Russia’s Stealth Fighter Could Match U.S. Jets, Analyst Says

[GScholz]

Once the target is inside of this envelope, the chances of evading it are pretty much ZERO.  Unless the fuzing system completely fails, and the round is a dud, that plane is going to be killed, plain and simple.

That's not what "no escape envelope" means. It simply means the effective range of the missile, when considering a number of important variables like range, speed, target aspect and launch altitude. If the target is within the no escape envelope/zone the target aircraft will have to deal with the missile; it cannot just turn away and outrun it. That however, does not mean the target aircraft can't defeat the incoming missile using countermeasures and maneuver strategy.

[nrshida]

Just to play devils advocate though for the sake of discussion there does seem to be a rather obvious way a smaller number of Sukhoi PAK FA, say, could neutralise a larger number of F-22s when employed in a defensive capacity. The projected range of the PAK FA is considerably longer than that of the F-22 on internal fuel only. The design so far is also looking rather stealthy from the frontal aspect and the USA does not have any stealth tankers.

Furthermore the 'tremendous advantage in lead time and experience with stealth' can also work against you. If the PAK is almost as stealthy / fast / manoeuvrable as the F-22 but requires considerably less maintenance, especially regarding the so far fastidious and increasing maintenance needed to keep aircraft stealthy, then this not only affects deployment but also training. This is almost an inevitability with the maturation of technology and you have rather shot your bolt already with the F-22.

[mthrockmor]

The only threat this or any other military system put forward around the world poses to America is by driving us to great fiscal folly. We are bankrupt and cannot afford competing in this area any more. I know, heresy but truth. Great nations do not fail from outside but internal rot. We are there.

Boo

[Gman]

GSholz I thought that the range thing you mean is the "rtr", not the nez,  but I could have the terminology all wrong.  There is a range where no maneuvering of any kind can defeat a non defective missile, at least that's how I understand the physics of it. ECM is a different thing i realize and that's not something I was discounting.  Just what I've been told is that the new missiles largely ignore these types of things or else switch to a mode that in fact tracks them.  

Also, BOO, I agree 100%.  One thing that scares me is that the USAF recently cancelled the "next generation multi service air to air missile" program, which was to cost 15bn in the next couple of years.  In 2011, the USAF said it was the highest priority item on the menu, due to the Ramjet powered Chinese A2M's and some of the high tech Russian stuff forthcoming.  Now it is deemed "unaffordable" and just cancelled, with many an general claiming it will put our guys at risk in the next 10 years.  I agree with them.

Also, regarding the NEZ, the cone that they show for the AMRAAM missile is about 1/3 or less of its actual range.  However, a target would need to be well over half of that range away or further if it was to have any chance of simply using range and outrunning the missile.  So if Gsholz you're right, then the NEZ for the Amraam would show to be well over half of its maximum range, or greater, if all the target needs to do to be outside of the NEZ is be able to outdistance the incoming missile, yet this isn't the case at all.  That's why I think the NEZ incorporates more things than just a "turn and flee" to escape range, and that the target still has "options" to out turn/maneuver the missile inside of this zone is incorrect, and that it actually means a range where the pKill is extremely high, nearly 100%, because the target simply cannot get away by any maneuver (yes, I remember the ECM, but that's not what I'm talking about).

Think of it like this.  If you are in a car 100 yards away, and I shoot at you while you are traveling along, and you turn to evade my bullet, what will happen?  The bullet will still strike your car, but in a slightly different spot, but the bullet can't change course or correct mid flight like a missile can.  I realize the speeds here are a huge exaggeration of those in A2A combat, but the physics still apply when you scale the car speed up from 60 knots to 600, and the bullet from mach 2 to the Mach 4 a modern a2a missile will be moving at.  No maneuver at all will let you get away from being struck, inside of a certain distance.  If you are in your car at a range of say 2 km, and you know my bullet is coming, then yes, you can turn or change velocity/vector to make it miss, but again, at 100 yards, you have no chance.  It's the same thing with an a2a missile vs an aircraft, just with different ranges and speeds, plus the missile's advantage of being able to make course corrections,  but it DOES exist, and as I understand it, the term is no escape zone.

[B3YT]

I think People have miss understood me . I'm not saying that the new SU would win 100% but that  saying a pure stealth  doesn't mean instant success.  Please correct me if i'm wrong but  I was given to understand that the furthest distance for a  definite AAMRAM hit is 25nm with the hit % dropping drastically at 35 - 40nm .  at which point the IR suite on russian fighters would pick up  the incoming fighters .   this makes it no longer   a straight forward missile fight but more of a cat and mouse game that favours fighters with longer legs.   

the F22 is an incredible piece of    kit but like all aircraft it has it's draw backs.  Maybe it's my cynical side that gets my hackles up at he Chest thumping  from all sides .  In an even numbers fight I don't think anyone would be a "winner"  .   

[Plawranc]

In a war of attrition the Russian Federation would win. That I have no doubt.

Russian aircraft and equipment are three things

Cheap
Resilient
Numerous

The F-22 as recent events highlight, needs hours upon hours of maintenance after one sortie. The Su's and Mig's can operate without a service and undergo an intense pounding and still remain combat effective.

The true difference is in the technological aspect. The US has far superior weapons and radar. Should this gap be closed however, the USA would be outmatched very quickly. Russian aircraft are designed to dogfight, modern US Fighters are designed around BVR engagements. The F-16 really being the only exception. 

[Charge]

"Also, modern missiles can pull more than 30G while manned aircraft can do at best 10G.  An NME fighter at 10G can't really outmaneuver a missile pulling 30.  At best he can hope to defeat the missile fusing which is extremely difficult."

I'm not sure if that is all correct in front aspect engagement. The missile needs to be able to pull at least that in frontal attack to counter any radical evasives by the target considering all the elements creating reaction lag in targeting system or systems, be it data-linked or not, as the closure speed is over 3 Machs. That is because a missile system is basicly reactive in nature. Any "fusing problems" observed in actual use may also have been falsely interpreted as such when in fact the missile may have been simply outflown by the target or the logic simply making a wrong decision when to explode. I bet the term is quite loosely used when the limitations of the missile manuverability and complexity of the launch angle decision are not fully understood.

Fired from the rear the target has less options to evade as the speed difference is smaller and the missile is still able to pull triple Gs to that of the target's ability. If the launch remains undetected the success depends only on how well the attacking aircraft has decided the launch angle to minimize the complex maneuvering and fusing decisions the missile has to make.

"Point my AIM-9X at him with my helmet mounted sight and pull the trigger.  That's one dead Ruskie."

Well, good luck with that. What I suspect more is the ability of any short range AA to fuse at all in that kind of situation. Prior to such desperate maneuver he could also be carrying an R-73 or two which is quite likely, unless you were fighting against another banana state in which case you need not worry too much about he effectiveness of obsolete Russian AA missiles anyway.

I'm sure it is good to have ample confidence in your gear if you are in the actual business and I'm sure all the people in the business are determined to build that confidence, be it justified of not. But over confidence is like having your other foot in the grave.

-C+

[GScholz]

GSholz I thought that the range thing you mean is the "rtr", not the nez,  but I could have the terminology all wrong.  There is a range where no maneuvering of any kind can defeat a non defective missile, at least that's how I understand the physics of it.

What you're describing there is the launch success zone;  the range within which there is a high kill probability against a target that remains unaware of its engagement until the final moment of interception.

The no escape zone  is the zone within which there is a high kill probability against a target even if it has been alerted. This zone is defined as a conical shape with the tip at the missile launch. The cone's length and width are determined by the missile and seeker performance. A missile's speed, range and seeker sensitivity will mostly determine the length of this imaginary cone, while its agility (turn rate) and seeker complexity (speed of detection and ability to detect off axis targets) will determine the width of the cone.

ECM is a different thing i realize and that's not something I was discounting.  Just what I've been told is that the new missiles largely ignore these types of things or else switch to a mode that in fact tracks them.  

ECM is only one factor. Even the most sophisticated missile radar cannot penetrate a wall of chaff. When the missile passes through the chaff, if the target aircraft is no longer within the missile's seeker limits it is defeated. Modern missiles like the AMRAAM are increasingly difficult to defeat though, especially for 1960s Soviet aircraft which accounts for most of these missiles' kill statistics.

Also, regarding the NEZ, the cone that they show for the AMRAAM missile is about 1/3 or less of its actual range.  However, a target would need to be well over half of that range away or further if it was to have any chance of simply using range and outrunning the missile.  So if Gsholz you're right, then the NEZ for the Amraam would show to be well over half of its maximum range, or greater, if all the target needs to do to be outside of the NEZ is be able to outdistance the incoming missile, yet this isn't the case at all.  That's why I think the NEZ incorporates more things than just a "turn and flee" to escape range, and that the target still has "options" to out turn/maneuver the missile inside of this zone is incorrect, and that it actually means a range where the pKill is extremely high, nearly 100%, because the target simply cannot get away by any maneuver (yes, I remember the ECM, but that's not what I'm talking about).

The AMRAAM missile has a top speed of about Mach 4, or twice the top speed of most fighters. However the AMRAAM only achieves its top speed at burnout; before burnout its speed is less than Mach 4 and after burnout it loses speed rapidly. At max range it is subsonic and literally falls towards its target in a ballistic trajectory. At max range, any maneuvering by the target would cause the missile to miss.

Here's a chart showing the launch envelope of a Russian AA-12 (R-77) missile:


As you can see the actual effective range of a missile is greatly affected by the aspect of the target; in this case from about 75 km for a front aspect target to about 25 km for a rear aspect target. A fleeing target aircraft can easily outrun a missile if it has enough time, so it is not surprising that the no escape zone of the AMRAAM is well short of half its max range.

[Gman]

If the target is within the no escape envelope/zone the target aircraft will have to deal with the missile; it cannot just turn away and outrun it. That however, does not mean the target aircraft can't defeat the incoming missile using countermeasures and maneuver strategy.

This is what you said originally.  Now what you are saying is agreeing with what I've been saying.  The nez bit you copied from wikipedia is what I said all along - the nez is the bubble that the target simply cannot outmaneuver or defeat the incoming missile by any non electronic means, which is what I said originally.  You then said the above quote, where you said that the NEZ is the distance the target can't just turn away and outrun the missile, and that it can still use maneuver strategy -your words- to defeat the missile if it is seen/detected/whatever within the NEZ, which is your point I've argued against, and that you now seem to be contradicting with your newest post.  I don't disagree with anything in your last post, as it is agreeing with everything I've said so far.  My point was/is that you originally stated that the no escape zone didn't mean "no escape" at all, and that the target could still "deal with" the incoming missile by "maneuver strategy", which is the complete opposite of what you are saying in the last post, right?  You using the long range example of the sub sonic missile being beatable by a turning maneuver is exactly my point and MAKES the point of the no escape zone - at longer distances, the missile due to slower velocity and the time it can be detected/etc allows for the chance of a maneuver to make it miss, but the shorter that distance/time is, the lower the chance of being able to make it miss becomes, to the point where that chance is mathematically and physically almost zero - hence the no escape zone.

As you can see the actual effective range of a missile is greatly affected by the aspect of the target; in this case from about 75 km for a front aspect target to about 25 km for a rear aspect target. A fleeing target aircraft can easily outrun a missile if it has enough time, so it is not surprising that the no escape zone of the AMRAAM is well short of half its max range.

You realize that diagram isn't the no escape zone, in fact it even states that it is the engagement vs a non maneuvering target.  The no escape zone of that same missile will look a lot different on that chart as it takes into account any possible maneuver the target can make, as any of those maneuvers will be pointless in terms of making that missile miss as it will be inside the envelope or bubble where the aircraft simply cannot go fast enough and pull enough g's to make the missle miss, same as the example I used with the car and the rifle bullet.  The range/bubble on that chart will be a lot smaller than what is shown versus a drone just plodding along in a straight line obviously.

Also Charge, you do realize you are arguing with a professional fighter pilot, don't you?  Somebody who has very likely forgotten more about ranges, envelopes, intercept/pursuit curves, all the math, science, and physics involved in air combat, then you or I will ever know?  And not just a fighter pilot, but one who specialized in an aircraft designed ONLY to be used in air to air engagements?  You can try and tell and convince yourself you're right all you like, but the simple fact is that the hundreds and thousands of fighter pilots, aerospace engineers, astrophysicists etc aren't going to be convinced any time soon that they are wrong and you are right.

[GScholz]

This is pointless. Believe what you will.

[Gman]

Well it is pretty simple.  Do you still think that the no escape zone means that you can out maneuver the missile inside of that zone, or not, because your first post says exactly that, while your second one does not.  If you still think that a target in the no escape zone can just simply out maneuver an incoming missile, you completely misunderstand what you wrote in your last post, which is  correct, and copied direct from easily available internet sources.  These sources however directly oppose what you've said in that first post however, that the target still has maneuver options available to out turn the missile inside the no escape zone, and that NEZ just means the distance at which a plane can turn away and out distance the incoming round.  Using that picture of the russian a2a is the engagement window versus a non maneuvering target, like it says, a completely different thing than what we are talking about, the no escape zone.  Simple, right?  If I'm the one that is completely out to lunch, I'm sure Mace will step in and correct every thing I've said, and I would obviously defer to his information, but I don't think that's what will happen if he sounds off regarding this.

What you said initially is essentially the same is this :  The no escape zone means something other than what I'm saying it does.  I'm saying that it refers to the distance where a target cannot escape being struck by simply moving, either by vector change, velocity change, anything at all.   You are saying that it means something else entirely, and you haven't been consistent on what that is.  You initially said that it is some distance where the target can no longer evade just by simply turning away and flying off and outdistancing the missile, and that inside this no escape zone the target still has the option to defeat it by maneuvering, which I completely disagree with.  The entire point of calling the no escape zone a "no escape" zone is that the target CANNOT escape by the laws of math and physics by ANY maneuver or speed change.  

That's not what "no escape envelope" means. It simply means the effective range of the missile, when considering a number of important variables like range, speed, target aspect and launch altitude

If the target is within the no escape envelope/zone the target aircraft will have to deal with the missile; it cannot just turn away and outrun it. That however, does not mean the target aircraft can't defeat the incoming missile using countermeasures and maneuver strategy.

This is what you initially said.  That isn't what the NEZ is at all.  The effective range of the missile changes bases on the very variables you are quoting, especially the range to the target.  A missile can still be in the "effective" envelope bubble, but OUTSIDE of the no escape bubble due to these very factors you've named off.  Within THAT bit of space, the part of the chart where the no escape bubble ends and the rest of the "effective" bubble exists, YES, in that space, the target CAN possibly maneuver to escape being hit.  However, once those factors become close enough, slow enough, high or low enough, then the target enters into that no escape zone, where the percentage of a kill, pKill, is so high, that it is virtually mathematically and physically IMPOSSIBLE for it to be made to miss by any maneuver or velocity change of the target.  Using the Aim9 as an example:  Say the no escape zone is 2nm.  Within that 2nm, the missile accelerates too fast and IS too fast and can pull 3 times the max G for a target to possibly out turn it.  That is completely different than its max effective range versus a potential target.  Say the max range is 10nm for that missile.  Then yes, between 2nm and 10nm, there exists mathematically and physically a possibility for the target aircraft to out maneuver the incoming missile, based on a huge number of factors not the least of which is actually detecting the threat in that 8nm distance the missile will keep flying after it is outside of its no escape zone bubble.  Gsholz you seem to be saying in your first post that the no escape bubble is in fact that bubble in the middle of the NEZ and the max effective range, when that isn't the case at all.  The NEZ is in fact the NO ESCAPE zone, where the target will almost 100% be hit due to the close range, relative velocities, altitude, etc.  The maximum EFFECTIVE range is the distance where the target can possibly be hit, so long as it isn't maneuvering, and this changes with all of the factors you mentioned as well obviously.  But what you originally said is what I quoted, that the NEZ is the EFFECTIVE range, when they are in fact TWO completely different things.  

That however, does not mean the target aircraft can't defeat the incoming missile using countermeasures and maneuver strategy.

 In fact the NEZ means EXACTLY that, the range where the target CANNOT use maneuver strategy as you put it, to make the missile miss.

 If you disagree with any of that, please explain exactly why.

[ACE]

In all honesty.. I would bet that the U.S. has fighters that are already built and served for us, that we dont even know about yet.  Thats my OP.

[Vinkman]

BS.  No effin way.

They aint matchin nuthin we got unless is built by us or stolen from us.

don't be so sure. The leaps in fighter design were due largely to our vast superiority in Computing power. With the much more free flow of computer technology now, I expect the russians to close the gap quickly.

[Babalonian]

In all honesty.. I would bet that the U.S. has fighters that are already built and served for us, that we dont even know about yet.  Thats my OP.

I do hope so, but with budgets being what they are these days, whocanguess.

I think it has never been more critical to keep these projects hush though.  You're less likely to have your information systems assaulted/proded if the public and world doesn't know you're there, and we all know (or at least are publicly aware) what type of attention the F-22 has already received in the last decade.  24-hours or less after the debut, it'll be the desire of every Chineese and Russian hacker's fantasy.


PS -  Not that it's important, but we shouldn't have you looking un-cool/hip on an internet forum.   OP = Original Post/Poster  |  HO/IMHO = Humble/Honest Opiion or In My Humble/Honest Opinion 

PPS -

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth

Because you're new, and ALL of your posts (3 of 3) are in blatant violation, I don't believe you're aware of the HTC's forum posting rules (see #13, and I'll reread #5).

[Ardy123]

don't be so sure. The leaps in fighter design were due largely to our vast superiority in Computing power. With the much more free flow of computer technology now, I expect the russians to close the gap quickly.

don't be so sure. The leaps in fighter design were due largely to our vast superiority in Computing power. With the much more free flow of computer technology now, I expect the russians to close the gap quickly.

USA is comprised of humans, so is Russia, as viking man pointed out, we had better tools. More important, the attitude that we are some how inarguable better is/will be the reason we are not... Believe we are the same, push for better, and you may get there. Imagine that we are 'super human', we will fail as all others have since the inception of humans who embrace this attitude.