Rysi

Impossible unless the F/A-22 was equipped with fully 3D TVC (which it's not). Not that it really matters, IMO 2D is sufficient for most combat situations at this time. Undoubtedly the design will differ from the diagram shown, but all information points to a fighter that will be at least between MiG-29 and Su-27 size, and I'm betting more towards the latter especially now that MiG has stated that they are working on a fifth-generation MiG-29 sized fighter. They can afford the current upgrades to the Flanker fleet, as well the new Su-32s, Mi-28s, etc. so I see no reason for why they could not afford a new fighter in 2010+. Anyway as long as India and China can afford it they will produce it. I could say the same thing about the Comanche or A-12. The Su-35 was developed in the late 80s and was not really needed as the Su-27 was certainly capable of holding its own versus any other fighter of the day. With the F/A-22 finally appearing this is no longer the case and so a counter must be developed, both for national defense and as an export item to match the F/A-22 and JSF. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by that Drago? I happen to be of a certain nationality myself... :icon_wink

Note that I did not say anything on the system's operational status. The TacOps officer clearly had no idea that the system "was not working properly" (which was the claim by the Bahrain tech guys). How the system was "not working properly" and yet appeared to function normally for the crew is a curiosity. As always with these things, you can believe whatever you want (either that there really was a problem with the system or that this was just used as an excuse for the failure of the system in intercepting the missiles). As for Brindel's demotion (or whatever it was, I can't remember), the USN needed a scapegoat and got one, IMO. Someone needed to pay for the lives of 37 Americans, and it couldn't be Saddam since he was an ally… I think you've missed the point… which is that claims that are even beyond the alleged capabilities of the system (like taking down 50 supersonic sea-skimmers) carry little weight. Older systems (although in some cases the same or older models of Phalanx or SM-1/SM-2) were unable to cope with situations that were within the supposed capabilities of those systems. Whether AEGIS can do what some say it can is in serious question due to this and many other reasons. Simply put, I don't believe anyone here has any authority to say that the Ticonderoga in Lockon should be able to successfully intercept a Moskit all the time (let alone several dozen simultaneously) or never at all. There is no real-world precedent, and so ED has to make up their own minds based on the data they have. zzzspace believes the system can do even better than claimed. I am pessimistic due to the failures of previous systems, the fact that these newer ASMs are specifically designed to defeat AEGIS, as well as the other reasons I've noted. Either the Ticonderoga has a huge invisible radar mast that only you seem to know about, or we are living on different planets. Here's a fact for you: get a calculator and do some math! Not mentioning the relationship between the SM-1 and SM-2… you're actually helping my argument here. There is no reason to believe that an SM-2 could consistently intercept any of the mentioned supersonic ASMs when it has never been faced with anything in their class. Not only do you fail to realize that the maneuvers begin well outside of the CIWS range, but that range/fuel is virtually a non-factor for a 300 km ranged ASM. You do know that they aren't 300 km ranged just to shoot at that range? Nobody does… fuel for 300 km is needed for the waypoints and maneuvers required in a sophisticated attack on a CVBG. Not only that, any decent modern ASM can be equipped with a (relatively) cheap CW detector and perform maneuvers automatically when it detects an attack. Yeah, from you. One only needs to look at the first page of this thread to see that you have a total lack of knowledge in this topic. Let me quote: Fortunately JJ was around to correct you on that… Oh and this is the last post of yours I'm going to bother responding to.

Irrelevant. It was facing a pair of dated subsonic ASMs fired by an obvious threat that was tracked and identified by both the OHP and an AWACs --- a situation well within the alleged capabilities of the OHP’s defensive systems. Furthermore, statements made by the TacOps officer clearly indicated that the Phalanx system was readied against the potent threat. Anyway, the point is that the claim that a Tico could deal with 50 supersonic sea-skimmers simultaneously is not rational. Even discounting the previous failures against small numbers of massively inferior ASMs, as well as the extreme difficulty of successful interception of an incoming Mach2+ low-rcs sea-skimming missile that is performing terminal evasive maneuvers, there is simply no chance a Tico could even launch a fraction of the necessarily interceptors in the handful of seconds between the time the missiles are detected coming over the horizon (if they even are) and impact. Unfortunately, Lockon doesn’t model curvature of the earth and so sea-skimmers are detected and engaged much further out than they could be IRL, which balances things out somewhat against the limited use of interceptor missiles in game (which is probably done for performance reasons).

