"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[A.S]

Of course it is a fan-boy speculation! But that’s why it is fun! And somewhat educational. These combat airplanes are technological marvels …

 

well ...that´s true...but you know how fast things change to "i know things better then you" posts :music_whistling: :smilewink:

[nscode]

I know.... and I know it better than you :P

 

 

;)

[Pilotasso]

So, F-35 can not fight against modern fighters because it does not carry enough AA missiles. F-35 does not come even close to Su-24 when it comes SEAD.

 

So F-35 bets all its money on stealth?

 

F-35 will carry JDAM's that can be droped further away than the SAM's range, given the low RCS. JDAM's cant be jammed or fly blind as with the case of anti radiation missiles if the radar operator swiches it off.

 

For the biggest SAM's not Su34 nor F-35 but cruise missiles.

 

Man Su-24 is OLD...had it been western would be scrap metal by now.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

F-35 will carry JDAM's that can be droped further away than the SAM's range, given the low RCS. JDAM's cant be jammed or fly blind as with the case of anti radiation missiles if the radar operator swiches it off.

GPS signal is very easy to jam. GPS signal comes from satelites that are 20 000KM high and the satelites are onlly few KW's in power. So JDAM can be jammed relatively easily.

 

Man Su-24 is OLD...had it been western would be scrap metal by now.

That was a typo. It was suppose to be Su-34.

[Pilotasso]

GPS signal is very easy to jam. GPS signal comes from satelites that are 20 000KM high and the satelites are onlly few KW's in power. So JDAM can be jammed relatively easily.

 

That was a typo. It was suppose to be Su-34.

 

Iraq had GPS jammers back in GW2 and the antennas were destroyed by GPS guided munitions. A GPS signal coming from the ground raised alot of eyebrows. :)

[GGTharos]

No, not easily. GPS jammers, last I checked, are notoriously short-ranged, and JDAMs feature INS as well in case of trouble with GPS.

 

GPS signal is very easy to jam. GPS signal comes from satelites that are 20 000KM high and the satelites are onlly few KW's in power. So JDAM can be jammed relatively easily.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Iraq bought GPS jammers back in GW2 and the antennas were destroyed by GPS guided munitions. A GPS signal coming from the ground raised alot of eyebrows. :)

There were 30 + countries against Iraq in the first Gulf War. They did not even need JDAM to defeat Iraq. Dropping rocks from so many airplanes would do the job as well. I don't know if JDAM was availalbe at that time.

 

The second Gulf War was more a military exercise against Sadam who was on his knees for almost a decade of sanctions and continues bombing of Iraq.

 

It is good that Sadam is out. But Iraq can not be used to gauge success of military technologies.

[GGTharos]

There were 30 + countries against Iraq in the first Gulf War. They did not even need JDAM to defeat Iraq. Dropping rocks from so many airplanes would do the job as well. I don't know if JDAM was availalbe at that time.

 

Irrelevant - the statement stands. The jammers did not work.

 

It is good that Sadam is out. But Iraq can not be used to gauge success of military technologies.

 

This statement is also irrelevant. Yes you can use Iraq to gauge success of military technologies. Or should we say that Patriot was an awesome TBM interceptor back in GF1? ;)

[Pilotasso]

He also missed I was talking about GW2 not 1. :)

 

yet another confirmation someone is not reading the whole thing again.

[RedTiger]

Irrelevant - the statement stands. The jammers did not work.

 

QFT. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? There will be SOME explanation of how this proves his point, I'm sure.

 

EDIT: To be fair, I see his other point and to some degree would agree. It would be easier without all the irrelevant subterfuge and misdirection though. :rolleyes:

Edited October 3, 2008 by RedTiger

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

He also missed I was talking about GW2 not 1. :)

You need to read my post 232 again.

[Teknetinium]

Ef-2000

cost: 122.5 mil

Arment: Gun: 1x 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon

Air-to-Air missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-120 AMRAAM, IRIS-T and in the future MBDA Meteor

Air-to-Ground missiles: AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-88 HARM, ALARM, Storm Shadow (AKA "Scalp EG"), Brimstone,

Taurus KEPD 350, Penguin and in the future AGM Armiger

Bombs: Paveway 2, Paveway 3, Enhanced Paveway, JDAM, HOPE/HOSBO

Laser designator, e.g. LITENING pod

 

Rafale

cost: US$67.9

Arment:Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GIAT 30/719B cannon with 125 rounds

Missiles:Air-to-air: MICA IR/EM or Magic II and in the future

MBDA Meteor

Air-to-ground: MBDA Apache or SCALP EG or AASM or GBU-12 Paveway II or AM 39 Exocet or ASMP-A nuclear missile

 

Su-30+

Cost:US$33-$45 million

Arment: Guns: 1× GSh-30-1 gun (30 mm caliber, 150 rounds)

AAMs: 6× R-27ER1 (AA-10C), 4× R-27ET1 (AA-10D), 6× R-73E (AA-11), 6× R-77 RVV-AE(AA-12)

ASMs: 6× Kh-31P/Kh-31A anti-radar missiles, 6× Kh-29T/L laser guided missiles, 2× Kh-59ME

Aerial bombs: 6× KAB 500KR, 3× KAB-1500KR, 8× FAB-500T, 28× OFAB-250-270

 

 

jas-39

Cost:US$50-76.1 million

Arment:1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon

6 × Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)

6 × Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA

4 x Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor

4 x Rb.75

2 x KEPD.350

4 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb

4 x rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets

2 x Rbs.15F anti-ship missile

2 x Bk.90 cluster bomb

8 x Mark 82 bombs

1 x ALQ-TLS ECM pod

 

 

 

F-35

Cost:US$83

Arment:The F-35 includes a GAU-22/A four-barrel 25 mm cannon.[80] The Cannon will be mounted internally

with 180 rounds in the F-35A and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C.[81][82]

Internally (current planned weapons for integration), up to two air-to-air missiles and two air-to-ground

weapons (up to two 2,000 lb bombs in A and C models; two 1,000 lb bombs in the B model) in the bomb bays.[83]

These could be AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) — up to 2,000 lb (910 kg),

the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) — a maximum of four in each bay,

the Brimstone anti-armor missiles, Cluster Munitions (WCMD) and High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM).

The MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile is currently being adapted to fit internally in the missile spots and may be integrated into the F-35.

The UK had originally planned to put up to four AIM-132 ASRAAM internally but this has been changed

to carry 2 internal and 2 external ASRAAMs.[84]

Edited October 4, 2008 by Teknetinium

[Dvst]

The cost statements are all wrong and the integrated loadout lists are incomplete / old aswell.

[nscode]

People should learn from the Sweeds, with the super expensive 39, that are barely getting minimum flight hours (excluding a few squads that participate in international exercises)

Edited October 5, 2008 by nscode

[mvsgas]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4

What do you guys think? More propaganda? I do not see why the airframe would not be capable of carrying more A to A missiles so it seems physically able to do this. It should be like the F-16 in terms of A2A missile capacity. Of course very few aircraft can compare to Su-27 (and all of its version) ,F-18E/F and F-22 (with external stores) missile capacity. But not bad amount of missiles. Of course would be able to carry lots more in external stores, so it might be able to match F-18E/F or Su-27 A2A missile capacity.

Edited October 5, 2008 by mvsgas

[Pilotasso]

The bay has space for 6 missiles but it rests to be seen if they can make an ejector rack simple enough in order not to nulify the space for the extra 2 missiles.

[RedTiger]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4

What do you guys think? More propaganda? I do not see why the airframe would not be capable of carrying more A to A missiles so it seems physically able to do this. It should be like the F-16 in terms of A2A missile capacity. Of course very few aircraft can compare to Su-27 (and all of its version) ,F-18E/F and F-22 (with external stores) missile capacity. But not bad amount of missiles. Of course would be able to carry lots more in external stores, so it might be able to match F-18E/F or Su-27 A2A missile capacity.

 

What's more interesting to me is the claim that holding back on touting the F-35 was done to keep from stealing some thunder from the F-22 and lessen the chances for funding. :rolleyes: Now I've seen everything.

[A.S]

....drops on a hot stone

 

Quote:

 

Current radars (in order of performance):

 

1. F-22's APG-77

2. Eurofighter's CAPTOR

3. Su-35's Irbis-E

 

Although performance margin is very small.

 

2/3 can see an F-22 at ~90km (F-22's 0.001m2 RCS).

 

Personally I think although the F-22 is the best atm, for its price it's not really worth it, since you could get 3-4 Su-35's/2 Eurofighter's per F-22.

 

Although I guess the F-22 may be handy while flying low against IR guided missiles (reduced IR signature).

 

Source: :alien::shifty: ..who cares ,)

 

further .....

 

Irbis can see 0.01m^2 at 90km, - according to published data. Frontal RCS for the F-22 was described as being "marble sized", and math concludes that is from 0.0001m^2 to 0.0014m^2.....global security.com states 0.0001m^2..... However, when the F-117 was shot down in Allied Force, 1999, LM stated- "Even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft's radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more". And that's why RCS isn't so simple, detectability is dependant on where it's viewed from and the frequency the radar is operating at

 

Move away from direct frontal - even by a few degrees - and that will shoot up.

 

That RCS is quoted for funding - and hence is almost certainly the minimum RCS the aircraft returns under absolute optimal conditions (wavelength and azimuthal angle).

Edited October 6, 2008 by A.S

[A.S]

another drop...

 

"...Reguarding this "our plane is best" fight here, ok, the F-22 has it's good point's like the Eurofighter, this is primary a long range interceptor.

 

reguarding manuverbility, even with it's thrust vector engine, it will have some serious problems in a Gun vs Gun dogfight with several planes.

 

F-22 vs Raphale = F-22 easy win, both long range and close combat.

 

F-22 vs Eurofighter = slightly in Eurofigher favour on long range, Close range is close to even.

 

F-22 vs JAS 39 Grippen N = Long range = favour og F-22, close combat close even match.

 

F-22 vs MIG29 OVT - Long range = favour of the F-22, close combat, close to evenly matched, but I belive that the MIG29 OVT will come up on top this only due to previuos planes made by composite in the US army, have a tendancy to break appart, F117 has done this on 3-4 occations, but most likly, the wing design will be the turning point in favour of the MIG29.

 

F-22 vs SU-37 (Flanker F) - Long range, close win for the F-22, close combat = total win of the SU-37, this due to the front carnards, that gives the SU-37 both lower speed for takeoff and turning, higher angle of attack, and let's not forget the wing's on this plane, this plane only need as little as 60 km/h to turn it's general direction while flying.

 

Both the MIG29 and SU-37 have actually the same design on the wing, the wing has been developet first, during extensive testing, actually, no other wing has been tested as thoroughly as the original desing wing for the MIG29/SU-27 series, ans the wing was also the fitst thing that was designed, all the other parts was added later..."

 

Source: who cares....you make your mind :P

[A.S]

and here one more ANOTHER drop

 

Quote:

 

"..Guys lemme set the record straight here. I have several friends in the aerospace industry and know some guys who fly for the U.S. Navy. I can tell you almost for sure that the F-22 will dominate the SU-37 or any of its variants so far in any kind of combat for several reasons.

 

The main reason why the USAF chose the YF-22 over the YF-23 was because of its superior manueverability. In fact at first, the air-force originally wasn't so concerned about agility in its next-gen fighter as much as it was stealth. However that changed with the collapse of the soviet-union and the realization that future air battles would be fought in very populated environments which would require visual identification, and hence dogfighting (indeed this contributed to the retirement of the F-14, a fighter designed to carry the long range phoenix missle, which never saw combat due to these circumstances).

 

The F-22 was designed for dogfighting. Anyone thinking that agility had to be comprimised for stealth is incorrect. In the past, stealth airframes had to be constantly modified manually and tested to acheive the best windtunnel/RCS results. Now however, new computer technology and algorithms have allowed designers to create an almost perfect platform before even going to the prototype stage. This is like reducing decades of research and testing to just a few years.

 

So before I explain all the resons why the F-22 will dominate in WVR combat, lemme talk about its BVR combat. While the F-22 does posess a very powerfull radar, it wasn't really designed to use it. The F-22 is to be integrated into an entire defense network, including AWACS reports, as part of its primary mission. Using its radar is a last resort, as it will give away the Raptors position, so its designed to seemlessly incorporate information from other scorces to get a clear battlefield picture. Even in the event of stealth being comprimised, the F-22 posesses supercruise, so it can still fire missles from a longer range because they will leave the aircraft with a higher velocity than conventional fighters. It has already proven this in tests, in fact the USAF even slightly delayed the development of its newest longer range AIM-120 because the F-22 can launch the current model almost as far as the planned upgrade launched with "regular" aircraft.

 

In WVR combat the stakes are hardly fair. The F-22 carries all its weapons internally so the only effect on the airframe is weight. Its sleek profile means that its not affected by aerodymamic drag typical of missles/pylons or other obtrusions, and because its payload is closer to the center of gravity, it can roll faster. In a guns only engaugement, the F-22 possesses superior agility in all but the slowest speed of the fight envelope. This is due to the fact the Raptor has +/-5 degree more thrust vectoring angle capability (+/- 15 degree for the SU-37, +/- 20 for the F-22). This might not seem like much, but it really counts at high sub-sonic speeds. The SU-37 does possess front canards, but these only really take full effect when your down in the weeds, and no self-respecting pilot would let himself be dragged down that slow.

 

In fact the only technology on the SU-37 worth nothing is its backward facing radar. Firing missles behind you would almost make agility irrelevent, however, there is speculation as to how well this system actually works.

 

Also to all those who think the US is behind the russians in thrust vectoring, think again. The USAF already converted all their "standard" fighters into thrust vectoring monsters (F-16 VISTA, F-15 ACTIVE, F-18 HARV) in the mid 80's, and they even developed dedicated thrust vectoring experimental planes (X-31). It wasn't untill 1996 that the first flight of the SU-37 took place, which of course was just a thrust-vectored SU-27/33.

 

And yes, I've seen the videos of both SU-37's and F-22's. And yes, the F-22's seemed very lame compared to the double cobra-pulling, back flipping, almost unbelievable antics pulled by the SU-37 pilots. But consider this, the Russian government's main goal is to export the SU-37 and not really use it for itself, so of course they will show exactly everythig its capable of in hopes of selling it. The US has made it clear that it has no plans of exporting the F-22 in the near future. No footage of any modern US fighter showing its true capabilities has ever been shown to the public becuase of plainly obvious reasons.

 

Also, the SU-37 only has 2D thrust vectoring. The only Russan fighter built with 3D is the Mig-29 OVT, and it puts too much stress on the airframe to be a feasable, reliable combat platform. The Russans themselves have acknowledged this fact as well..."

Edited October 6, 2008 by A.S

[Mugatu]

Sounds like cods wallop to me, especially the bit about why the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23.

 

Quote:

 

 

The main reason why the USAF chose the YF-22 over the YF-23 was because of its superior manueverability. In fact at first, the air-force originally wasn't so concerned about agility in its next-gen fighter as much as it was stealth. However that changed with the collapse of the soviet-union and the realization that future air battles would be fought in very populated environments which would require visual identification, and hence dogfighting (indeed this contributed to the retirement of the F-14, a fighter designed to carry the long range phoenix missle, which never saw combat due to these circumstances).

..."[/size][/i]

[A.S]

im not the author Mugatu...but why? :ermm:

 

BTW: good link bout RADAR principles

 

http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex09.en.html

Edited October 6, 2008 by A.S

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And yes, I've seen the videos of both SU-37's and F-22's. And yes, the F-22's seemed very lame compared to the double cobra-pulling, back flipping, almost unbelievable antics pulled by the SU-37 pilots. But consider this, the Russian government's main goal is to export the SU-37 and not really use it for itself, so of course they will show exactly everythig its capable of in hopes of selling it. The US has made it clear that it has no plans of exporting the F-22 in the near future. No footage of any modern US fighter showing its true capabilities has ever been shown to the public becuase of plainly obvious reasons.

He, he, he .... This is one of the funniest statements on this thread.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Also, the SU-37 only has 2D thrust vectoring. The only Russan fighter built with 3D is the Mig-29 OVT, and it puts too much stress on the airframe to be a feasable, reliable combat platform. The Russans themselves have acknowledged this fact as well..."

He, he, he ... This comments are sign of desparation! Here's little picture for our unanmed military expert ...

 

[A.S]

date !! of quote may be the reason

 

The Su-37 engine nozzles swivelled only vertically (2D vectoring). Lyulka-Saturn further developed the vectoring nozzle which resulted in the AL-31FP thrust vector control engines capable of moving in both vertical and horizontal axes (3D vectoring). The AL-31FP engine was offered to foreign customers on more advanced developments of the Su-30MK such as the Su-30MKI of the Indian Air Force and as an option for customized versions of the earlier Su-35 'Super' Flanker.

 

The Su-37's life ended when T10M-11 (serial 711) was lost in a crash on flying a ferry flight in Russia. The aircraft was not fitted with the TVC engines at the time of the crash. No other Su-27Ms have been converted to Su-37 specifications, nor has the Su-37 design entered production. The Su-37 was never an official designation recognized by the Russian Air Force. The crash of 711 effectively means the end of the Su-37 as we have known since 1996. The possibility remains that the designation Su-37 will be re-used in the future for other Flanker derivatives. Reportedly, localized Su-35 (Su-27BM) airframes for the Russian Air Force will re-use the Su-37 designation.

 

source:

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-37/su-37.htm

 

lets stay on facts and topic ,) ..picture alone wont explain it without the "picture"

Edited October 6, 2008 by A.S