marcos

Quite simply because they need to make the RCS ball-park to open the air-to-air game up. Against RCSs of several m^2, stealth aircraft have a big advantage with RCSs of 1/200m^2 (F-35) and 1/2500m^2 F-22. However, it you can bring RCS down to less than 1/20m^2, with EW and a good radar and EO/IR detection method, it moves the opponents close enough together to make the fight more interesting. An Irbis-E can detect a 1m^2 target up to 300km away. 400km for 3m^2. F-22 AESA can detect 1m^2 at 200+km. IR missile launch detection isn't going to work at that range and neither is optical tracking. Bring things down to <80km though and it will give you a chance to reply. Furthermore AWACS and ground radar can see F-15 sized RCSs at something like 700km or more. That's not acceptable - things seeing you that are too far away to shoot at. A Typhoon or Rafale can't be seen until an AWACS is within Meteor range. The same will be true for a PAK-FA wrt R-33/37 etc. China, who knows? The problem with stealth is that the radar equation cares about range to the power of 4 times more than it cares about RCS.

Oh no doubt, but as things stand in 2013 that's the case. What if some 4.5s hang back from radar range, detect the launch and then fire back or fire back based on other planes acquiring the launch and transmitting the lock before they evade. You then have a situation where 4.5s evading the missile aren't the ones guiding it. They could also fire back at the same time. By the time the rear-guard 4.5s come into range, the closest aggressing F-22s who shot first will probably be having issues with a hypersonic fireball chasing them. By having several flanks of 4.5s and superior numbers, you would always have one rear flank of 4.5s out of detection range to fire back whilst the F-22s fire and of course the F-22s don't have IRST to play the same game. You could definitely progress things to IRST ranges using this method and make the experience costly. What about the multi-flank approach above. The range of a Meteor is well beyond the range that a Typhoon is detectable from. 1) Planes don't use the same body-lifting technology. 2) Planes don't do Mach 3-4 except for a rare few, and none have long wings and they generally don't spin whilst they turn. 3) Wave drag, which is very prevalent at these speeds is not reduced by having a high AR 4) Even rare Mach 3+ planes also have to land and fly at low speeds, which is complicated by having too small a wing. Much more. Take a look at a Python 5 and see just how much work the ASRAAM body-lift is doing. Well let's leave the ground out of this again because that's scenario dependent and a bag of worms. AWACS are great big bulky planes RCS 100+m^2(?) that can't currently detect a 4.5 until within Meteor/R-33/R-37/R-172 range. Ref. historical precedents for America defending its own airspace vs historical precedents for it invading other airspace. If they fly in several flanks 30km apart at different altitudes they will. A bit like a 1700s rifle infantry advance, firing over the shoulder of colleagues etc.:D Err... not if the 4.5s do the same. Difficult to gauge how much you can turn without showing your jet-pipes. If the F-35's performance is so great, why is it only spec'd to do Mach 1.0 at SL. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html Yet somehow it has Typhoon beating transonic acceleration despite the fact it can't even manage transonic at SL.:doh: Well, as you say, there is the chance that without IR/EOST the F-22 could just be pointing in the wrong direction. You would hope it would never happen but shit does happen. Stealth is only an advantage if your plane is pointed in the right direction. I'd imagine that they'll reduce speed slightly to achieve the longer range over the C with the same airframe and same basic propulsion method. Indeed (I made it about 120km) but that's an iffy shot from that range with an AMRAAM D. Not possible with C. Remember that the F-35's range isn't really that good and it needs a burner above Mach 1.2 even at optimum altitude. Staying low to avoid SAMs it can't break Mach 1.0. They'll need that advantage. No off-boresight AAMs, no HMS, no LOAL, no INS strap-down on AAMs. It's a 4th gen WVR package wrt weapons and avionics, just like the F-35 is 4th gen wrt performance. F-22 Stealth - 5th Gen Performance - 5th Gen EO/IRST - N/A BVR Avionics - 5th Gen BVR Weapons - 4th Gen WVR Avionics - 4th Gen WVR Weapons - 4th Gen (until 2017) F-35 Stealth - 5th Gen Performance - 5th Gen EO/IRST - 5th Gen BVR Avionics - 5th Gen BVR Weapons - 4th Gen WVR Avionics - 5th Gen WVR Weapons - 4th Gen (until 2017) Typhoon Stealth - 4.5th Gen Performance - 5th Gen EO/IRST - 5th Gen BVR Avionics - 5th Gen (with CAESAR 2013) BVR Weapons - 5th Gen WVR Avionics - 5th Gen WVR Weapons - 5th Gen

To clear this up once and for all.:) On ripple pairs, does RIP QTY = 1 mean 1 pair or just 1? Same question for RIP SGL.