Just like an OHP should have no problem intercepting (not to mention detecting) a pair of incoming Exocets :biggrin:

Yeah, now that I look at it again I can see that the Mirage could actually be a good option as well. And while it might be more expensive right now, its operating costs will certainly be far lower than that of the Su-27 so that could balance things out in the long term. Still, like a lot of other fighter deals I think the final choice will probably depend most on politics over anything else. Thanks for the AMRAAM export info

Nice flame. Brahmos is real and is entering service with the Indian Airforce. This is a fact. The S-400 is also real and has already entered service. Maybe you should stop spending all your time drooling over AEGIS and check the news. This is where our discussion ends. I'm not going to argue with someone who believes 100% of what the USAF says and believes that anything the Serbs said was propaganda.

Your point is wrong. Both were hit by Exocets. And the Stark was armed with modern US Antiship missile defenses. Then you haven't seen anything. Modern ASMs are not Harpoons. And you're still not adding this to the difficulty of hitting a Mach 2+ sea-skimming, low-rcs target. My point is completely relevant. NMD is a high-speed vs. high-speed missile defense system. Please state where I made the point that the AIM-120 will be going Mach 4 at sea level… Provided you hit. And if you miss by even a fraction of a second the missile is already several hundred meters away. Again, USN warships utilize RIM-7, not AIM-54 for a reason... Not operationally it wasn't. This is a well documented fact. Not from what I've seen… slightly more than double. It still doesn't change anything that I've said. And you are seriously overestimating AEGIS, and forgetting that newer ASMs are designed to defeat it. If NMD or Patriot success vs high speed targets are anything to go by, then I'm not optimistic of it's potential success rate vs. a Brahmos in the least. Whether something is "designed" to handle a threat and whether it can actually succeed at this are two different things altogether. That missile is much more modern and deadly. And a Su-30 will definitely be able to carry at least two Brahmos. Four is being considered as a serious possibility. And ASMs have come a long way since the 70s. Expect anything shot at by a Brahmos to die. Quickly. And your credibility is also zero as you have failed to present any evidence or argument to counter what I've said.

It is slightly poorer than the F/A-18C… and I really don't see why you think the F/A-18C is not a "stela" performer? Sure it's no MiG-29, but for a maritime fighter it is sufficient. And the "poor" (underpowered) performance of the F-14 is also legendary… so what's your point? All the data shows that while it might be a touch slower (questionable vs. an F-14 with a max AIM-54 load) it is more agile. It is important, but far less important than having superior maneuverability. Remember we're talking about target speeds of 600+ meters per second here; the margin for a 'miss distance' is huge. Note the following: "Data presented on this list was obtained during extensive research by T. Cooper and F. Bishop, the results of which can be found in the following publications:" All by two individuals... with no independent confirmation. Judging by some of their other claims (such as the alleged IDF MiG-29 shootdown which even the Israelis have denied) and some of Mr. Cooper's quite bluntly biased posts on the other boards (like Key Publishing) several years back I'm quite doubtful of some of their claims. You can believe what you want. You are talking about something different than I am. We are in no way discussing a "hit to kill missile." Let me put this another way… given the choice between utilizing two missiles with identical performance parameters but with one having a larger warhead, I would without hesitation select the one with the larger warhead. However, in the AIM-54 vs. AIM-120 situation we have one missile that appears to have a decent pk. and adequate warhead against highly maneuverable small targets vs. the former where that is in serious doubt. Why do you think USN warships employ the RIM-7 and not the AIM-54? Why do you think the USN is going with the SEARAM (an AIM-9 derivative with a tiny warhead)? No. The Stark was a US AEGIS cruiser that was hit by a pair of Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage in 1987. Various. Some involve programmed maneuvers, others maneuver during final approach, still others perform extremely violent pop-up maneuvers. Look up the P-700 or 3M80, for example (and these are a generation behind Brahmos). I'm not getting into an argument on the alleged effectiveness of the AIM-54 vs. modern fighters. I've already presented my points above… I think the real world evidence is in my favor. You seriously underestimate the capabilities of modern electronic warfare equipment. They are designed to work in situations where "there are -so- many signals that the RWR s ae gonan go nuts trying to figure out what's going on." No doubt range is an advantage. I've already stated that before, and countered with the disadvantages. The Brahmos site is quite devoid of information unfortunately. Many sources claim it is "stealth" because it has a 'low radar signature' for a missile. Considering even dated 70's era cruise missiles had RCS values well below 0.5 m^2, and the Brahmos has been said to have an order of a magnitude lower RCS, you end up with something around a bird-sized RCS -- definitely classifying it as "stealth." The US has never (to my knowledge) put into service any supersonic ASMs. They haven't really felt a need to, as the only opponent with a powerful enough surface fleet to possible justify them was the USSR… and then the primary threat from them was submarines, not surface vessels. Russia / USSR have had various types of supersonic ASMs for decades. See some of the stories of the Serbian pilots who got downed, for example. How early is early? Before those sea-skimming fighters can launch their 200+km ranged ASMs?

