Su-30 vs RAAF ALTERNATIVES

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The -plane- can send a fairly direcitonal signal UP to the satellite under almost any conditions.

So the data link is “fairly” unidirectional then? From earth towards the satellite only.

Yeah, it does. Error correcting codes is what deals with distortion.

There is no code in the world that can rebuild destroyed radio wave. There are error correction algorithms, however, they can not produce a radio wave that was lost due to jamming. Every radio wave can be jammed. I am not saying that it is easy. I am not saying that the third world countries have technology to do so.

 

I do know that my Panasonic noise canceling head sets do well “jamming” the unwanted radio waves. And they cost $50 and work for 20 hours on a single AAA battery.

 

 

Nope. Those jammers were destroyed by weapons THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO JAM.

Why were the jammers destroyed? Why did “they” (who are they?) destroyed jammers that did not work?

The jammers were simply useless.

If they were useless, why did “they” (who are they?) destroye them?

 

The problem is that the antenna is not oriented in the jammer's direction, you see, so it doesn't really care a whole lot about the jammer's signal.

No. The real problem or question is why destroying the jammers that don’t work? It is even more interesting to figure out who were “they”?

 

THAT is what IK was talking about all the time.

Thanks for making it clear. :)

[GGTharos]

So the data link is “fairly” unidirectional then? From earth towards the satellite only.

 

You only need it to be unidirectional in that direction.

 

There is no code in the world that can rebuild destroyed radio wave. There are error correction algorithms, however, they can not produce a radio wave that was lost due to jamming. Every radio wave can be jammed. I am not saying that it is easy. I am not saying that the third world countries have technology to do so.

Right, sure.

 

I do know that my Panasonic noise canceling head sets do well “jamming” the unwanted radio waves. And they cost $50 and work for 20 hours on a single AAA battery.

 

???

 

Why were the jammers destroyed? Why did “they” (who are they?) destroyed jammers that did not work?

If they were useless, why did “they” (who are they?) destroye them?

 

No. The real problem or question is why destroying the jammers that don’t work? It is even more interesting to figure out who were “they”?

 

Thanks for making it clear. :)

Um ... then why would they shoot down planes that ineffective? Why would they bomb caves? Why do ANYTHING AT ALL?

Your question makes zero sense.

But hey, how about giving you an answer: They bombed them to prove the jammers didn't work ;)

[Guest Cali]

what is this move called? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4306529957288052978&q=F-22&hl=en

 

Nice slow pass then he goes vertical http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413522178417447850&q=F-22&hl=en

[Weta43]

A "brakestand" :-)

 

 

(The manouver that's true name shall not be spoken by the USAF...)

[Force_Feedback]

The F-18 does a better *BEEP-C-WORD* than the F-22 :lol: It seems like the FCS is badly coded, the thing appears to be lazy and sluggish. So let's wait another 20 years before the software engineers have milked billions before they come up with something more responsive (and have their villas).

They need a little Fuhrer (like in sim-heil) down there at the flight software department, that thing will be as agile as the su-30mk in no time, without years of "research" before they can 'perfect' the FCS.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

But hey, how about giving you an answer: They bombed them to prove the jammers didn't work ;)

You are funny guy! :)

 

Regards,

[SVK_Fox]

Everytime I read some publication and fact like this I am waiting for US patriotists, what they are say. :D And often it is so funny :)

[GGTharos]

You are funny guy! :)

 

Regards,

 

Yep. Well, in any case:

 

These bombs were used on targets that were supposed to be protected by these jammers, that's what really happened.

[D-Scythe]

So the data link is “fairly” unidirectional then? From earth towards the satellite only.

There is no code in the world that can rebuild destroyed radio wave. There are error correction algorithms, however, they can not produce a radio wave that was lost due to jamming. Every radio wave can be jammed. I am not saying that it is easy. I am not saying that the third world countries have technology to do so.

 

That's where you go wrong. Jammers typically don't "destroy" or "degrade" a radio wave - they send out their own radio waves emulating the type they are trying to jam back at the RF reciever, to confuse it.

 

Everytime I read some publication and fact like this I am waiting for US patriotists, what they are say. And often it is so funny

 

What US patriotists? A lot of us aren't even American. It's just a fact that the U.S.A. have some of the most powerful and technologically advanced weapons in the world.

 

What *is* funny, however, is reading crap from the anti-U.S./West camp. It's hilarious - "facts" mean nothing to these people. Like thinking that a military program with a R&D budget worth millions is comparable/superior to one that is worth billions (R-77 vs. AIM-120 anyone?). Or that IRST is some super anti-stealth tool and that Lockheed Martin "forgot" to stealth the F-22 from these IRSTs when they designed it.

 

Hahahaha :megalol:

[169th_Crusty]

HubMan... you there?

[tflash]

I did not claim that IRST is an anti-stealth tool and certainly did not imply the F-22 developers forgot about it.

 

I only noted that it is much harder to hide an aircraft for optical/ir sensors. An F-35, due to its mission, is more likely to find itself in a "merged" situation at short-to-medium range from hostile fighters.

 

In that range, it will be easier spotted by a modern day IRST than by radar. It is also much more difficult to deploy countermeasures against such a passive optical system.

 

This makes me think an F-35 has more to fear from 4th generation aircraft like Eurofighter, Rafale and possible Su-30 developments because, since it is not kinematically superior to these aircraft, it will not so easily be able to escape or to slip back into a range from where its stealth features would protect it.

 

I think you agree that you cannot both say that the whole concept is that F-35 will be covered by F-22, and that specialized aircraft have an advantage over multirole ones, and then suddely claim that an F-35 *without* F-22 cover (as in the Australian scenario) can do the job anyway "since it is stealthy".

 

In that case, our claim elsewhere that the F-22 is to expensive gets a firm boost, since the F-35 suddenly is deemed good enough to beat all compettion also in the air-to-air scenario? Thanks for the support!

[GGTharos]

I only noted that it is much harder to hide an aircraft for optical/ir sensors. An F-35, due to its mission, is more likely to find itself in a "merged" situation at short-to-medium range from hostile fighters.

 

Consider that the F-35 will have the first shot with AMRAAM. Also, the F-35, IIRC, also has IRST, and HMD. I would consider it as having a larger SA advantage, basically.

As for your first sentence: No, it isn't. Just pick the right weather: Humid or cloudy.

 

In that range, it will be easier spotted by a modern day IRST than by radar. It is also much more difficult to deploy countermeasures against such a passive optical system.

 

IRST scans are slower and more false-positive prone than radars, AFAIK. It won't be quite so easy when you need to know where to look in the first place. Look at how well aircraft in LOMAC (though the radar is sub-standard) can escape detection. What happens now when you have a stealth plane?

 

This makes me think an F-35 has more to fear from 4th generation aircraft like Eurofighter, Rafale and possible Su-30 developments because, since it is not kinematically superior to these aircraft, it will not so easily be able to escape or to slip back into a range from where its stealth features would protect it.

 

It should be relatively equivalent kinematically given the same role loadout.

 

I think you agree that you cannot both say that the whole concept is that F-35 will be covered by F-22, and that specialized aircraft have an advantage over multirole ones, and then suddely claim that an F-35 *without* F-22 cover (as in the Australian scenario) can do the job anyway "since it is stealthy".

 

Stealth is a huge factor. If you cannot be observed, you cannot be attacked. If you take away the enemy fighter's biggest advantage (for a flanker, BVR) you start causing issues. The same would go for the F-22, once it starts getting into a furball things start getting somewhat more equalized in a number of ways. Even if it still has an advantage, its chances of being shot down grow quickly.

 

In that case, our claim elsewhere that the F-22 is to expensive gets a firm boost, since the F-35 suddenly is deemed good enough to beat all compettion also in the air-to-air scenario? Thanks for the support!

 

No, it's good enough to sneak past it and get out. Theoretically. Basically, it'll have either first-shot or co-shot with a Su-30, which takes away the Su-30's big advantage. Further the stealth will give it more protection from radar missiles.

 

Once you get into WVR, assuming all aircraft know where the other is, things get iffy.

[Pilotasso]

I did not claim that IRST is an anti-stealth tool and certainly did not imply the F-22 developers forgot about it.

 

I only noted that it is much harder to hide an aircraft for optical/ir sensors.

 

On the contrary. Its known and written here about a dozen times that IRST has less range than radar, and the F-22 has measures to hide IR signature as well. Either your facing it and cant see the exaust or your behind it (unlikely because you would be required to know where it was) and the raptor afterburning away, but then if you see it you wont be able to catch it, unless it lets you do that :)

 

An F-35, due to its mission, is more likely to find itself in a "merged" situation at short-to-medium range from hostile fighters.

 

In that range, it will be easier spotted by a modern day IRST than by radar. !

 

Again you are most likely to be awfully wrong. For the following reasons:

1)By the time you get merged you will have radar lock as well as IRST anyway.

2)That would require a terrible tactical mistake by employing F-35's without BVR weapons due to bomb carrial. What makes you think the F-35 wont shoot at you BVR otherwise?

 

This makes me think an F-35 has more to fear from 4th generation aircraft like Eurofighter, Rafale and possible Su-30 developments because, since it is not kinematically superior to these aircraft, it will not so easily be able to escape or to slip back into a range from where its stealth features would protect it.

 

While the Eurofighter might have more kinetic power than the F-35 the difference will only be felt if the Typhoon wants to get at max speed because otherwise the F-35 can supercruise as well, plus with internal weapons it could possibly even exceed that of the Typhoon or the flanker for that matter.

And the last 2 lines you wrote on the quote above is somewhat enigmatic to me because it sounds like an engagement on reverse.

 

I think you agree that you cannot both say that the whole concept is that F-35 will be covered by F-22, and that specialized aircraft have an advantage over multirole ones, and then suddely claim that an F-35 *without* F-22 cover (as in the Australian scenario) can do the job anyway "since it is stealthy".

 

The F-22 is not called for this discussion, but by saying the F-35 cannot do BVR combat without the raptor when the F-16 does it with an old APG-66 is letting your imagination run wild.

The F-35 can do BVR combat, not with the punch of an F-22 but with AESA radar and Stealth measures it can potentialy do very well. Typhoon, Su-30 or otherwise. When you are comparing a 3rd gen aircraft with another of the 4rth you forget the RCS difference and the sensor generation gap.

 

Beleive me, the F-35 will give any other fighter a hand full of trouble.

 

In that case, our claim elsewhere that the F-22 is to expensive gets a firm boost, since the F-35 suddenly is deemed good enough to beat all compettion also in the air-to-air scenario? Thanks for the support!

 

This is a concept that has proven in the F-15 over Mig-21/23's. Its called quality over quantity, where the kill ratio is intended to be so favourable that the amount of enemy hardware downed will be more than compensated by the cost of of a number of superfighters destroyed, if any.

 

Believing that the F-22 has enjoyed 400:1 kill ratio imagine how much investiment you would need for a flanker fleet to destroy all F-22's with a kill ratio on that order of magnitude.

 

But it wont ever get to that. In real life after 20th or so aircraft downed without any victories, it will start to wear on the oponents morale and will to continue fighting realizing that the amount of losses taken in the end and will still loose anyway.

[GGTharos]

So anyway, I was looking at aircraft skin temperature at supersonic cruise. Concorde at mach 2 could reach about 100C skin temp.

 

I also ran into a formula for computing IR detection range ... bottom line:

Afterburner: 700C (or more)

Skin: 100C (or less)

 

In addition the head-on profile provides a -much- smaller radiating area than the 'burner.

Result is a reduction in detection range starting from about a quarter to a tenth of the range for head-on targets vs. tail-on afterburning targets.

 

If we were to take the best case scenario, that means a head-on F-22 can be detected by the often-quoted PIRATE IRST at 20nm, at best. In other words, you're AMRAAM meat. ;)

 

If we don't take the best case scenario ... you're still AMRAAM meat.

[tflash]

When you are comparing a 3rd gen aircraft with another of the 4rth you forget the RCS difference and the sensor generation gap.

 

Pilotasso, there is no decisive sensor generation gap between Eurofighter and F-35. In many ways, the same companies are delivering for both projects.

Kaiser is working on the avionics of both Eurofighter and F-35, for one thing, and the Pirate specification is one of the most advanced today. It is also a fallacy to think a radar has to be AESA to be a performant radar. Captor is already very powerful, AMSAR will be an upgrade.

 

Neither in datalink, nor in sensors the F-35 will have a generation advantage over Rafale and Eurofighter; certainly not the export version that the "staunch allies" will get. Lockheed-Martin is not even claiming it has. Most of the advantages are in way more modern lean production methods.

 

Maybe F-35 can have a first shot (I'm not convinced) BVR, but as you guys many times advocated in the F-22 poowns all debate, it is essentially a compromised air-to-air fighter with limited missiles in the first place.

 

You take every claim about stealth against radar for 100% granted, and yet dismiss any claim made about advances in IR sensor technologies made by often the same companies like Raytheon, who cry out load their AIM-9X sensor sees through clouds and has no problem with humidity whatsoever.

 

You want us to pit 21st century radar technology against 90's IR technology.

 

I think GGTharos guess about 20 nm range seems realistic though. It would help maximizing asraam or iris-t range even against F-35. Are you amraam meet at 20nm? I don't think it is so decisive. The F-35 wont be flying that faster. It has not that many missiles to spend either.

 

In Lockon, we unfortunately have to live with some 10nm on average, even with radar missiles. 20 nm, yes, I'ld go for it.

[TucksonSonny]

PIRATE IRST at 20nm, at best. In other words, you're AMRAAM meat. ;)

 

If we don't take the best case scenario ... you're still AMRAAM meat.

 

PIRATE is 50-80nm range…

 

This is of course the F-22 his worst nightmare (how long before the PLAAF can buy/develop their own PIRATE and integrate with the Su-30).

 

PS. Your definition of stealth = technique to defeat only radar waves (radar=WWII technology)

[GGTharos]

Did you actually read anything I wrote?

[GGTharos]

You take every claim about stealth against radar for 100% granted, and yet dismiss any claim made about advances in IR sensor technologies made by often the same companies like Raytheon, who cry out load their AIM-9X sensor sees through clouds and has no problem with humidity whatsoever.

 

*COUGH* Highly unlikely, unless they mean at the short ranges this beast is meant to be used in. IR attenuation in low-vis is HUGE.

 

You want us to pit 21st century radar technology against 90's IR technology.

 

Nope. Just understand that there are physical limitations to IR transmission.

 

I think GGTharos guess about 20 nm range seems realistic though. It would help maximizing asraam or iris-t range even against F-35. Are you amraam meet at 20nm? I don't think it is so decisive. The F-35 wont be flying that faster. It has not that many missiles to spend either.

 

Missiles will not achieve an IR range that an IRST will - it is among other things a function of the sensor aperture - for a missile this aperture is much smaller. Annd yes, it is that decisive. When you can just -detect- your target while he's known where you were all this time, and has set up the game you are -screwed-. LOMAC does not portray this at /all/.

 

In Lockon, we unfortunately have to live with some 10nm on average, even with radar missiles. 20 nm, yes, I'ld go for it.

 

LOMAC gives a lot of incentives to do everything 'wrong' in AA battles, that's all I will say.

[Pilotasso]

Pilotasso, there is no decisive sensor generation gap between Eurofighter and F-35. In many ways, the same companies are delivering for both projects.

Kaiser is working on the avionics of both Eurofighter and F-35, for one thing, and the Pirate specification is one of the most advanced today. It is also a fallacy to think a radar has to be AESA to be a performant radar. Captor is already very powerful, AMSAR will be an upgrade.

 

Neither in datalink, nor in sensors the F-35 will have a generation advantage over Rafale and Eurofighter; certainly not the export version that the "staunch allies" will get. Lockheed-Martin is not even claiming it has. Most of the advantages are in way more modern lean production methods.

 

Maybe F-35 can have a first shot (I'm not convinced) BVR, but as you guys many times advocated in the F-22 poowns all debate, it is essentially a compromised air-to-air fighter with limited missiles in the first place.

 

You take every claim about stealth against radar for 100% granted, and yet dismiss any claim made about advances in IR sensor technologies made by often the same companies like Raytheon, who cry out load their AIM-9X sensor sees through clouds and has no problem with humidity whatsoever.

 

You want us to pit 21st century radar technology against 90's IR technology.

 

I think GGTharos guess about 20 nm range seems realistic though. It would help maximizing asraam or iris-t range even against F-35. Are you amraam meet at 20nm? I don't think it is so decisive. The F-35 wont be flying that faster. It has not that many missiles to spend either.

 

In Lockon, we unfortunately have to live with some 10nm on average, even with radar missiles. 20 nm, yes, I'ld go for it.

 

 

Flash, you didnt read my quote properly did you? ;)

 

all in all we dont know the difference between the captor and the AESA mounted on the F-35 and then, there is no absolute winner between these 2.

[D-Scythe]

PIRATE is 50-80nm range…

 

This is of course the F-22 his worst nightmare (how long before the PLAAF can buy/develop their own PIRATE and integrate with the Su-30).

 

PS. Your definition of stealth = technique to defeat only radar waves (radar=WWII technology)

 

Do people from the anti-stealth camp intentionally not-read things or is it simply a fact that their average IQ is inversely proportional to the number of people who are anti-stealth?

 

You take every claim about stealth against radar for 100% granted, and yet dismiss any claim made about advances in IR sensor technologies made by often the same companies like Raytheon, who cry out load their AIM-9X sensor sees through clouds and has no problem with humidity whatsoever.

 

Dismiss *what* claim? I don't think any company has ever advocated that their IRSTs can pick up a supercruising Raptor (or any stealthy target for that matter) beyond visual range. So far, all these claims have come from armchair IRST wannabe-experts with absolutely *no* backing whatsover.

 

And yes, the F-35 will have first shot in the majority of air engagements, and first look in all. It's stealthy (yes, IR stealthy too), it has AESA and it has (will) AIM-120D. It's competitors will all have AESA too (eventually), and they have Meteor/whatever, but they don't have stealth.

 

The logic is quite simple IMO.

[tflash]

Well, for those interested in more on the F-35 Aussie discussion there is a governement inquiry public available:

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm

 

They look into the question if F-35 is appropriate for their air defense needs.

 

Their arguments for and against are not that better than ours, I find. But then the quality of Lockon forum discussions is always rather high on these topics.

 

[not really in the anti-stealth camp, but definitely in the pro-eurofighter camp :)]

[GGTharos]

Well, the F-35 is about as appropriate as an F-16 ... basically, it really depends on what their defense strategy is, and what their budget is. If they go with just F-35 they may be shafting themselves in some respects, though as homeland defense they should do just fine for the next 10-20 years.

[TucksonSonny]

Do people from the anti-stealth camp intentionally not-read things or is it simply a fact that their average IQ is inversely proportional to the number of people who are anti-stealth?

.

 

@D-Scythe,

Supercooling of a sensor is indeed a new technology that is not understood by people with an IQ like you have.

Please look up “Supercooling” in your dictionary and have a break.

@GG,

The problem is that you still think of IRST technology from 1985.

Pirate (IRST of today) has had the benefit of being able to use state-ofthe-

art technologies such as a high sensitivity (by supercooling the sensor using wavelengths from 3 to 11 µm in two bands), high resolution,

long linear array thermal detector and very high

speed processing. This ensures that the IRST/FLIR

equipment is an effective passive adjunct to Captor,

providing Typhoon with world beating detection, track

and fire control capabilities. (an upper limit range of 80nm has been has been hinted at)

[GGTharos]

TucksonSonny, IR systems have been cooled since before you were born, I'm sure (and before I was born)

 

'Supercooling' is a buzzword, and enters the realm of diminishing gains.

Computers are nice. Physics isn't.

 

These bands have been used for a LONG TIME NOW by various IR and IIR systems, new and old.

 

I've worked with this stuff, and I don't buy the sudden 500% efficiency increase over a few years, sorry ;)

[D-Scythe]

@D-Scythe,

Supercooling of a sensor is indeed a new technology that is not understood by people with an IQ like you have.

Please look up “Supercooling” in your dictionary and have a break.

 

Headline News: In a stunning display of well-crafted arguments and indisputable facts, TucksonSonny has proven that the Eurofighter has "world beating detection, track and fire & control capabilities." After numerous speculation and debate regarding the subject, it has finally been revealed that the Eurofighter's chief competitor, the American F-22A Raptor, is especially vulnerable to super-cooled IR sensors that the Eurofighter is equipped with.

 

When this information was uncovered by TucksonSonny, Lockheed Martin held a press conference to answer some questions. "Yes, this information is indeed true," one Lockheed spokesperson admitted. "Despite the decades of research and billions invested into the program, we unfortunately completely forgot about IRSTs with supercooling. Supercooling is a really, really, really advanced technology and we just didn't anticipate that they'd find their ways into fighters anytime soon. Sorry USAF, our bad."

 

 

When asked to comment, one USAF just said, "Holy jumping pizzas Batman! This TucksonSonny guy just revealed the achilles' heel of our entire multi-billion dollar F-22 program. We don't know how he knew, but it's all true."