Valid Points on Stealth?

Exorcet · February 8, 2013

You can't escape from a Meteor inside 100km. So long as the missile receives the INS update it can continue tracking.

Sure you can. Kill the launcher, evade the other planes that could support the missile, ECM, CM, run, etc.

The Meteor has longer range than AMRAAM, as far as kinetics go it's probably the deadliest missile available currently, but the difference between the two is not AIM-54 to AIM-9.

I did not argue so much against assumed Pk of missiles because I thought although it was somewhat arbitrary, it was at least being consistent. Saying that AMRAAM shots are instantly defeated from 20-30 miles and Meteor is immune to failure up to 60 miles is ridiculous.

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 4.5's are always at a disadvantage if they need to wait until fired upon though. In that case, the 5th gens would be faster, positioned to limited the 4.5 gen's options (again it's not going to be AMRAAM followed instantly by retaliatory missile. The 4.5's need to find and then bring the 5th gen into their firing solution.

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.

Induced drag doesn't care what you generate lift with unless you have infinite aspect ratio. The range will suffer when it comes to HOBS, probably such that if it's AMRAAM vs ASRAAM from 100+ degree OBS, AMRAAM is probably going to win.

Of course you could turn to extend the range of ASRAAM, but then the missile fired on you will only get closer and also increase its closure rate. The launching aircraft could already be gone and one of friends could be watching you.

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.

I'd concede that it would be seen vs a F-35, but can't really agree much for anything else (before missile launch). All the rest have blind spots, and pretty much nothing but the F-35 will reduce the F-22's detection range to parity.

Against even number yes. But not against poor odds.

There isn't much reason to think there will be poor odds, at least not to the extremes suggested (4:1, 6:1, etc).

Well we don't know about other aspects and when closing, there's only one predominant aspect.

Head on is only really predominant when both sides see each other. If a fighter comes wondering into hostile airspace there is no telling where a threat is going to come from.

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.

Not so, the "lead" attack could be made by pairs of aircraft, or more. I guess it depends on how many you have total. And each of those aircraft can launch multiple missiles anyway.

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.

Yes the same goes for the 22, but I did not say that the 22 would negate SAM's only make them less effective. The EF's either need to bring along more planes to cover them or carry their own SEAD weaponry and hope they don't get picked off while looking at the ground.

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.

They aren't short, and they don't to turn 180 degrees.

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.

Everything has cost vs performance, and the F-35 agility is for another thread.

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.

Getting locked won't matter if it's outside of the enemy's shooting envelope.

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.

The F-22 can do the same with the AIM-120, especially the D.

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.

I can see the F-35 going against 2:1 EF's BVR, but WVR probably favors the EF if the F-35 is seen.

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?

I don't see what you mean? The F-35 would focus on one task, and would only fight or run if needed. As for what it can run from, well just about anything.

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.:)

Well then I guess the F-22's might as well launch a six AMRAAM fusillade before they're seen.

marcos · February 9, 2013

Sure you can. Kill the launcher, evade the other planes that could support the missile, ECM, CM, run, etc.

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

The Meteor has longer range than AMRAAM, as far as kinetics go it's probably the deadliest missile available currently, but the difference between the two is not AIM-54 to AIM-9.

No but it's probably AMRAAM C to AMRAAM A.

I did not argue so much against assumed Pk of missiles because I thought although it was somewhat arbitrary, it was at least being consistent. Saying that AMRAAM shots are instantly defeated from 20-30 miles and Meteor is immune to failure up to 60 miles is ridiculous.

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.

The 4.5's are always at a disadvantage if they need to wait until fired upon though. In that case, the 5th gens would be faster, positioned to limited the 4.5 gen's options (again it's not going to be AMRAAM followed instantly by retaliatory missile. The 4.5's need to find and then bring the 5th gen into their firing solution.

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.

Induced drag doesn't care what you generate lift with unless you have infinite aspect ratio. The range will suffer when it comes to HOBS, probably such that if it's AMRAAM vs ASRAAM from 100+ degree OBS, AMRAAM is probably going to win.

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.

I'd concede that it would be seen vs a F-35, but can't really agree much for anything else (before missile launch). All the rest have blind spots, and pretty much nothing but the F-35 will reduce the F-22's detection range to parity.

Depends on what EW support you have. It would be risky to fly EW/AWACS with Meteors about though.

There isn't much reason to think there will be poor odds, at least not to the extremes suggested (4:1, 6:1, etc).

There may or may not be but my point is made.

Head on is only really predominant when both sides see each other. If a fighter comes wondering into hostile airspace there is no telling where a threat is going to come from.

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?

Not so, the "lead" attack could be made by pairs of aircraft, or more. I guess it depends on how many you have total. And each of those aircraft can launch multiple missiles anyway.

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.

Yes the same goes for the 22, but I did not say that the 22 would negate SAM's only make them less effective. The EF's either need to bring along more planes to cover them or carry their own SEAD weaponry and hope they don't get picked off while looking at the ground.

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.

They aren't short, and they don't to turn 180 degrees.

Turning at all will make their jet heat more visible, especially if it's an asthmatic F-35 trying to escape on reheat.

Everything has cost vs performance, and the F-35 agility is for another thread.

Yeah, I think we've covered that already.:lol:

Getting locked won't matter if it's outside of the enemy's shooting envelope.

Which is larger than the AMRAAM's envelope for Meteor R-33 or R-37 or R-172.

The F-22 can do the same with the AIM-120, especially the D.

Yes but it's slower and has less range.

I can see the F-35 going against 2:1 EF's BVR, but WVR probably favors the EF if the F-35 is seen.

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.

I don't see what you mean? The F-35 would focus on one task, and would only fight or run if needed. As for what it can run from, well just about anything.

Just about everything slower than it, i.e. not much.

Well then I guess the F-22's might as well launch a six AMRAAM fusillade before they're seen.

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.

Edited February 9, 2013 by marcos

Exorcet · February 9, 2013

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

Yes, chasing a fleeing plane is certainly a Meteor strong point.

No but it's probably AMRAAM C to AMRAAM A.

AMRAAM D to C to also a pretty big leap though. And well in the general case there's nothing stopping the 5th gen from using Meteor or some equivalent. It's an idea that's been tossed around for the F-35.

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.

OK

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.

Alright, but that does maybe assume that all the F-22's would be in roughly one spot, and that if the EF's are widely spread out that they can each still see the F-22's. If the 4.5's are trying to increase coverage by spreading out, each individual becomes more vulnerable and datalinking becomes slightly less effective (Yes the EF that finds the F-22 will share its position with everyone else, but if that EF is taken down, the remaining EF's might not be close enough to track the F-22).

If on the other hand, the EF's are tightly packed, then they're easy to hit multi TWS shots from the other side.

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.

AR dominates induced drag efficiency. You'll never see a long range plane (that isn't supersonic) use huge low AR wings. Even in the supersonic range, you would want to increase AR, you're just limited by how high it can go.

Besides that, all missiles are going to have body lift, but as the ASRAAM was designed to take advantage of it, it's probably more efficient yes.

Depends on what EW support you have. It would be risky to fly EW/AWACS with Meteors about though.

I guess it ultimately depends on the exact numbers (as in ranges, RCS, etc), also consider that there would most likely be a multilayered system. If you wanted to get to the AWACS, you might need to go through ground radar and and escorts as well.

There may or may not be but my point is made.

OK

Since when is the F-22 likely to be defending it's own airspace given that it's American?

I'm not quite sure I follow.

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.

Yes, you can apply the same to the 4.5's in that they could separate and/or fire multiple missiles but but they don't get to take advantage of that initially because they may not know they're in danger until being shot at.

As for supercruise, taking advantage of stealth to fly higher and then diving in mil power might be a way to get around AB. The F-22 could possibly use that as well.

But it you have multiple sources in the air and on land, where does that leave you?

Maybe it's me, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Turning at all will make their jet heat more visible, especially if it's an asthmatic F-35 trying to escape on reheat.

Yes, more visible, but not 100% detectable, at least not at range.

Yeah, I think we've covered that already.:lol:

Well it's kind of like the Korean War, the arguing stopped but no one reached consensus. In particular I don't think you can just brush aside the lift provided by the F-35's fuselage nor the fact that if you want to go by WL and TWR, it's basically on 4th gen levels with an equal fuel fraction.

Though this discussion seems closer to consensus.

Which is larger than the AMRAAM's envelope for Meteor R-33 or R-37 or R-172.

If detection range isn't factored in. Though I suppose it goes the other way too. Sneaking up on a F-22 from behind leads to a F-22 with 0 launch range.

Yes but it's slower and has less range.

Less range yes, but if slower, not significantly over short distances.

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.

If we want to use detection ranges like that, the EF is spotted at 70 nm (134 km). In the case of Irbis, it's a giant signal for RWR's. If we use the radar figures mentioned before, the range at which you'll see a F-35 at .005 m^2 is 20 nm (36 km). And if missile Pk is good enough to kill a F-35 at 75 km, it's surely good enough to kill an EF at 40-60 km.

Just about everything slower than it, i.e. not much.

Raw speed isn't actually needed to run. You can out last them with a bigger fuel tank, draw them to friendlies or shoot back and evade while your missile forces them to run. And Mach 1.6 is pretty good considering that whatever the F-35 would need to run from would probably be carrying weapons externally. Just hope it's not a fully developed PAK-FA.

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.

There wouldn't be a problem if by the time it got to AIM-9 range, the numbers advantage had reversed (or reversed and then some) if the F-22's even decided to go to WVR.

marcos · February 9, 2013

Yes, chasing a fleeing plane is certainly a Meteor strong point.

AMRAAM D to C to also a pretty big leap though. And well in the general case there's nothing stopping the 5th gen from using Meteor or some equivalent. It's an idea that's been tossed around for the F-35.

Oh no doubt, but as things stand in 2013 that's the case.

Alright, but that does maybe assume that all the F-22's would be in roughly one spot, and that if the EF's are widely spread out that they can each still see the F-22's. If the 4.5's are trying to increase coverage by spreading out, each individual becomes more vulnerable and datalinking becomes slightly less effective (Yes the EF that finds the F-22 will share its position with everyone else, but if that EF is taken down, the remaining EF's might not be close enough to track the F-22).

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.

If on the other hand, the EF's are tightly packed, then they're easy to hit multi TWS shots from the other side.

What about the multi-flank approach above. The range of a Meteor is well beyond the range that a Typhoon is detectable from.

AR dominates induced drag efficiency. You'll never see a long range plane (that isn't supersonic) use huge low AR wings. Even in the supersonic range, you would want to increase AR, you're just limited by how high it can go.

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.

Besides that, all missiles are going to have body lift, but as the ASRAAM was designed to take advantage of it, it's probably more efficient yes.

Much more. Take a look at a Python 5 and see just how much work the ASRAAM body-lift is doing.

I guess it ultimately depends on the exact numbers (as in ranges, RCS, etc), also consider that there would most likely be a multilayered system. If you wanted to get to the AWACS, you might need to go through ground radar and and escorts as well.

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.

I'm not quite sure I follow.

Ref. historical precedents for America defending its own airspace vs historical precedents for it invading other airspace.

Yes, you can apply the same to the 4.5's in that they could separate and/or fire multiple missiles but but they don't get to take advantage of that initially because they may not know they're in danger until being shot at.

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

As for supercruise, taking advantage of stealth to fly higher and then diving in mil power might be a way to get around AB. The F-22 could possibly use that as well.

Err... not if the 4.5s do the same.

Yes, more visible, but not 100% detectable, at least not at range.

Difficult to gauge how much you can turn without showing your jet-pipes.

Well it's kind of like the Korean War, the arguing stopped but no one reached consensus. In particular I don't think you can just brush aside the lift provided by the F-35's fuselage nor the fact that if you want to go by WL and TWR, it's basically on 4th gen levels with an equal fuel fraction.

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

The airspeed requirements are highly inadequate. They barely provide the performance of an F/A-18 and fall well short of the F-16. They are, of course, vast improvements over the AV8B and A-10, but that is hardly an argument for success when referring to a "next generation" fighter.

Yet somehow it has Typhoon beating transonic acceleration despite the fact it can't even manage transonic at SL.:doh:

If detection range isn't factored in. Though I suppose it goes the other way too. Sneaking up on a F-22 from behind leads to a F-22 with 0 launch range.

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.

Less range yes, but if slower, not significantly over short distances.

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.

If we want to use detection ranges like that, the EF is spotted at 70 nm (134 km). In the case of Irbis, it's a giant signal for RWR's. If we use the radar figures mentioned before, the range at which you'll see a F-35 at .005 m^2 is 20 nm (36 km). And if missile Pk is good enough to kill a F-35 at 75 km, it's surely good enough to kill an EF at 40-60 km.

Indeed (I made it about 120km) but that's an iffy shot from that range with an AMRAAM D. Not possible with C.

Raw speed isn't actually needed to run. You can out last them with a bigger fuel tank, draw them to friendlies or shoot back and evade while your missile forces them to run. And Mach 1.6 is pretty good considering that whatever the F-35 would need to run from would probably be carrying weapons externally. Just hope it's not a fully developed PAK-FA.

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.

There wouldn't be a problem if by the time it got to AIM-9 range, the numbers advantage had reversed (or reversed and then some) if the F-22's even decided to go to WVR.

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

wilky510 · February 10, 2013

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.

My question to you is: why are both China and Russia building stealth aircraft if both these so called 'stealth detecting' radars and IRST's could do the job for them?

Why waste millions more on designing a stealthy platform when you can just apparently slap on a IRST and AESA radar and easily beat the F-22...?

marcos · February 10, 2013

My question to you is: why are both China and Russia building stealth aircraft if both these so called 'stealth detecting' radars and IRST's could do the job for them?

Why waste millions more on designing a stealthy platform when you can just apparently slap on a IRST and AESA radar and easily beat the F-22...?

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.

Edited February 10, 2013 by marcos

marcos · February 10, 2013

Exorcet - You asked about the effective range of an ASRAAM.

50km

Edited February 10, 2013 by marcos

Exorcet · February 11, 2013

Oh no doubt, but as things stand in 2013 that's the case.

Well the other thing to consider is that there's no reason to think F-22's will face EF-2000's as of now.

I'm trying to look at this as per the threat title, that is stealth in general.

F-22 vs EF-2000 is an interesting case study of sorts though.

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.

I suppose it depends on what kind of spacing is allowed for the 4.5's. They need to be close enough so that the advance group and rear group can see the 5th gens, but far enough so that the 5th gens can't strike the rear group.

The same goes with numbers, and while you'd expect the 4.5's to be superior in numbers, I don't think it will be a game changing advantage.

What about the multi-flank approach above. The range of a Meteor is well beyond the range that a Typhoon is detectable from.

But without a target, the Meteor's range is pointless. If the advance group isn't guiding, the rear group will have to guide, which would probably put them in detection range of the 5th gen fighters.

1) Planes don't use the same body-lifting technology.

I'm really curious about this now as I don't know how you don't know about this. The F-16 made a big deal about, and before the fighters were using it NASA had all kinds of lifting body X planes.

It was experienced in the SR-71 and to a smaller degree in the XP-67.

Body lift is one of the things that separates the Gen 4's from the Gen 3's.

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

True

4) Even rare Mach 3+ planes also have to land and fly at low speeds, which is complicated by having too small a wing.

The wing size isn't always the problem. If I remember the Concorde (yes "only" Mach 2) has a massive wing relative to your typical airliner. But the AR is terrible which lead to requiring massive AoA for landing and being draggy off it's design speed.

The SR-71 supposedly had relatively good low speed performance because of the body lift making up for the wing design.

Now go to the X-3 and you get problems from a lack of wing area. The needle of a fuselage isn't going to generate anything to keep you in the air.

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.

It's a good point, but to be fair it's seems likely that the 4.5's will have a more variable RCS when carrying tanks/weapons. To say that they will get within missile range missile all the time might be giving them too much credit. It's unclear without more specific info.

Leaving out ground forces still leaves CAP flights.

Ref. historical precedents for America defending its own airspace vs historical precedents for it invading other airspace.

OK. While the home field might not be US airspace, I'm sure they're not just going to let enemy aircraft waltz in to important areas. F-22's could very well be performing CAP near by valuable assets (AWACS, air bases).

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

Yes, though the effect probably diminishes somewhat if they aren't attacked from directly ahead.

Err... not if the 4.5s do the same.

What I was getting at was that flying higher typically means radar has an easier time seeing you. This should be less of a big deal for 5th gen aircraft.

Difficult to gauge how much you can turn without showing your jet-pipes.

Well like I said it's a trade off. The more they want to turn, the more likely they are to be detected.

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

That's only the threshold though correct? (I can't go through the whole thing right now).

Yet somehow it has Typhoon beating transonic acceleration despite the fact it can't even manage transonic at SL.:doh:

I'm not saying that. I've repeatedly given the EF the advantage in raw performance.

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.

It's an advantage no matter where you're pointing, it reduces detection range. But that doesn't tell you where the enemy is.

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.

I suppose that's possible.

Indeed (I made it about 120km) but that's an iffy shot from that range with an AMRAAM D. Not possible with C.

They wouldn't need to fire immediately at max range.

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.

I'm still holding off on range until we get definite figures, and as for SC they did not say that was max speed (nor did they say it wasn't). It's probably safe to assume that the F-35 won't do M 1.5, but is M 1.3 possible? Maybe.

Also, that 1.2 was at level flight. Start diving and you'll go faster.

They'll need that advantage.

They're designed to get it. Though if they will be successful remains to be seen.

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

That's probably a good quick way of putting it, though if I remember the F-22 itself has MAWS (I'd consider that to be better than Gen 4 avionics for WVR). They were even talking about upgrading it to DAS.

On ASRAAM range, it doesn't say what that max range is against (maneuvering target, etc). Though it's impressive for a WVR missile.

GGTharos · February 11, 2013

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

That's a threshold, with an objective of M1.1. Let's face it, the F-35 is fat and needs to be high to attain a higher speed, and there is has exceeded not only the threshold, but also the objective.

On the other hand, it does better than the superbug ... which will hit M1.0 with 2x120 and 2x9, but will stay well under M1.0 if you stick a FLIR pod on it, or a centerline tank or both, which brings it to equivalent capability with sensors and weapons and fuel (well, lesser, but whatever) as the F-35 ... it will pull M0.95 or so and no faster. Unless its in a dive.

Indeed (I made it about 120km) but that's an iffy shot from that range with an AMRAAM D. Not possible with C.

It is with C-5 and C-7 ... under the right circumstances.

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.

Who says it can't break Mach 1 at SL? And why would it matter anyway? Any other fighter would take too long to get over M1.0 anyway in such a situation. Edited February 11, 2013 by GGTharos

marcos · February 11, 2013

Well the other thing to consider is that there's no reason to think F-22's will face EF-2000's as of now.

True. More likely to be playing scout for Meteor targeting with EFs following them.

But without a target, the Meteor's range is pointless. If the advance group isn't guiding, the rear group will have to guide, which would probably put them in detection range of the 5th gen fighters.

If they had to detect it themselves in the first place but if the forward group passed the target details, they could then acquire it easily, in the same way as the F-35 acquired the ground fire threat in the video I posted in the other thread.

I'm really curious about this now as I don't know how you don't know about this. The F-16 made a big deal about, and before the fighters were using it NASA had all kinds of lifting body X planes.

It was experienced in the SR-71 and to a smaller degree in the XP-67.

Body lift is one of the things that separates the Gen 4's from the Gen 3's.

It's not the same technology. If it was then an ASRAAM would just be a Python 5 without fins (since the US passed Israel the LOAL and off-boresight tech. after it left the project). Fighter body-lift is generated by the body itself forming an aerofoil-like shape. That's not how missile body-lifting technology works, since the body is symmetrical. Think about it, the ASRAAM just has those small fins at the back without it.:)

The wing size isn't always the problem. If I remember the Concorde (yes "only" Mach 2) has a massive wing relative to your typical airliner. But the AR is terrible which lead to requiring massive AoA for landing and being draggy off it's design speed.

And that's only at Mach 2. Wing sweep is definitely an issue but ideally a Mach 4 object should not have wings. An SR-71's wings would likely be smaller if it didn't have to land and take-off.

The SR-71 supposedly had relatively good low speed performance because of the body lift making up for the wing design.

And that was due to the shape of the body as an aerofoil not body-lifting technology. It would have had less wave drag at Mach 3.5 with even smaller wings.

Now go to the X-3 and you get problems from a lack of wing area. The needle of a fuselage isn't going to generate anything to keep you in the air.

No and yet the ASRAAM with little iddy-biddy fins at the back does.:D

OK. While the home field might not be US airspace, I'm sure they're not just going to let enemy aircraft waltz in to important areas. F-22's could very well be performing CAP near by valuable assets (AWACS, air bases).

Why, they'll be hit by ballistic missiles or supersonic cruise missiles from stand-off ranges by any force with Gen 4.5 aircraft.

Yes, though the effect probably diminishes somewhat if they aren't attacked from directly ahead.

Well that works both ways and IR/EOST is a 360deg system vs radar, which is narrow FOV.

What I was getting at was that flying higher typically means radar has an easier time seeing you. This should be less of a big deal for 5th gen aircraft.

Ground radar yes, but we omitted them.

Well like I said it's a trade off. The more they want to turn, the more likely they are to be detected.

Exactly. Hide or run?

That's only the threshold though correct? (I can't go through the whole thing right now).

Yes but given that the F-35 has missed the threshold STR spec......

I'm not saying that. I've repeatedly given the EF the advantage in raw performance.

I was taking the piss out of FlightGlobal.

It's an advantage no matter where you're pointing, it reduces detection range. But that doesn't tell you where the enemy is.

That's where IR/EOST comes in within 50km or more if it's from a rear aspect (jet exhaust showing).

They wouldn't need to fire immediately at max range.

Still a very iffy distance though.

I'm still holding off on range until we get definite figures, and as for SC they did not say that was max speed (nor did they say it wasn't). It's probably safe to assume that the F-35 won't do M 1.5, but is M 1.3 possible? Maybe.

Top speed is only 1.6 with reheat, so unlikely.

Also, that 1.2 was at level flight. Start diving and you'll go faster.

Assuming it has a higher service ceiling being a heavier aircraft with smaller wings?

On ASRAAM range, it doesn't say what that max range is against (maneuvering target, etc). Though it's impressive for a WVR missile.

That's what you get with body-lifting technology.

marcos · February 11, 2013

That's a threshold, with an objective of M1.1. Let's face it, the F-35 is fat and needs to be high to attain a higher speed, and there is has exceeded not only the threshold, but also the objective.

Let's face it, the F-35 hasn't exactly been meeting threshold specs lately (see STR spec). So I'm being generous really.

On the other hand, it does better than the superbug ... which will hit M1.0 with 2x120 and 2x9, but will stay well under M1.0 if you stick a FLIR pod on it, or a centerline tank or both, which brings it to equivalent capability with sensors and weapons and fuel (well, lesser, but whatever) as the F-35 ... it will pull M0.95 or so and no faster. Unless its in a dive.

The object figure of 1.1 is based on a Hornet (read whole doc)

It is with C-5 and C-7 ... under the right circumstances.

C-5 is rated at 105km, so I guess you're looking at a high altitude shot at a drone at SL.

Who says it can't break Mach 1 at SL? And why would it matter anyway? Any other fighter would take too long to get over M1.0 anyway in such a situation.

Spec says. It's all about whether the F-35 can out-pull a Typhoon from 0.8 to 1.2.

GGTharos · February 11, 2013

Let's face it, the F-35 hasn't exactly been meeting threshold specs lately (see STR spec). So I'm being generous really.

No, you're being disengenuous. STR is just one part of parameters.

The object figure of 1.1 is based on a Hornet (read whole doc)

I have the superbug speed profile.

C-5 is rated at 105km, so I guess you're looking at a high altitude shot at a drone at SL.

The AIM-120A is capable of 100km and a bit over under the right circumstances. Those would be high-to-high, and very high closure.

Spec says. It's all about whether the F-35 can out-pull a Typhoon from 0.8 to 1.2.

Spec doesn't say anything other than threshold is 1, and objective is 1.1.

As for out-accelerating a tiffy, whatever. The tiffy is a lightweight fighter with pretty respectablle TWR, good acceleration would go with a good engine and generally the terriroty. The F-35 doesn't need to, though from the thresholds it looks like it was a nice to have that they wanted on there. Instead it performs sort of like a combat-loaded F-15C (which in turn should not accelerate as fast as a tiffy either). I don't see a problem in any case.

Edited February 11, 2013 by GGTharos

marcos · February 11, 2013

No, you're being disengenuous. STR is just one part of parameters.

That's also based on thrust vs lift/drag.

I have the superbug speed profile.

Good for you.

The AIM-120A is capable of 100km and a bit over under the right circumstances. Those would be high-to-high, and very high closure.

That's not the actual kinematic range of the missile then.

Spec doesn't say anything other than threshold is 1, and objective is 1.1.

But it's failed that spec on other grounds.

As for out-accelerating a tiffy, whatever. The tiffy is a lightweight fighter with pretty respectablle TWR, good acceleration would go with a good engine and generally the terriroty. The F-35 doesn't need to, though from the thresholds it looks like it was a nice to have that they wanted on there. Instead it performs sort of like a combat-loaded F-15C (which in turn should not accelerate as fast as a tiffy either). I don't see a problem in any case.

At least you can admit that much.

GGTharos · February 11, 2013

That's also based on thrust vs lift/drag.

And?

Good for you.

Yes, it really is.

That's not the actual kinematic range of the missile then.

In fact it is the actual kinematic range of the missile under a particular set of circumstances.

But it's failed that spec on other grounds.

Where?

At least you can admit that much.

What admission? I'm not sure I ever said that the 35 would out-accelerate a tiffy.

Exorcet · February 11, 2013

It's not the same technology. If it was then an ASRAAM would just be a Python 5 without fins (since the US passed Israel the LOAL and off-boresight tech. after it left the project). Fighter body-lift is generated by the body itself forming an aerofoil-like shape. That's not how missile body-lifting technology works, since the body is symmetrical. Think about it, the ASRAAM just has those small fins at the back without it.

Actually I was talking about before when you discounted body lift in the F-35 vs EF discussion. Not comparing fighters with ASRAAM.

Yes it's the wings that make the majority of lift, but if the fuselage say adds 10% to lift, it's as if the F-35 had 10% more wing. It also comes without increasing span (wave drag) or increasing chord (induced drag/skin friction).

A fuselage by itself is inherently inefficient because it's basically a really small AR wing, but the actual wings are going to act like really big wing fences and prevent the fuselage from shedding massive vortices.

marcos · February 11, 2013

Actually I was talking about before when you discounted body lift in the F-35 vs EF discussion. Not comparing fighters with ASRAAM.

Yes it's the wings that make the majority of lift, but if the fuselage say adds 10% to lift, it's as if the F-35 had 10% more wing. It also comes without increasing span (wave drag) or increasing chord (induced drag/skin friction).

A fuselage by itself is inherently inefficient because it's basically a really small AR wing, but the actual wings are going to act like really big wing fences and prevent the fuselage from shedding massive vortices.

All modern fighters are designed to have that to some extent, but ASRAAM body-lift is different entirely.

TAW_Blaze · December 13, 2013

Just to clearup, supercruise means flying over M1 (some of the sources I've read say M1.5) with combat loadout without the use of afterburners, which is highly unlikely to be performed by anything that has external loadout. Now imagine an engagement of a Raptor arriving with M1.3-1.4 or even higher with AB off, push the burner a tiny bit to get some extra speed, fire with some degree of initial loft and then crank to whatever direction until their slammers go active. Assuming this is around either 20-26 angels or above 40 they would likely fire around 20-25 miles or 30-35, if not earlier. The Typhoons would only get to know what's going on when the slammers go active, I'm not sure how well the newer RWRs work against AESA but nevermind all this when you can fire with datalink anyway. You could leave one in the back to give you datalink from 10-20 miles back so they don't even detect being painted. The red flags represent it pretty well how hard they can butcher everything that tries to fight them.

Imagine what a second wave of stealth squadrons would cause, the first wave would scatter and bite them, then the rest would finish up everything else.

About this WVR stuff, it's all well and good but getting to WVR doesn't mean a thing if you lose 1/2 - 3/4 of your stuff in BVR, which would probably happen. Good luck sneaking up on someone with datalink, AESA, great TEWS, perhaps AWACS support, and then add stealth on top of that. Unlike in DCS, air superiority is not maintained by pilots hugging the deck behind hills in reality.. also in BFM whichever pilot makes the most mistakes will lose. That's just as simple as that.

Edited January 5, 2014 by <Blaze>

Sign In

Valid Points on Stealth?

Recommended Posts

Exorcet

marcos

Exorcet

marcos

wilky510

marcos

marcos

Exorcet

GGTharos

marcos

marcos

GGTharos

marcos

GGTharos

Exorcet

marcos

TAW_Blaze

Recently Browsing 0 members