfaces such as the one that can clearly be seen in the picture above posted by charlielima223 (and which I quoted above). The Typhoon doesn't seem to have any of these kind of surfaces and they should be vital for any aircraft intended to have a low RCS - just look at any "pure stealth" aircraft like the F-22, F-35, B-2 and the retired F-117, they all have sawtooth edges/surfaces! I believe this tells us alot.

On the other hand I also agree with marsavian's assessment regarding the non-retractable refuel boom. Some here say that the RCS of the Rafale's non-retractable refuel boom shouldn't be very high but nonetheless it should increase the Rafale's RCS somehow.
With all of this in mind and according to my beliefs, I would rank the 4.5th gen fighter aircraft in terms of having the lowest to higher RCS, the following way:
1- Super Hornet
2- Rafale
3- Typhoon

The Rafale has a bigger RCS problem than its refuel boom and that is its vertical radar dish which will reflect right back any radar waves. Even the current Captor-M can be stowed in an angled stealth mode if Pirate IRST is primarily being used. Typhoon really is the overall cleaner design from an RCS pov despite all the details you mention on Rafale.


I think its a very bad idea to stowed an MSA Radar in a combat situation. :wink: As Hornetfinn mention, the RCS of the EF is at least 1m2 thanks to is moving Radar dish. So Rics Ranking seems very likely to me. Although the differences are so small, it dosen't seems to matter in a combat configuration.

BTW according UAC the The RCS Reduction for Su-35 is roughly 1/6 to his predecessor (20m2).

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 074_1.html

Sukhoi’s FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”



https://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/li ... n-features

The Sukhoi Design Bureau, in cooperation with academics and industry researchers, discovered ways to radically (by more than 5-6 times) reduce the airplane’s radar signature, which significantly reduces the range of its detection by enemy airborne radars and ground radar stations.


That would be an RSC of 3-4m2 clean.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 21:11

I think its a very bad idea to stowed an MSA Radar in a combat situation. :wink: As Hornetfinn mention, the RCS of the EF is at least 1m2 thanks to is moving Radar dish. So Rics Ranking seems very likely to me.


Not if you are tracking through IRST especially as a pair where range can be triangulated also. Captor-E can be moved but if always at an upward/downwards angle means it can be used fully stealthy head-on, Typhoon has specific EMCON settings. I agree in air to ground mode stores will inflate the RCS but in air to air mode after EFTs are dropped it could make a difference head on, remembering that all Rafales have vertical radar antenna due to lack of space in the nose to angle them in a stealthy mode.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141127103 ... nsors.html



Offline

swiss

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post23 Sep 2019, 21:59

marsavian wrote:
I think its a very bad idea to stowed an MSA Radar in a combat situation. :wink: As Hornetfinn mention, the RCS of the EF is at least 1m2 thanks to is moving Radar dish. So Rics Ranking seems very likely to me.


Not if you are tracking through IRST especially as a pair where range can be triangulated also. Captor-E can be moved but if always at an upward/downwards angle means it can be used fully stealthy head-on, Typhoon has specific EMCON settings. I agree in air to ground mode stores will inflate the RCS but in air to air mode after EFTs are dropped it could make a difference head on, remembering that all Rafales have vertical radar antenna due to lack of space in the nose to angle them in a stealthy mode.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141127103 ... nsors.html





I assume, you would never only rely on IRST. Its like looking through a straw, and its very short ranged, compare to a radarsystem. I agree, with an AESA Radar you can let the dish in an angled position. Thanks to his electronic steering beam. But with his current MSA Radar, you have to move the dish to cover the frontal sector.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 01:44

Yes Captor-M will be moved from side to side, up or down, but it will still spend less time in the vertical position than the fixed RBE2. Any Captor will be more stealthy than any RBE2 variant.
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post24 Sep 2019, 08:33

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The loft angle and loft logic have a huge impact on range. I based my missile model on the C5 and then increased range through lofting changes only.


JaeSan concur me think
AIM-120D : Upgrade of missile w/o change of hardware
I have move on to the comparison between range-maximized version of the four models.

- Baseline(14s) and 107s burn-booster of CUDA+Booster
- AIM-120C with initial climb is assumed as AIM-120D
- Generic Meteor type missile with initial climb

Initial climb trajectory is given as certain time of climb with certain angle. Indeed each missile reached different altitude depending on their climb capability.

Result is interesting that assumed AIM-120C having higher climb rate could achieve long range at the given trajectory. Its lower drag and high-altitude climb makes good synergy impact on its range performance. Although this result cannot ignore 100% of possibility of highly maneuverable CUDA+Booster, long-ranged AIM-120C, in the pure kinematic range view, has potential without taking risk of complex booster-ed missile.

AIM-120D(?) is the only candidate having similar range of Meteor at certain condition, then I could understand why some decision makers choose less-risky AIM-120D rather than complex long-range missile candidates.



** In real world, speed of Meteor would not reach hypersonic range because Meteor is throttle-changeable missile. But, still my simulation does not include that function (Future version probably consider it)

Fig34.JPG

Fig35.JPG

Fig36.JPG

Fig37.JPG

http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/05 ... art-3.html
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests