Boogieman
-
Posts
190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Boogieman
-
-
Yeah. My brain hurts.
-
You goose. Go have your morning coffee! ;) :P
-
Isn't the principle hope of the F-35 that its very small radar cross section means that it will avoid detection ?
Luneberg lenses are installed radar decoys to increase their effective radar cross sectional area - for instance in the ADM-141 TALD...
So these are devices specifically added to artificially increase the radar cross section of an aircraft specifically designed around the concept of a low radar cross section ?
Do you know if they're shroud-able ?
Surely they must be.
Otherwise it's like putting reflective tape on your black ninja suit so you don't get run over while sneaking across the road - which wouldn't sound like a 100% endorsement of the whole concept of stealth - we planned to hide, but we know we're going to be detected, so let's try to look like something else - something BIGGER and scarier...
:megalol: You do know they're completely removable right? :smilewink:
Re: "Stealth". It would be more accurate to say that it is there to make an aircraft undetectable at a certain range, detectable but untrackable closer in, trackable but untargetable closer still and targetable but nigh on "unhittable" closer than that. The synergy between friendly/onboard EW and very low RCS is particularly important here.
The sig reduction measures VLO fighters like this posess are part of a layered approach to breaking the enemy kill chain (in tandem with EW/ECM/EA), not just an attempt to hide from it completely.
-
^That's cool. More to this jet than immediately meets the eye methinks.
-
Denying isn't an argument. When the Aim-9 goes of the rail, it goes at a much faster speed than the plane is flying in the moment. The missile goes forward and you get enough time to locate it once off rail. The pilot, who fired the missile, wants us to believe that the missile disappeared, did it leave to another universe after the launch. This short interview with the pilots and all this fuss about shooting down a defenseless plane, seem to have another goal than sharing the details of what really happened. The Russians must not know that the Aim-9X can be deceived. The thing is, we can't change the reality, but giving the Aim-9X unproven characteristics in DCS is pure bias and supporting the current flagship and it's pilots only. This is not and won't be the only unrealistic thing in DCS.
There's actually a fair bit of publically available info on how and why imaging infrared seekerheads are highly flare resistant in general - I'd recommend you look into it. As I said this is not an attribute unique to AIM9X - there are a multitude of missiles out there now with IIR seekers.
On the flip side, if you feel the DCS AIM9X is unrealistically flare resistant I'd say you should by all means present ED with some hard data/evidence supporting your case :smilewink:.
-
I don't know that any missile is completely smokeless in all conditions - the 9X still leaves a faint trail that he would have seen as the pilot of the launch aircraft.
His comments were simply pointing out that the missile initially launched as normal only to then disappear for unknown reasons. No mention from anyone who was there of flares or defensive maneuver from the Su22 pilot.
-
^Covered thoroughly in the other AIM9X thread. The Su22 didn't even pop flares AFAIK - just some clickbait speculation from blogger Kyle Mizokami. In reality the missile was probably a dud.
(5min mark onwards)
EDIT: I see the threads have been merged. Ah well the above is interesting viewing anyway!
-
The F35 carries AMRAAM internally and AIM9X externally on pylons. AFAIK there are no plans to carry the Sidewinder internally - I suspect the US will skip straight to SACM for an internally storable SRM.
-
^ It may already exist. It's called the 101KS-O DIRCM system, although it is unique to the Su57 at this time.
-
Why did the pilot fire an AMRAAM instead of firing the Aim9X? One Aim9X can fail, but what are the chances for other Aim9Xs to fail?
In the video I linked earlier the pilot that fired the dud AIM9X said that they were taught to "try something different" when his first missile mysteriously disappeared from view. Heat seeker didn't work? Try the radar guided missile next...
(5min mark onwards)
As for getting tone on the sun - I take it the 9X can be manually locked onto a wide variety of IR targets.
used a flare as target practice for example. Difference is in the missile's (greater) ability to discriminate the original intended target from any decoys. -
^Indeed. The idea that the AIM9X ate flares in that incident came from the blogosphere (Kyle Mizokami). AFAIK nobody that was actually there has reported the Su22 exhibiting any defensive response of any kind to the AIM9X launch.
-
^Not useless, just a lot less useful. The same would be true of ASRAAM, MICA IR, PL-10 and probably K74M2 (not sure yet if it has an IIR seeker, if not then the Izedeliye-300 probably will). I take it DIRCM systems have been touted as a potentially useful/complementary countermeasure going forward.
-
The AIM9X doesn't necessarily home in on the engine heat signature. Unlike the other heat seeking air to air missiles in DCS, the AIM9X uses an imaging Focal Plane Array seekerhead. This allows it to home in on
of the target aircraft itself, which also incorporates the IR energy generated by the aerodynamic heating of the target's skin. Suffice it to say, imaging seekerheads of this kind are reportedly MUCH more flare resistant as a consequence (ie. almost totally immune except in a small minority of circumstances).
NB. The image above is purportedly from an AIM132 ASRAAM. Nevertheless, the ASRAAM uses the same ex-Hughes 128 x 128 element FPA seeker as the AIM9X, so it shows what I'm talking about reasonably well.
-
Atmospherics will definitely have a role in this, all combustion produces water whether its a candle, jet engine or rocket motor, so if you fire the missile under the right conditions it will leave some sort of contrail as that water freezes.
Indeed. For instance compare the trail from a surface launched AMRAAM
vs. -
Yes I believe so. Just like the AIM9M and AMRAAM, the term "smokeless" is a bit relative. The missile will still leave a faint plume behind, it's just dramatically less visible than that of other missiles (and functionally invisible to all but the closest of targets). I imagine atmospheric conditions may have some effect IRL too.
-
I got the "spaceship" vibe as well. It's the same with the Raptor - something about the smooth lines and lifting body design. Both jets seem to slide through the air in a rather alien way at times.
-
Makes sense. With passive guidance and a smokeless motor I could see it also being a very dangerous sneak attack weapon in a similar (if shorter-legged) way to the ET in DCS now.
I have heard stories about the ASRAAM being potent in this role with its big motor so I could see a longer reaching, IIR guided 'winder being really nasty in the right hands too.
-
I was under the impression the 9X Blk I had a little more reach than its predecessors - if only due to its less draggy airframe. Ah well whatever - she's chiefly meant to be used up close in the phonebooth anyway. The JHMCS combo ought to be beastly.
:matrix:
-
On Aug. 13, pilots from the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron fired the F-35A’s 25 mm internal cannon in a strafing run on two sets of ground targets on the Utah Test and Training range. It was the first use of the F-35A’s GAU-22/A in operational training.
-
I don't know if they're quite as big as a Flanker but they're a real sight to behold in person. I got to see them up close at the last Avalon airshow over here. Struck me as oddly more compact up close than from a distance. The F135 is one hell of an engine though - I'm with you on the noise factor!!
-
Su-57 and Su-35 rely on ECM to survive, F-22/35 based on stealth
ECM is better, stealth can not help you survive
False. Both the F22 and F35 have very potent ECM/EW capabilities of their own to complement their stealth features. I think you would benefit from doing some more research before making such bold claims my friend...
Have a read up on APG77, APG81, ASQ239, ALE70 and ALR94 to get started ;-)
-
The Su-35 is balanced with all NATO aircraft. Su-57 is too much for the F-15 or Rafale Even the F-22, The F-22 has absolutely can't comparison dogfight with the Su-57?
Come now this is just silly. There are a grand total of what? 12 pre-production Su57s in existence and it's already king of the mountain!? Perhaps it will be one day but as it stands the jet isn't finished. Nobody here is questioning the quality of Russian ingenuity but let's have a sanity check please.
Money ultimately helps projects like this get over the line and the Russian derence budget isn't exactly swimming in it at the moment. I, like so many others, strongly suspect that a lack of cash is at the root of all this.
-
:thumbup:
-
:pilotfly:
The F-35 Thread
in Military and Aviation
Posted · Edited by Boogieman
:pilotfly: