marcos

The Su-24 was never really fast enough, or with enough carrying capacity to be in the F-111 league. The Su-34 isn't really a perfect fit either but then there isn't a perfect fit for the magnificant F-111.

Sigh, all these claims again. It's only faster if you load an F-15/F-16 up with tanks. Talking about the F-15's track record is really pointless. If an adult pub football team played primary school teams, they would always win. That doesn't mean the pub side is any good. A lot of the F-15's adversaries were unequipped as regards modern EW, avionics, training etc. Hell the Harrier FSR2 is undefeated as far as track record goes (23:0). Because I've also posted up umpteen charts to prove the matter in the past and I'm not about to re-do all that again. Somewhere in this thread or another F-35 thread you will find the original F-35 specification, which hasn't been met, and STR graphs for the F-15 and F-16 that show them to be better than the F-35 specification when running without large external stores. However, load them up with 2 2,000lb bombs and/or drop tanks and then things reverse. That was the design intent of the F-35 and it does that well. All-in-all it's a good aircraft, I just wish people would stop pretending that it scores A+ in every single category. It's performance is very much 4th gen. This argument has already been done to death. Well I guess it's lost then. There's no reason why a good PESA radar can't outperform an average AESA radar. It will always be more detectable and locatable though.

Oh. Don't see it having any more range than a MICA (80km). The warhead is actually only about 10% of an AMRAAM's length. It's useful as a halfway house between an AIM-9 and an AIM-120 but it's no AMRAAM replacement. Then again, when you look at statistics regarding kills from >70-80km, i.e. a blank sheet, that may not be important. It's radar guided, not IR, as far as I know (and based on nose section of mock-up), so its OBS performance may not be in-line with that of an AIM-9X, MICA IR, Python 5 or ASRAAM either. It's a stealth plane BVR pot-shot missile that can be carried in sufficient quantities to mitigate the affects of missing from extended ranges.

USS Essex

26 Regiment Royal Artillery AS90 vehicles on the move during Exercise Steel Sabre Soldiers co-ordinating operations on Exercise Steel Sabre Bombardier Sam Fletcher operates the Desert Hawk, a hand-launched unmanned aerial vehicle, during Exercise Steel Sabre

F-16

e4PqubDjizA sTQ_rgdhzxo UNUodOiMpyI i8fC7bxDYnA bLTqTMSAOjA

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1682391&postcount=199 :)

Laser guided Zuni 127mm rocket.

I'd have said it's an SA-7 Grail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_2

You can't compare a JSF to an Su-34. An Su-34 is more of an F-111. I realise that the JSF was designed as a strike fighter and yes, I agree, that probably is why its performance is a compromise. It will rely on stealth and data fusion where others will rely on performance.

Talking about later flankers. FFS. Do we really have to have these tit-for-tat arguments? The F-35 is a stealth aircraft and compromises were made for stealth. Links have already been posted with academics questioning whether its original spec. was good enough and it failed to meet that spec. It's a stubby aircraft with small wings and a so-so TWR. Performance is not its thing but don't worry it will still be very capable because of its stealth and sensors. If there's anything new you'd like to add put it in your next response. Yes, it uses various different frequencies and processing algorithms to cut through noise. When you talk about power you have to be careful whether you're talking about input or output power though. AFAIK, the Irbis-E still has better range than the AN/APG-77. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irbis-E

Oh absolutely. It will be very good but it does have significant shortfalls.

He probably thinks Allah guided the missile as that shot never used to work with an RPG.

More information on missionized gun pod. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADouglasParker.pdf

What about a Flanker? Have a look at the other thread. What do we really mean by BVR? The F-35 struggles against regular 4th gen wrt performance nevermind 4.5th gen. I know it's not everything but one day it could be important. I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. They're certainly an improvement but nowhere have I seen anything like 16 times mentioned. Even a 16 times increase in transmitted power would only double range. I don't know either, just picked up on pilot gossip. It was referenced in a few publications like The Aviationist. I don't think the Typhoon can pin-point the source all the time but it knows it's there, so it isn't 'passive' in its affect.

Namenlos. How durable are those things? The fire rate seems extraordinary for a single barrel, single chamber cannon. I guess it eliminates spool time and for a weapon that isn't a primary armament, I guess longevity isn't so important.

If you waste all your missiles not hitting things that's a little counter-productive and expensive. And how I defeat SAMs on DCS.:D

For the same reason that Harrier FSR2s went 23:0 against Mirages in the Falklands. The other aircraft were flown by incompetent asshats. Umm no. Absorption and scattering also affects IR. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/IR_prop/IR_prop.htm http://what-when-how.com/remote-sensing-from-air-and-space/atmospheric-absorption-scattering-and-turbulence-visible-imagery-remote-sensing/ T^4 sound like a big term until you apply the e^(-BR) term for 800 miles(800*1600m) and 100 miles with the values given in the first link for B (e.g. 1*10^-4 per m). Your other assertions about AESA against modern L-Band and ESM are also flawed. AESA may prevent the other aircraft getting a fix, but it'll still detect that there's something there. Typhoon could detect when Raptors locked them BVR. Your portrayal of AESA as a passive-like system is false. Your assertion that radar will remain the prime sensing element is unfounded and serves only to further your argument. With more and more aircraft attempting to deceive radar, that will only expedite the move to more reliable systems which have already began. Radar is already poor for VLO because even when you are in range, the coverage is so narrow it's unhelpful, especially compared to 360deg EO systems or wide angle IRST.

I have asked on several forums what the longest confirmed A-A kill is and no one has been able to confirm anything that's even truly BVR. In the Gulf of Sidra incident in 1989, 3 missile shots were taken with AIM-7s from 14nm, 10nm and 5nm. Only the last one connected. EDIT: And this document doesn't show any beyond 16nm, at which range, even a stealth aircraft can be detected. Also well within the range of shorter IR AAMs.

So you turn your back and run but what's this, you have a hypersonic MRAAM after you. That's just a hypothetical term you've seized upon to evade the fact that WVR could end up at even odds. 1300km is a long way and whilst I realise that a fighter won't be as easy to detect as a space rocket, the difference in IR absorption, scattering and non-atmosphere-related R^2 attenuation between 1300km and 160km is significant (spelt 'massive').

Biefing by Pratt & Whitney on engine crack and fix http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/Blade-Failure-SECNAV-Briefing-2008.pdf

But don't think it's an end-all solution. If you have one missile left, would you risk flinging it 135 degrees? Not really. You can't just write off eventualities because they don't fit your game plan. Short-range being a rocket at >1300km and cannon fire at tens of miles.

Reduce yes, eliminate no. You have a limited number of missiles so it's a risky call. Not really. And what of EODAS and sensor fusion?