Interception of subsonic anti-ship missiles has proven to be a serious problem in the past. The Sheffield and Stark incidents are good examples of this. Interception of modern, sea-skimming, supersonic, 200+km ranged ASMs is a monumental task. Modern ASMs (at least the Russian ones) perform evasive maneuvers… so no, they don't go straight. Much easier said than done. If this was true then the NMD would be fully operational and have a 100% success rate against test targets. Keep in mind that we are discussing capabilities against both fighters and missiles here… Against a maneuvering missile they are needed. Against fighters it is certainly needed. Today, you want to get the fighter before he launches that killer ASM. The AIM-54 is not going to be doing Mach 5 at sea level. I never stated these things as advantages for the AIM-120 vs. missiles. Although against fighters these are advantages. Like I've said, a bigger warhead is not particularly relevant at supersonic speeds, as compared to superior maneuverability. An added 5 or 10 m to your blast radius means almost nothing against a small target that's moving at 600+ meters per second if you even slightly "miss." You're far better off having a more maneuverable missile than hoping for a fragmentation kill against such a target. But much older… and I've never seen anything to suggest that it is superior to that of the AIM-120C. I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is significantly slower in any way. Max speeds with AAMs are described as around M1.6 -> M1.8. And it apparently has a superior T/W ratio. And superior maneuverability, particularly at high AoA. Last I heard standard air superiority / fleet defense loadout was either 6x or 8xAIM-120C + triple fuel tanks. Seems to be fast enough and ranged enough for the USN. And I still haven't seen anything to suggest that it's any slower with this loadout than the F-14. No. It either carries none, two, or six if it’s willing to waste a few million dollars dumping them before landing. These are the documented, standard loadouts that were used by the USN. Uhhh… I think you've missed the fact that we are talking about the APG-79-equipped F/A-18E… As I've already said, the longer-range bomber threat is no longer the primary concern. And the F-14 isn't going to get into R-77/R-27ER/R-33/R-37 range also? What does the pilot expect to do, Maddog his AIM-54's and hope for the best? And after all those Su-27's avoid your AIM-54s, you're going to run back to the carrier, or whatever is left of it. There are no "bombers" anymore. Most larger fighters can carry supersonic ASMs. You're not going to have time to "retreat to AEGIS range" because those fighters would have already launched their 200-300 km ranged ASMs at that point. This is not 1970. Doubtful. AEGIS sure didn't help the Stark vs. dated Exocets. Against something like Brahmos? You had better be praying. Huh? Where did I say that the F-14 doesn't have a datalink? Today, it absolutely is. Which is exactly how a modern day engagement would look. For that, I would agree with you – a quarter of a century ago. Too bad for the F-14 that the escort has now suddenly also become a primary target. A far more dangerous primary target.

20m is great but for stationary / slow moving targets. A fighter jet or missile will be moving at several hundred meters per second, and in that situation maneuverability is far more important than a few more meters worth of blast radius. This really all depends on how early the bandits are detected. Notching was just one method as I said, but in this case it is still fairly useful. Remember at the ranges (60 NM) we are looking at reacquiring will probably be useless if you don't catch him again with a few seconds (provided he isn't notching very early on). And by the time you do, he will likely be in range to fire at you anyway. Beyond this you have to remember that even if the 54 acquires the target will be warned and will take a last-second very-high G maneuver… Serbian pilots were able to avoid AIM-120s on occasion doing this (and this was w/o RWR), so I feel there is a very good chance of successful evasion vs. an AIM-54, especially at low-level by a fighter with far more modern (and functioning) equipment. His ability to detect TWS, fighter-missile datalinks, and so on will depend completely on his RWR gear so again, we can work up a large number of scenarios depending on the target's equipment. I'll note though that if your WSO is focused on one target then you've got a problem since your other targets could be slipping by… Why isn't the backup taking care of the other guy coming at the carrier? I'm assuming we're not talking about Carrier + F-14's vs. one bandit but Carrier + F-14's vs. an entire attack group. Or one F-14 vs. one reasonably modern fighter. Well this is assuming your AIM-54 hit and you weren't fired back at... I'm skeptical on both points. Remember the F-14s engaging the bandits will be equipped with two AIM-54s at best. And anyway, this is getting somewhat off-topic… I'm not going to debate a theoretical attack on a carrier group here (especially when the composition and armament of the attacking force has not been decided.) What I'm saying is: - Defending vs. a missile / fighter attack will be much easier with a platform that is equipped with 8 to 12 AIM-120s than one with 6 (at very best) AIM-54s (and 2 or 0 in most cases). - I'll take a lesser ranged missile (AIM-120) if that missile has vastly superior maneuverability as well as superior electronics and onboard radar, and especially if I get far more of them. - I'll also take the earlier detection (as well as incredible sweep time) w/ the APG-79 as that will allow for more time to get into optimal launch position. - Due to maintenance, reliability, and cost, there will likely be considerably more F/A-18E's available than there would be F-14's. While they're not facing one single powerful opponent (USSR), there are now far more nations that are rapidly gaining the capability to seriously threaten a US carrier group – but not with bombers but antiship missiles --- hence the switch to the AIM-120 over the AIM-54. China for example already possesses fighter bombers with supersonic anti-ship missiles. Once they equip air-launched versions of the Moskit they will be an even greater threat. India will soon have the Russian / Indian designed Brahmos + Su-30 combination. The Brahmos is a ~Mach 3, stealth, self-guiding, auto-maneuvering ASM (and can allegedly be mounted with multiple warheads as well)… you're going to need AESA + AIM-120s to have any chance at all to take one out (and even that's slim). In fact I'd say the threat to USN warships now is greater than ever. Detecting and destroying a Tu-22 is a much easier task than finding and taking out a Brahmos... and you've got about 300 seconds from launch to do it. Who's to say Iran won't acquire a couple of Brahmos' and strap them onto their Su-24's? Like I've said, a slightly larger blast radius of a few meters is going to mean far less than greater maneuverability (and missile logic and onboard radar) vs. an evasive target moving at many hundreds of meters per second.

But not to South America (at least as of the last time I checked). I know Chile was interested in F-16's but only if equipped with AMRAAM, and I'm not sure if this deal went through or not. Anyone know? If it didn't, then I doubt they will sell AMRAAM to that region, at least until Venezuela gets their MiG-29's (which will probably be RVV-AE equipped). (and yes, I realize that Peru's MiG-29's also have RVV-AE but the US seems to have ignored that for whatever reason)