Reading never a strong point? Combat radius - 1900km. That is not with 3 tanks. Probably just the centreline tank. We're talking about range and acceleration here, let's not get into how the limited stealth and AMRAAM capabilities of the F-35 will perform against PIRATE and CAESAR. It may have okay(ish) manoeuvrability at close range but until the AIM-9X comes out (post-2017), it has nothing capable of being cued off-boresight by that expensive helmet. At the end of the day I have the fact that the F-35 can't break supersonic at sea level to back up my claims on acceleration. You have the word of a discredited, sensationalist publication.

I'm sorry that's not the case. There's just a wealth of people that become blind to mathematical reasoning when they see a stealth plane in matt grey. This doesn't mean that the F-35 is bad, it just means that it's a performance compromise. 3 variants in one, designed to deliver with 2x2000lb JDAMs and several AAMs, whilst maintaining stealth. It's clear that with that design, it can't also match the 'near clean' performance of other fighters built without compromise. Well mostly agree. The F-35 is about stealth and avionics. There's no need to make these bullshit performance claims. The same publication suggested that an F-22 without HMS would struggle against 3rd Gen fighters WVR a few days back. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-raptors-need-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-to-take-full-advantage-of-aim-9x-381748/ Everything they say is therefore null and void and the fact an F-22 and Hornet pilot are dubious about their claims on F-35 performance bolsters my position on it. Performance is still relevant but it was a secondary design concern and less important than a strike without being seen. All the people saying 'F-35 hater' are actually 'Typhoon/Everything not F-35/F-22 haters'.

Found this over on F-16 forums and it just makes perfect sense. You see what he's saying. The F-35 performance specification limits it to Mach 1.0 at SL (worse still for B and C) versus Mach 1.2 for the Typhoon. So how the hell can it be faster from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2? It can't even complete the task at some altitudes.

ECM and CM only give you the same chance as the plane you fired on and you won't out-run it, that much is for sure.:D No but it's probably AMRAAM C to AMRAAM A. What I said was that you're up against more planes, and therefore more missiles. Throw a coin once and you have 50% chance of tails, throw it 4 times and you have a 93.75% chance. Tails being jet-pipes in this case. Nobody said they don't have an advantage but it's more like 2:1 not 4:1. The firing solution is that the IRST with slaved optical finds the F-22 at launch. IRST picks up thermal spike, slaved optical system finds contrasting objects in the immediate vicinity, Meteor is launched at that position with INS strap-down with constant updates from the optical track. It may not even be from the same plane you fired on. What you in fact have is 4 planes firing 4 missiles with 16 missiles coming back. Don't worry though, not all planes have good IRST, even the F-22 doesn't. Not so. As we've already discussed at length, using a larger surface area to generate lift, means a lower kCl^2 term in the drag equation. A narrower body with less protruding surfaces also means less wave drag (which is actually relevant in this case:D). ASRAAM is also faster than AIM-9. Depends on what EW support you have. It would be risky to fly EW/AWACS with Meteors about though. There may or may not be but my point is made. As a wise man once said, it usually comes from their base. Since when is the F-22 likely to be defending it's own airspace given that it's American? As can the aircraft firing back that could outnumber yours 2:1. Furthermore, the F-35 doesn't have good supercruise performance meaning that it's likely to be on reheat if dashing. But it you have multiple sources in the air and on land, where does that leave you? Especially if those radars are passive like Cassidian's. Turning at all will make their jet heat more visible, especially if it's an asthmatic F-35 trying to escape on reheat. Yeah, I think we've covered that already.:lol: Which is larger than the AMRAAM's envelope for Meteor R-33 or R-37 or R-172. Yes but it's slower and has less range. The F-35 poor manoeuvrability (especially supersonic) and reliance on reheat make it a lesser adversary than the F-22. Irbis-E, CAESAR and other new AESA radars are also capable of seeing 0.01m^2 targets at 90km, so for a 0.005m^2 target that could mean a detection range of 75km (1/R^4) for the F-35 just on radar, which given missile Pk vs range, almost negates its stealth advantage. Just about everything slower than it, i.e. not much. And the adversaries could fire the same number by firing just 3 each in a 2:1 face-off and have missiles left spare, whereas the F-22 would be out, and completely screwed once inside AIM-9 range.

LOL. F-35 fan-boys. The F-15's combat radius is 1900+km. Ferry range with 3 tanks 5500km. http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101 If the F-35's thrust-lift-drag figures were good enough to out-accelerate an F-15 or Typhoon in the transonic range, it likely wouldn't have such mediocre STR now would it?:lol:

What do you think provides the heat for the jet engine combustion chamber? I also heard it's capable of the speed of light.

If it's serving no function, evict it.

LAHAT Fire Control and RBS23 Shorad missile Lockheed Martin Sea Hercules

Aero India 2013 Israeli UAVs

That might explain how the F-35 does it too.

So what is the centreline doing exactly? I find it hilarious how some people are so trusting in its performance.

And given that the F-15 already out-ranges the F-35 on internal fuel (like the Typhoon does), how is making it carry a centreline tank fair?

I've heard that this aircraft, combat loaded, has faster transonic acceleration than an air-to-air configured F-22.

LOL. Mr. LM can race us with his slow-ass plane anytime he likes. And for the record I don't believe an F-35 would beat an F-15 clean or with an AA load, maybe dragging 3 tanks along too though (depends what you mean by combat load). However the Typhoon is faster than the F-15 anyway. Mr.LM is a joker worried about the credibility of his aircraft's performance following recent articles.

If you know physics, you know it's wrong. That simple.:doh: But I also know it's wrong although I can't reveal the exact figure. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html So that's 69 seconds now.

Dogfight training http://www.tvkim.com/watch/1934/kims-picks-real-life-top-gun?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=app&utm_content=2013-02-07-rct-tvkim-c

Primorye, Far East MORE

I'm sure BAE SYSTEMS will race them for pinks if they want to continue talking shit. LM lose, BAE get their company.:lol: Last I heard all their transonic acceleration times had been increased by more time than it takes the Typhoon in total. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/ I don't think it takes the Typhoon 43 seconds in total even with an air-to-air load. I think someone at Lockheed is playing 'let's try recover from bad press'.

You can't escape from a Meteor inside 100km. So long as the missile receives the INS update it can continue tracking. It's far from guaranteed and almost certain to result in a many missiles coming the other way from several data-linked fighters, possibly even targeting the rest of his group if they close by. The ASRAAM has very little drag, as you can tell by looking at it. It generates the bulk of its manoeuvrability through body lifting technology not aero surface. The point is that the F-22 is screwed inside IRST range anyway. It'll be seen and pretty much regardless of where it is at that time, it can be hit. The F-22 by comparison has to be staring right at their target. Against even number yes. But not against poor odds. Well we don't know about other aspects and when closing, there's only one predominant aspect. Can't launched undetected though. Not with a giant thermal spike from the rocket motor. Which missile arrives first could depend on the speed of the missile and the system being used to cue it. Radar is straight ahead only, optical has far great coverage (maybe why the PAK-FA has EO sensors on its side). Well you hit the nail on the head. It's on thing covering up indirect thermal radiation, but turn your nozzles at IRST and it'll have a field day. And by turning away and leaving another plane to guide the missile, your losing your ability to make the most of your numbers, since only one plane is attacking, which bodes badly for a closing encounter. True but I can spin that around and say it's the same for the F-22. Multi-co-ordinated sources in air, space and on the surface change the game completely, which is why I wasn't considering it. Because they're short on numbers and as soon as they turn, and show their nozzles you can bet several missiles will be on them, even assuming that they weren't sent at missile launch. Well I don't suppose a single country (or a country with a Typhoon would try), but the problem is there on a cost vs performance basis. Even more so with an F-35, which isn't anywhere near as stealthy and has poor supersonic manoeuvrability and not very good manoeuvrability in general either. If it gets locked after launch it doesn't matter. When it turns it will get locked. Doesn't make good use of the numbers. It'll be faster at all ranges but especially long ranges. The AMRAAM is an old Sparrow airframe at its core and it doesn't communicate with the launching aircraft to tell it when it has gained a lock or it the intercept was successful. The Meteor tells the Typhoon when it is locked and signals just before intercept. It can be INS guided all the way to the last km if necessary. Complete invisibility would be great, but then again so far it hasn't been needed to achieve victories. If it can manage 4:1. I certainly wouldn't bet on the stealth trainer jet (F-35) making more than 2:1. And I'd bet 2:1 against the F-35 inside 40km. You're still using one aircraft to do both. One aircraft with a very poor range and loiter time and very poor low speed lift. Seriously, what can an F-35 run away from? An Su-25? You can be sure it's greater for a newer missile design. And you can be sure that Pk goes up with higher missile quantities fired from more aircraft.:)