Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Bludy on November 16, 2012, 11:59:03 AM
-
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth)
-
Why does every stealth plane look similar to the F22, is that the only viable shape? Besides the flying wing.
-
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth)
I wonder if they will come up with a working oxygen system too...
-
BS. No effin way.
They aint matchin nuthin we got unless is built by us or stolen from us.
-
Why does every stealth plane look similar to the F22, is that the only viable shape? Besides the flying wing.
Reduction of radar reflection.
-
Reduction of radar reflection.
Yes, but why that particular shape? There must have been some other shapes they thought of before this one was chosen...right?
-
Yes, but why that particular shape? There must have been some other shapes they thought of before this one was chosen...right?
Because that was the shape in the design docs that the Russkies and Chinese stole.
ack-ack
-
I believe much of the radar cross section reduction development was based on the work of a Russian mathematician :old:
-
Yes, but why that particular shape? There must have been some other shapes they thought of before this one was chosen...right?
It's the best shape to provide both form and function. The flying wing can be made stealthy, but it has no performance variable.
-
Russian plane's often fly beautifully, but lacks electronics of western world.
-
It's rather complicated but those angles you see repeating in different aircraft Titan, the self-mimicking trapezoidal shapes, reflect the least amount of radar waves. It isn't plagiarism so much as finding similar solutions to a restrictive problem.
-
I see...but what makes the trapezoidal shapes unique? Not busting anyone's balls, just curious. How come the trapezoids are more effective vs radar than say...a triangle.
-
I see...but what makes the trapezoidal shapes unique? Not busting anyone's balls, just curious. How come the trapezoids are more effective vs radar than say...a triangle.
Maybe more surface area and angles to absorb radar waves?
ack-ack
-
A triangle, well an arrow head is the optimal shape from the frontal aspect, it's just not commodious to anything else but that.
Try to look at the shape of a YF-23 say, and try to 'ray trace' a vector onto parts of the shape. Your three options are absorb, pass through or reflect. If you must reflect then you want to reflect in a different direction from the arrival, regardless of the presentation to the source. If you can reflect into other parts of the object, and then absorb, then double win.
Look at the T-50, the only non-stealthy bit is the motors. But they've chosen not to go extreme on the stealth and take 3d thrust vectoring instead.
-
The whole stealth thing is a bit of a waste of time in some ways. Russian IR tracking systems means that even an F22 can be picked up with it . If the enemy use ground control radars and not on board then the F22 has nothing to lock onto . Both pilots are relying on the direction of a controller (be it ground or AWACS) . So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)
-
A triangle, well an arrow head is the optimal shape from the frontal aspect, it's just not commodious to anything else but that.
Try to look at the shape of a YF-23 say, and try to 'ray trace' a vector onto parts of the shape. Your three options are absorb, pass through or reflect. If you must reflect then you want to reflect in a different direction from the arrival, regardless of the presentation to the source. If you can reflect into other parts of the object, and then absorb, then double win.
Look at the T-50, the only non-stealthy bit is the motors. But they've chosen not to go extreme on the stealth and take 3d thrust vectoring instead.
Cool, I get it now. Thank you. :cheers:
The whole stealth thing is a bit of a waste of time in some ways. Russian IR tracking systems means that even an F22 can be picked up with it . If the enemy use ground control radars and not on board then the F22 has nothing to lock onto . Both pilots are relying on the direction of a controller (be it ground or AWACS) . So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)
But Russia will never match the U.S. production capabilities, they may only produce 100 while we have 300. The rest will be older gen fighters. They'll still lose in a hypothetical war regardless. Right now anyway.
-
BVR is this not what happened the Phantom? IE the death of the dogfight? :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related)
-
BS. No effin way.
They aint matchin nuthin we got unless is built by us or stolen from us.
Not true, their egress systems work better than ours...because they HAVE to. :D
-
[quote ]
But Russia will never match the U.S. production capabilities, they may only produce 100 while we have 300. The rest will be older gen fighters. They'll still lose in a hypothetical war regardless. Right now anyway.
[/quote]
TBH older gen fighters wouldn't be at that much of a disadvantage as soon as you get to visual range or IR guided munitions Su-27 and 33 could out climb and turn the F22 the Mig 29 would be not quite as good . When Germany unified pretty much all the Luftwaffe pilots were glad they never had to fly against mig 29's due to it's huge ability to get guns on target no matter what the angle as long as the nose was pointing the right way .
OK so Russia may not have numbers of stealth aircraft but it has more than enough 3 -4th gen to work with that are on par with the likes of F15 , 16's and 22's
-
TBH older gen fighters wouldn't be at that much of a disadvantage as soon as you get to visual range or IR guided munitions Su-27 and 33 could out climb and turn the F22 the Mig 29 would be not quite as good . When Germany unified pretty much all the Luftwaffe pilots were glad they never had to fly against mig 29's due to it's huge ability to get guns on target no matter what the angle as long as the nose was pointing the right way .
OK so Russia may not have numbers of stealth aircraft but it has more than enough 3 -4th gen to work with that are on par with the likes of F15 , 16's and 22's
You should search for eagl's posts on the capabilities of the F-22 compared to the Russian stuff, very enlightening.
ack-ack
-
I've been reading this chicken little kind of stuff for decades. Just have a tough time buying all the theoretical claims until
they are actually proven.
-
The whole stealth thing is a bit of a waste of time in some ways. Russian IR tracking systems means that even an F22 can be picked up with it . If the enemy use ground control radars and not on board then the F22 has nothing to lock onto . Both pilots are relying on the direction of a controller (be it ground or AWACS) . So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)
If you never get into short range, how much good will the IR tracking and heatseeker do you? Also if the F-22 is coming from behind,
will that IR system pick it up?
-
If you never get into short range, how much good will the IR tracking and heatseeker do you? Also if the F-22 is coming from behind,
will that IR system pick it up?
TBH older gen fighters wouldn't be at that much of a disadvantage as soon as you get to visual range or IR guided munitions Su-27 and 33 could out climb and turn the F22 the Mig 29 would be not quite as good . When Germany unified pretty much all the Luftwaffe pilots were glad they never had to fly against mig 29's due to it's huge ability to get guns on target no matter what the angle as long as the nose was pointing the right way .
OK so Russia may not have numbers of stealth aircraft but it has more than enough 3 -4th gen to work with that are on par with the likes of F15 , 16's and 22's
Like Rino said, by the time the older gen Russian fighters got into visual range, half of them would be gone. Once they start dogfighting, I suppose you're right about the Russians having better maneuverability and will manage to bring down some U.S. fighters. But will eventually be overwhelmed by the more numerous U.S. planes. Now of course I understand this is all hypothetical and anything can happen, but on paper, that's what going to happen most likely.
I'm honestly more interested in the "What if the Cold War turned hot" scenario with 1970s planes on both sides. Russian planes would've decimated U.S. planes in a straight up dogfight back then, IMO.
-
The Russian IR suites have a 70KM range for detection and 25KM for lock on for missile guidance .The agility of fighters such as Su-27 , 33 family would make missile hits quite improbable , if i remember correctly the F22 is supposedly have missiles that lock onto the radar of the target craft so if enemy fighters turn off their own radars and use ground base controllers then The F22 is going to have trouble getting a lock with out using an active radar . The biggest draw back to stealth as shown by RAF sam crews is that if you use weather radars you can look for holes in your weather and spot stealth aircraft .
This was done to the B2 spirit flying over the UK to go to an air-show in europe . They tracked it across the UK using super high resolution weather radar from the ground . They knew it's height and speed . OK so no ability to lock on but then you just send in your interceptors to visually ID and knock out .
When you look at numbers I think Russia still has the upper hand , not so much numerical way but in the unwilling nature of western governments to enrage citizens in "needless " deaths of service men . Where as Russian mentality is to protect the Motherland at all costs , damn the popularity ratings .
All in all yes the US would win but damn it would be a close call .
-
Stealth aircraft such as the B2 deploy radar reflectors/repeaters when operating in controlled airspace for safety reasons. The fact that a radar tracked them under such a condition is irrelevant. As for IR, stealth is much more than just reduced radar reflectivity. The correct term for stealth is reduced signature which equates to lower radar, IR, visibility and even noise. This is one of the reasons that supercruise is significant. The F-22 can cruise supersonically without the use of afterburners and their extremely large heat signatures. Also, the Russians aren't the only ones that have IR sensors. We had the IRSTS in the F-14D and it was far from the magic system some people imagine and are far from reliable based on a tremendous number of atmospheric and target variables. Also, even if you can target an IR signature at long range with a missile the fact that you don't know it's range makes it a complete crap shoot. Also, long wave length ground based radars do not provide targeting quality data, that's why fighters and air defense systems always have their own higher frequency tracking and guidance radars. Another "also" to consider is that these ground based radars are going to be first things targeted in a war. They will not last long enough to matter. As for just shutting down your own radar the first consideration is you're blind. Secondly, while an F22's missile may be able to track a radar that's only one of their guidance modes so, if you're the F22 you've got some guy who shuts down his radar so can't see you coming while you're tracking him on your own radar and firing missiles with perfect SA. Hummm, who do you think wins?
-
. Secondly, while an F22's missile may be able to track a radar that's only one of their guidance modes so, if you're the F22 you've got some guy who shuts down his radar so can't see you coming while you're tracking him on your own radar and firing missiles with perfect SA. Hummm, who do you think wins?
erm the guy with RWR .......... he will know your tracking him . F22 relay heavily on AWACS for data so take out AWACS and every one is in the same boat Stealth just means you end up in guns only combat where the the F22 is not the greatest . Factor in ECR's , flares ect gun on gun is pretty much only option left to both pilots. air to air missile hits from both sides are not going to be very likely. as with most countries (UK included with the euro fighter) there is plenty of chest thumping without thinking of what the other guys are bringing to the party or how they are planning on getting round issues.
-
erm the guy with RWR .......... he will know your tracking him . F22 relay heavily on AWACS for data so take out AWACS and every one is in the same boat Stealth just means you end up in guns only combat where the the F22 is not the greatest . Factor in ECR's , flares ect gun on gun is pretty much only option left to both pilots. air to air missile hits from both sides are not going to be very likely. as with most countries (UK included with the euro fighter) there is plenty of chest thumping without thinking of what the other guys are bringing to the party or how they are planning on getting round issues.
Almost none of that is correct. Air-to-air radars operating in search and Track While Scan modes are virtually undetectable in typical RWR and modern US radar missiles can easily be fired in TWS. Fighter RWR typically react to single-target-track where the fighter's radar fires a continuous beam of energy at it but, as I said, modern US radar missile are perfectly effective when fired from a scanning mode. The missile will typically go continuous active at end game but by then it's far to late for a fighter to react. 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. As for taking out AWACS, best of luck to you. It's one thing to fire HARM missiles at fixed ground sites and a completely different thing trying to take out an aircraft like an AWACS which is not only pretty far away but is mobile and also protected by those very F-22's you're dismissing.
You're also missing one of the key reasons for fighter stealth. We tend to think about the hype that the airplane is "invisible" but that's not the complete, nor necessarily accurate, story. Maximizing stealth impacts other aircraft attributes such as maneuverability. Perhaps you've heard that all aircraft are a series of compromises. You want to fly this far, the airplane has to be this big. You want the best turn performance, the wing and control surfaces need to be like this. You want top speeds the engines need to be like this. The same is true for stealth. The F22 (and any stealth fighter) compromises its stealthiness in favor of things like maneuverability and speed, otherwise, they'd all look like the B2 and they obviously don't.
The more important part of stealth isn't straight "invisibility" but that the lower signatures reduce the range at which the aircraft can be detected and weapons can be employed it. Take this scenario, two fighters close on each other. One sees the other at 40NM while the other cannot see the other until 20NM. The aircraft that can see first without being seen has a huge tactical advantage ranging from the ability to launch missiles at ranges where the other aircraft doesn't even know there's a threat (and ending the fight right there) to setting up the intercept to arrive at an offensive advantage. Other offensive advantages range from being able to disengage if the tactical situation is bad (you're outnumbered), recognizing the NME tactics being employed (lead arounds, drags, pincer, etc.), or even the ability to maneuver outside of the other fighter's radar coverage to arrive on the NME fighter's six completely unobserved. All of that can happen based not on invisibility but simply on seeing the other guy before he can see you and the Russian fighters you mentioned, while being maneuverable will be at a huge disadvantage. Another thing about "supermaneuverability." Ask yourself how you feel when you see a guy in AH at the very top of his climb just hanging there. Pretty good, right? Well, a lot of this "supermaneuverability" is exactly the same, the guy is essentially stalled and is hanging there. Great for a 1v1 but death in a multi-bogey environment. I'd love to go up against a Russian fighter pirouetting around at zero airspeed. Point my AIM-9X at him with my helmet mounted sight and pull the trigger. That's one dead Ruskie.
When (or more correctly IF) the Russians can actually produce their stealth fighter then lots will depend on how good of a plane it actually is. It, like the F-22, will be a series of compromises. We have a tremendous advantage in lead time and experience with stealth so the chances that the airplane is half as good as the F-22 are pretty low but even if it's as good then lots will depend on tactics and the supporting infrastructure to build, deploy and maintain these hugely expensive weapons.
-
I always love it when somebody that is ill informed, or one of the 'Russian A/C are super l33t' types come on here and and start spouting things as if they are gospel. I immediately subscribe to the thread, and await the entrance of either Mace or Eagl. Watching somebody argue with two of the best fighter pilots in the world always is good for some out loud laughs. The wife thinks I've gone nuts during these threads, as they have me talking out loud quite often.
One of my best friends from high school, Maj Jason Paquin is a 2000 hour Hornet Pilot here in Canada, and graduated that Empire Test pilot school in the UK where he flew all kinds of Nato fighters, and I think the only modern one he hasn't flown is the F14, due to it retiring. Reading Mace's posts is like listening to him talk.
I was about to jump in about the "no escape zone" of modern NATO missiles, but I think Mace covered it in the above thread far better than I obviously ever could. I will state that if you think that the 95% and higher hit rates from the Aim120 and Aim9 missiles are false, there are a whole bunch of dead Iraqi, Serbian, etc pilots that would argue the point, if they were breathing. 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. Even the vaunted Su35 etc with all the flippidy do stuff can never pull enough G, or fly fast enough to escape an Amraam or AIM9m-x once it is inside the no escape envelope. It is physically and mathematically very improbable, and comes down to something failing on the missile, such as the guidance system, warhead, etc. At least this is how I understand the no escape zone.
Now, have the Russians and Chinese made strides in the last ten years. Of course they have. Mainly from stolen information from the look of their aircraft and the word on every defense site on the planet. Have they caught up in terms of technology - no. And more importantly, have their pilots become better than ours? That'll be the day. Of course, China can someday spend enough money to get its pilots the same hours in the air as the USAF/Nato. Even when this day comes, they will have about 30 years of catch up to play to come close to our side's understanding of air combat.
As for the the 70's Cold War match up, why not look at what the Israeli's did with American and Nato equipment and training to the Warsaw Pact's aircraft and training. You have several wars to choose from, from 67, 73, to the late 70's early 80's. I believe the score is something like 20 to 1 or higher as far as air to air combat goes, and even higher if you count the WP aircraft destroyed on the ground. Why would USAF pilots fare any worse vs Soviet pilots in these same plane? Even in Vietnam, towards the end of the war when all of the crazy engagement restrictions were removed, and the F4's could engage beyond visual range at last, look what happened to the Mig21/19/17's then by comparison to the earlier part of that war.
A question for Mace: Do you believe it is worthwhile for the Navy/USAF/Nato to still look at building generation 5/6 type aircraft that aren't focused as much on Stealth, but more on payload, range, maneuverability etc? A plane like the F14/F15/F111 on steroids is what I mean. A really amazing AESA radar, a huge loadout of 12 or more A2A missiles, or an attack variant with about a dozen very useable hardpoints that has huge range. With all of the Stealthy long range missiles coming into service, and not to mention the drones, why even bother with "Stealth" platforms that are manned. Why not build fighters that focus on the other parts of the puzzle like I said, and save a pile of money and build something that sensors and stealth not withstanding is unbeatable in the sky. Now that the Typhoon, Rafale, F35, F22 etc are all here, there doesn't seem to be much coming down the pipe other than a bunch of talk about generation 6 fighters that are super stealthy, and have all the compromises and huge maintenance/deployment expenses like you mentioned.
-
I always love it when somebody that is ill informed, or one of the 'Russian A/C are super l33t' types come on here and and start spouting things as if they are gospel. I immediately subscribe to the thread, and await the entrance of either Mace or Eagl. Watching somebody argue with two of the best fighter pilots in the world always is good for some out loud laughs. The wife thinks I've gone nuts during these threads, as they have me talking out loud quite often.
One of my best friends from high school, Maj Jason Paquin is a 2000 hour Hornet Pilot here in Canada, and graduated that Empire Test pilot school in the UK where he flew all kinds of Nato fighters, and I think the only modern one he hasn't flown is the F14, due to it retiring. Reading Mace's posts is like listening to him talk.
I was about to jump in about the "no escape zone" of modern NATO missiles, but I think Mace covered it in the above thread far better than I obviously ever could. I will state that if you think that the 95% and higher hit rates from the Aim120 and Aim9 missiles are false, there are a whole bunch of dead Iraqi, Serbian, etc pilots that would argue the point, if they were breathing. 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. Even the vaunted Su35 etc with all the flippidy do stuff can never pull enough G, or fly fast enough to escape an Amraam or AIM9m-x once it is inside the no escape envelope. It is physically and mathematically very improbable, and comes down to something failing on the missile, such as the guidance system, warhead, etc. At least this is how I understand the no escape zone.
Now, have the Russians and Chinese made strides in the last ten years. Of course they have. Mainly from stolen information from the look of their aircraft and the word on every defense site on the planet. Have they caught up in terms of technology - no. And more importantly, have their pilots become better than ours? That'll be the day. Of course, China can someday spend enough money to get its pilots the same hours in the air as the USAF/Nato. Even when this day comes, they will have about 30 years of catch up to play to come close to our side's understanding of air combat.
As for the the 70's Cold War match up, why not look at what the Israeli's did with American and Nato equipment and training to the Warsaw Pact's aircraft and training. You have several wars to choose from, from 67, 73, to the late 70's early 80's. I believe the score is something like 20 to 1 or higher as far as air to air combat goes, and even higher if you count the WP aircraft destroyed on the ground. Why would USAF pilots fare any worse vs Soviet pilots in these same plane? Even in Vietnam, towards the end of the war when all of the crazy engagement restrictions were removed, and the F4's could engage beyond visual range at last, look what happened to the Mig21/19/17's then by comparison to the earlier part of that war.
A question for Mace: Do you believe it is worthwhile for the Navy/USAF/Nato to still look at building generation 5/6 type aircraft that aren't focused as much on Stealth, but more on payload, range, maneuverability etc? A plane like the F14/F15/F111 on steroids is what I mean. A really amazing AESA radar, a huge loadout of 12 or more A2A missiles, or an attack variant with about a dozen very useable hardpoints that has huge range. With all of the Stealthy long range missiles coming into service, and not to mention the drones, why even bother with "Stealth" platforms that are manned. Why not build fighters that focus on the other parts of the puzzle like I said, and save a pile of money and build something that sensors and stealth not withstanding is unbeatable in the sky. Now that the Typhoon, Rafale, F35, F22 etc are all here, there doesn't seem to be much coming down the pipe other than a bunch of talk about generation 6 fighters that are super stealthy, and have all the compromises and huge maintenance/deployment expenses like you mentioned.
You should know Russian equipment is always and has always been far superior in both quality and effectiveness.
-
You should know Russian equipment is always and has always been far superior in both quality and effectiveness.
Chuckle
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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" .
-
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.
-
"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+
-
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:
(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9017/r772.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
This is pointless. Believe what you will.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :aok
PPS -
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth (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).
-
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.
-
PPS -
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).
Wow! You've me dead to rights on that. Good job! Thanks for keeping the AH forums safe for democracy. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the purpose of the rule is to keep link baiting off the forum, rather than to discourage actual aviation/warbird article links that the entire community might find interesting. Thanks to your vigilance, I will forevermore include commentary with any link I share. Now, I'm sure I've taken up enough of your valuable time and I'll let you get back to chastising jay walkers and litterers.
-
Wut? ^
-
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.
Sage words.
China and Russia are no doubt closing the gap and using our arrogance to speed it along.
-
Wow, whats that? the Raptorsky? :rofl :rofl
Here's how I see it though:
I always have and will always believe that Russian aircraft are more maneuverable than the comparable western ones (I'm Indian, so maybe I'm biased :lol). Likewise, I'm also a firm believer than the western avionics will always be better than the comparable ruski ones.
In the world of BVR combat, that pretty much tilts the scales to one side.
However this is all theoretical, built on paper stuff. In a actual combat scenario, far too many other variables will affect the outcome of any combat situation. A major factor Id say would be numbers. If I can scramble 10 Mig21s (hypothetically) for every F22 inbound, expecting to lose 9 of them by the time I get to 10NM, I think the avionics advantage could be overwhelmed.
EDIT: I dunno if this is true or not, but one of my engineering instructors (who used to be in the SAS) told me a story of how once a defecting pilot brought with him a MIG which on inspection was found to be using glass diodes. Everyone thought it was funny that in the age of transistors, they still had glass diodes, until someone realised that glass diodes weren't as susceptible to an EMP as transistors.
Regardless, IMHO, the future will not be seeing many aircraft upgrades. We are now at the beginning of the era of UCAVs, and that will bring a whole new perspective to a battlefield. Also, I doubt the future will see many of these fancy high and mighty techs actually employed in combat. The wars of the future lie on the battlefield of economics, and I think all this mighty show of strength is primarily aimed at that. I built it, I don't yet need to use it, but someday you might need to.....wanna buy? :devil
-
Hazard is quite right in that the future of aerial warfare belongs to the UCAV. The Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale are very likely the last manned combat aircraft to be designed in Europe, that isn't just a bomb truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSM_t1cJKS8
The nEUROn stealth UCAV is under development with serial production estimated at 2020. BAE is develping their "Taranis". Both the USAF and US Navy are also developing advanced UCAVs. Russians are developing a UCAV based on the MiG Skat demonstrator. These UCAVs are BIG too; around 20,000 lbs, and the size of light jet fighters. So I think the Euros are going to skip the "Raptor generation" and go straight to flying terminators.
-
And what happens when an aggressor manages to hack the AI? Even one UCAV is enough to do damage. Manned planes, always.
-
Manned planes, always.
That's not even a reality now.
(http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a118_predator_firing_hellfire_2050081722-16359.jpg)
UCAVs have been hunting and killing people for a long time.
-
Go to Aus airpower if you want a very thorough discussion of the issues of stealth, LPI radar, missile kinematics, etc. etc.
Suffice to say, Russia produces some very capable aircraft. This should come as no surprise to anyone here. We all know the capabilities of the La-7. We all know the formidable threat the MiGs posed in Vietnam and Korea. They were the first with helmet mounted sights, IRST and thrust vectoring. They were also the first with thrust vectored missiles, multimode missiles, and a bunch of other stuff. When the cold war ended, western pilots got the chance to fly against Mig-29 and Su-27 directly, and were frequently stunned by the result - and let us not forget who keeps the ISS up there nowadays. They have never been slouches at aerospace, however bad their cars have been.
Of course, they were last with stealth, lagged for a long time in avionics and radar and had other various issues. They aren't magic either.
So who will win any particular matchup? Well, who will win when an LA-7 engages a P-51 - an encounter I'm sure all here are quite familiar with. The answer is very much, it depends - who has surprise, who has energy, who understands their plane better, and their adversaries. Modern fighter combat is very complex. The performance of aircraft built at the same technology level will vary based on two things - one the particular design tradeoffs the designers make, and two, how well they manage to package those tradeoffs. The P-39 was a brilliant design poorly executed. The Hurricane was an adequate design very well executed. The Spitfire - history speaks for itself.
The T-50 is twenty years younger than the F22. It's got L-band (stealth defeating radar), the IRST, rear quarter radar (so it can launch and run while still guiding), 3D thrust vectoring, its own stealth, and many other goodies. Do these make it a Raptor killer, or is there a hidden design flaw that makes it a turkey? I wouldn't bet on it. However history has not yet spoken of the F-22 vs the T-50. With luck it never will, and the war will be confined to these pages.
However whoever spoke of Russian production capacity is dead wrong. Sukhoi producing these in partnership with India and is looking to produce 1000 aircraft, with (I believe) 250 for the Indian Airforce and 250 for the Russian.
-
That's not even a reality now.
(http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a118_predator_firing_hellfire_2050081722-16359.jpg)
UCAVs have been hunting and killing people for a long time.
That doesnt mean they still can't be hacked in the future. Murphy's Law.
I understand half UCAV, half manned, that's not a bad thing at all. But 100% UCAV, I doubt it.
-
What do you mean "half manned" ?
-
What do you mean "half manned" ?
Ah, I meant half the force is manned planes and the other half is UCAV. Not just an entire air force of UCAVs.
-
The nEUROn stealth UCAV is under development with serial production estimated at 2020. BAE is develping their "Taranis". Both the USAF and US Navy are also developing advanced UCAVs. Russians are developing a UCAV based on the MiG Skat demonstrator. These UCAVs are BIG too; around 20,000 lbs, and the size of light jet fighters. So I think the Euros are going to skip the "Raptor generation" and go straight to flying terminators.
Agree. Here is China's latest copy of something made by the USA. Look familiar? SNORT! There are pics of it with air to air missiles as well. The Chinese UCAV's won't be far behind either. They've released what, 3 different fighter/bomber types in the last year to the public knowledge. Now this thing....you can be certain that they have copied all the UCAV tech that they've "borrowed" from US and NATO computers as well.
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Wing-Loong.jpg)
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Wing-Loong-2.jpg)
-
And what happens when an aggressor manages to hack the AI?
It's not like every single modern aircraft isn't fly by wire anyway. The only difference between a manned and an unmanned aircraft at this point is where the pilot is physically located.
-
The shape is used to reflect radar away from the source. You can't stop a plane from reflecting radar energy but you can make it so the plane does not reflect it back to the source. Also faceted skins are used in all stealthy planes. This does more of the same but it's integrated into the skin and just below the skin.
All the carbon fiber in the world couldn't make it so the engines and a bunch of other crap isn't metal in the plane.
(http://www.f-22raptor.com/pix/illustrations/st_scattering.gif)
I'll also point out that the russians are capable of making planes that are as good as anyone else's. This has been the case since aviation was a fairly new thing. They even trounced Lindberg before and after he flew to London from New Yowk.
They're better at thrust vectoring too.
Suck on this, F-22 fans:
http://youtu.be/1GdfnTLKcvM?t=1m42s
Can the F-22 fly straight up vertical and backward at the same time? I think not.
-
after watching a video on you tube i think it was inspired by a 1980's clint eastwood film rather than spying on the USA
-
@Hazard - you're right, the MiG-25 in particular had a tube-based radar, which could handle far higher power than same-era solid state gear, which gave it the ability to burn through jamming at tremendous range (it put out 250Kw peak power IIRC) - and is EMP immune. One of the advantages T-50 has is its large radome combined with the recent availablity of gallium nitride transistors in the transmit/receive modules. The details (obviously) aren't out, but reasonable power/density/area assumptions give it a lot more heft that the F-22s APG-77. Also, the Russians have long experience with combined L/X band systems (at least as far back as Mig-31), and stealth doesn't work well against L band (L band, however doesn't localize as well as X band does). T-50 has this too.
Again, not to say which plane is "better". I haven't flown either one.
-
The f-22 doesn't need to dog fight, you cannot best a aim9-x sidewinder,ever. so keep doin' those mid air loops that drop your airspeed to that of a car(i know its cool for air shows, but in combat your a dead man) after that,then wonder why someone was able to shove a missile or even cannon up your tail pipe. PLEASE also understand i was flying the f22 in jane's atf the better part of what 15+ years ago or more? (BY FAR A NEW PLANE WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?) And as far as thrust vectoring, you're way off, look at the x-31. Then understand how simple the f22's thrust vectoring is when it compares to fighters made in under the past 10 years.
I don't have the link right now, but ill show you something that is manned, doesn't use wings and can defy 86% of the earths gravitational field, and yes,that also includes a decrease of the same % to the humans gravity inside. "Tr-3B"
:Edit:
The first thrust vectoring nasa pioneered in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhonVYFIiP0
So suck that down Su lover.
-
I remember that x-plane.
Now back up your statement while explaining why the F-22 still has a gun.
The Terminator would have the advantage in a gunfight. We can debate missiles all you want but it is a boring subject compared to actual dogfighting.
-
The f-22 still has a gun because it was designed with one. :rolleyes:
:headscratch:
-
The f-22 still has a gun because it was designed with one. :rolleyes:
:headscratch:
Circular reasoning is not the same as actual reasoning.
-
It has a gun for when the range is too close to use a missile.
-
My dad can beat up your dad!
-
The f-22 still has a gun because it was designed with one. :rolleyes:
:headscratch:
Not sure here, but wasn't the F-4 Phantom put into operations without a gun, since they carried the brand new shiny sparrows and would never have to ever dogfight a MIG again ? :eek: :uhoh (huh? where'd the good old sarcastic roll-eyes smiley go?).
I agree the AIM-9X is way better than the dear old semi-active AIM-7, but still the same point holds true. Never say never.
-
The whole stealth thing is a bit of a waste of time in some ways. Russian IR tracking systems means that even an F22 can be picked up with it . If the enemy use ground control radars and not on board then the F22 has nothing to lock onto . Both pilots are relying on the direction of a controller (be it ground or AWACS) . So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)
"So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)"
The one (and most important variable) is the pilot. It isn't just about the plane, the electronics. In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) but the difference was the pilot (ie fighter tactics). The Soviets new they had a better plane but that became their "achilles heel". The same was true flying against Germany and Japan.
Fighter Tactics and the pilot is the on variable that you can't count on.
Just my opinon
With Best Regards
-
The problem with the latest technology russian planes is that there are usually only 1 or 2 made.
-
"So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)"
The one (and most important variable) is the pilot. It isn't just about the plane, the electronics. In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) but the difference was the pilot (ie fighter tactics). The Soviets new they had a better plane but that became their "achilles heel". The same was true flying against Germany and Japan.
Fighter Tactics and the pilot is the on variable that you can't count on.
Just my opinon
With Best Regards
Your pretty much right there . I think all sides get to complacent with technology . Every one whole relies to much on having the latest and greatest will fall short when things don't go quite to plan . The "enemy" always adapts especially when they are behind . Russia , China knew they had to fight stealth and I would imagine they would find a way around the issues to almost nullify it . If it was the US that didn't have stealth do you think your military wouldn't have worked out a plan to counter it .
-
Your pretty much right there . I think all sides get to complacent with technology . Every one whole relies to much on having the latest and greatest will fall short when things don't go quite to plan . The "enemy" always adapts especially when they are behind . Russia , China knew they had to fight stealth and I would imagine they would find a way around the issues to almost nullify it . If it was the US that didn't have stealth do you think your military wouldn't have worked out a plan to counter it .
Yes the USA would move to develop or counter stealth technology. Stealth today is like radar back in the mid to late 20's mid 30's to Russia and China, and Russia has been working on a counter measure (Germany first developed 1928, if my history serves me right) I believe the next test/development will be in stealth missile technology and mobile SAM systems, (which the Soviets have more of then anybody) the ability to make your mobile launch system "invisable", turning it on and not emitting a signal.
Good conversation piece
With Best Regards
-
it's the british cynic in me but to see chest thumping "F-22 fricking awesome clear the skis never get shot down " bull it just winds me up. All major battles and conflicts are lost because they don't credit the enemy. Look at the failure that was the first 8th air-force raids as they thought the B17 would "clear the skis of enemy fighters" . Did it hell . Same can be applied to British failures . Just because it was top of the line in your arsenal doesn't mean some low tech guy can't beat it . It seems the majority of US citizens and UK too are to impressed with shiny new things . I think Stealth from the start is a dead end road , there is to much to go wrong that could cripple your advantage over your enemy. It takes just one development and your war plan is undone.
The RAF found this in BoB old fighter tactics and formations no longer worked as the enemy didn't play to your strengths.
-
"So now you will have to fight gun to gun . I'll take the Russian bird any day in a gun fight. 3D thrust vectoring and a good IR tracking system with floating gun platform and AA missiles (the new aphid seems pretty good ultra short range missile)"
The one (and most important variable) is the pilot. It isn't just about the plane, the electronics. In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) but the difference was the pilot (ie fighter tactics). The Soviets new they had a better plane but that became their "achilles heel". The same was true flying against Germany and Japan.
Fighter Tactics and the pilot is the on variable that you can't count on.
Just my opinon
With Best Regards
No Sabres in Nam. Sorry
-
F100 super Sabre.
-
I only really like the technical aspects of these discussions and find the patriotism / nationalism a bit uncalled for.
Regarding the F-22 not needing to dogfight the YF-23 was rejected despite being faster and more stealthy (canopy notwithstanding) but less manoeuvrable. Presumably this weighed into the selection.
Also there are still many situations were a visual identification is necessary.
-
...In vietnam you had the Sabre, Phantom and the Mig (which was a superior plane) ...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/F-8E_VMF-212_CVA-34_1965_%28cropped%29.jpg)
-
it's the british cynic in me but to see chest thumping "F-22 fricking awesome clear the skis never get shot down " bull it just winds me up. All major battles and conflicts are lost because they don't credit the enemy. Look at the failure that was the first 8th air-force raids as they thought the B17 would "clear the skis of enemy fighters" . Did it hell . Same can be applied to British failures . Just because it was top of the line in your arsenal doesn't mean some low tech guy can't beat it . It seems the majority of US citizens and UK too are to impressed with shiny new things . I think Stealth from the start is a dead end road , there is to much to go wrong that could cripple your advantage over your enemy. It takes just one development and your war plan is undone.
The RAF found this in BoB old fighter tactics and formations no longer worked as the enemy didn't play to your strengths.
As missle technology has improved, Air superiority has been achieved through by firing first, and hitting what you fire at. Even though modern jets have tremendous Dogfighting capability, these planes are rarely more than missle firing platforms these days. Satalites, and other "not in the plane" sensing equipment are the ones aquiring targets and vectoring fighters to launch locations. Stealth is a game changer in how effective "Not in the plane" systems can be. Stealth also makes locking on and hitting a target for long range more difficult. As such stealth is here to stay, and those who win in the stealth arena will win in the skies. The next evolution seems to be missle platforms with no pilots, or Drones, because they are smaller and cheaper, and don't put pilots at risk. Combining these technologies will lead to remote-pilotted, smaller, stealth, Drones.
That being the backdrop, the F-22 probably has more capability than it would ever need. That capability comes with a penalty (reliability, cost, numbers). As such I think the F-22 will be the last of the push every envelope fighters for the USA.
-
How man can Russia build? I'd be more worried about China they have the money and thier plane is named The Falcon Eagle. Even if it is less capable Im sure China cna put more in the air.
-
Over at "The Aviationist" website, there is a new article talking about Lockheed Martin's new "Cuda" missle, a hyper velocity hit-to-kill air to air missile, that has no warhead, and relies on sheer impact energy from the extreme velocity involved to kill the target. Sort of like a powered rail gun projectile, just not as fast, and much larger I guess. Anyway, if it is in service secretly, or at least undergoing successful testing and close to being fielded, this brings up an interesting point regarding the whole "out turn, or out maneuver an incoming missile". As I had said earlier in the thread, it's a matter of many factors, but distance and velocity seems most important when it comes to a "no escape" type of zone or range with these new missiles. Obviously with no warhead, they are expecting and are likely having a lot of success with this weapon hitting the target with great frequency, which I'm sure would involve extremely hard maneuvering drones or other targets. The good news is, that the F35 and F22 can apparently carry 2 to 3x as many of these things as they can Aim120's.
Common Mace and Eagl, spill the secret intel on these new wepons and tell us everything else you know! I know that there will be airborne lasers, if there isn't already! PEW PEW PEW! I want to know about the UFO's too!! (j/k). I would like to hear what the pro's think of this type of a2a missile, and how it relates to maintaining and expanding the advantage the West has over the East in terms of firepower.
-
... how it relates to maintaining and expanding the advantage the West has over the East in terms of firepower.
The cold war has been over for a while now. If it reassures you, the West still outspends the East by approximately 15:1 on high tech weapons systems. Unfortunately this has not been particularly well translated into strategic victory in the modern era.
-
The cold war has been over for a while now. If it reassures you, the West still outspends the East by approximately 15:1 on high tech weapons systems. Unfortunately this has not been particularly well translated into strategic victory in the modern era.
Hmmm confused by your comment about "strategic victory". It has translated into tactical victory. What is strategic victory?
-
Even tactical victory would require that only historians know who Castro is, that Ho Chi Minh City be still named Hanoi, and that there would be no car bombs in Baghdad and Kabul. Strategic victory would see an economy unhobbled by war debt, and educational and infrastructure investments that allowed effective competition with China.
But superfighters are cool too.