I have serious doubts… Even modern RIM-7s and Phalanx have had difficulties in downing super-sonic ASMs in controlled tests. I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying it's just not likely to happen with any reasonable certainty. And I'm saying that the AIM-120, AESA-equipped F/A-18E stands a far better chance of pulling this off --- it'll detect the missile earlier and engage with the far more maneuverable and more modern AIM-120. There's a lot of controversy surrounding what really happened with the Iranian F-14's and their effectiveness in the Iran-Iraq war. Suffice it to say, none of those alleged kills have ever been proven. That's not to say they didn't happen – they could have, it's just that it's not really a good argument to use in favor of the AIM-54 / F-14 because it could very well be BS and has never been fully verified by any serious (and neutral) intelligence service. Yes, but are you really going to have time to re-arm and launch any significant number of F-14's before it's too late? No doubt. It'll force the target to take evasive action, and this is nice, but the problem is 1 - whether or not it will hit is uncertain at best – for example he may Doppler notch you (and at those ranges he safely can) and there goes your AIM-54… 2 - you've got only one more left (in the average 2xAIM-54 scenario here) 3 – you're stuck with AIM-7s if he gets any closer (he probably has longer ranged SARH or ARH missiles) 4 – theoretically, in very simple terms of price tag per aircraft and missile … you're probably outnumbered, badly. The fact that we haven't seen any real long range AAMs equipped on anything but the F-14 and MiG-31 just shows that these weapons do not appear to be worth their cost, weight, and drag penalties… The AIM-54's possible successors have all been cancelled. The R-33 and R-37 seem to have had no export success for the Russians. The USAF rejected the AIM-54 for the F-15... It seems that there are just too many defensive measures a fighter at those ranges can do to avoid an AIM-54 / R-33 vs. the cost and reliability of such missiles to make them of any real use against anything but bombers or AWACs, or as an airspace-denial weapon. Note that I'm saying that the evidence points to this (and not that I necessarily believe that these missiles are ineffective myself, personally, I'm rather neutral on the matter). China already has them (FL-7). And where I disagree with you again, is on the effectiveness of the F-14 compared to the F/A-18E vs. antiship missiles and fighters.

IMO, Brazil needs CAS aircraft & helicopters more than they do fighters, I just don't see any potential air threats around it at this time (unless they're just looking for something to use against airborne smugglers…). I feel that going for more AMX's and getting some Mi-24's on the side would be the best idea. Having said that, if they are seriously looking at one of those three fighters then the Su-27 is the best choice. Brazil is a huge country and needs a long-range fighter with powerful radar to effectively police its airspace. Also, while it lacks precision A/G weapons it has the best growth potential of the three (could be upgraded to Su-27SM status in the future). The Mirage just seems too pricy. The F-16 would be a bargain but along with the mentioned political strings, I seriously doubt the Americans would sell weapons like AMRAAM so its capabilities would be rather limited (especially in the air defense role if they didn't get AMRAAM).

The capability of the AIM-54 / AWG-9 combo against fighter aircraft has always been in serious question, even by people in the USN, (some have even said they believe that the "successful" AIM-54 tests vs. drones were staged) and the abandonment of the AIM-54 (as well as replacement programs for it) several years before the F-14s end their service lends some credibility to the claim that it wasn't all it was made out to be. Anyway, the F-14 is being replaced by the F/A-18E/F for a variety of reasons. The F/A-18E possesses far more modern avionics, superior radar, more hardpoints, LO characteristics, and is far, far cheaper to operate. It is a little-known fact that while the F-14 was capable of carrying six AIM-54s, it almost never did in regular service due to very high risk when landing with a full AIM-54 load. Hence, it normally flew with either two or no AIM-54s throughout its service with the USN. Now, with this in mind, which of the two is more capable of fleet defense in the modern day? A Tomcat equipped with 2xAIM-54 and a handful of AIM-7s and AIM-9s, or an F/A-18E with superior AESA radar equipped with either 8xAIM-120 (regular loadout for patrols) or 12xAIM-120 (max loadout if all pylons and twin-rail launchers are utilized)? Keep in mind that potential targets are not Tu-22's anymore but something like a JH-7. I think it's also safe to say that the APG-79 / AIM-120 combo has a far greater chance of detecting and intercepting high speed, sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. In the strike role its main weakness is range, but IMO this is made up by superior avionics, more hardpoints, and LO design. In the end, you have a superior package (for the required mission) over the F-14, no matter what the Tomcat fanboys say. :P

The Ironhand anti-Amraam tactic (I guess that’s what it’s called now) should work 100% of the time - I can’t remember the last time I was downed by a 54. Keep the F-14 locked, fly low and fast, perform high-G turn into AIM-54 when it’s close (see your RWR). AIM-7s can however be a slight problem if you are fighting two F-14s alone. IMO, for a more interesting and difficult fight, try going up against two spread-out MiG-31s – definitely fun. Would be even better if the MiG-31s radar was modeled properly… Heheh, if you think Lockon’s AIM-54 is overmodelled, you haven’t played Falcon 4. :wink: