Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

page: 42
2
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Radar Cross Section


VLO/LO AIAA papers call it one and the same.


We don't. Here's a link to a parliamentary inquiry into Australian Air Superiority, where it talks about the change of status of JSF from VLO to LO. Page 3 towards the bottom is the VLO discussion

Link

It points out that there is no recognised standard with regards to stealth terminology, which is why we are currently discussing this. Suffice to say, from an Australian (and I believe US) perspective, SH and Rafale fall into the LO category, while F-22 falls into the VLO.



Anywayz, dealing with what is on the airframes.

-> The S-H has ducts angled along with tailplanes, and also co-alignment of most other detail surfaces to reduce reflectivity to certain planes.

So does the Rafale. Indeed, some major elements of its substructure have been shaped with reflectivity in mind. The S-H's has not.

-> The S-H has a screw within the duct to prevent radar hitting the compressor face.

The Rafale has a serpentine duct

-> The S-H has RAM incorporated onto various panels.

So does the Rafale.


There is nothing with regards radar treatment that the S-H has that Rafale does not.


Ok, I can’t post justification for why I believe what I do, so let’s just move on.



Passive acquisition

The F-22 relies mainly on passive acquisition to achieve the kill rates it does, why should that be any different for any other platform? Everyone knows it is easier to see an active radar than be seen by an active radar.


[Don't anyone reply with that LPI pish - there are even books published on how to detect the damn things - check amazon if you don't believe me!]


Well, there’s no point arguing then if you are going to dismiss LPI. We have an exchange officer with the Aggressor SQN flying out of Nellis who has flown against the F-22, so I have a decent understanding of how such fights went. But if you don’t agree with LPI, I won’t argue.



Weapons


We are comparing aircraft here - since the Rafale can use AIM-120s, the point that the aircraft has inferior weapons to the Hornet is null and void as it can use the same weapons.


(BTW - the AIM-120D is not in service, so is void as well - unless we want to start going down fantasy lane)


And there is no in-service Rafale carrying AMRAAM and Sidewinder. Consistency works both ways. Currently there are no users of Rafale who use AIM-120 and AIM-9, and we have to use this as our base scenario. If the Super Hornet and Rafale were to meet in combat tomorrow, the only scenario is a MICA versus AIM-120/AIM-9X one. Anything else is going down fantasy lane…


[edit on 27-2-2008 by Willard856]




posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
To me this looks like not-very-much and I think that the LO properties of the SH may have been exaggerated on this board a little perhaps?


Bingo.

I was just browsing though the post and have the impression that the SH is just a watered down F-22



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But there are books on Amazon on how to detect those so it can't work.


I said EVEN books.


What do you think the difference in knowledge between proprietary and published work for such things are?


I can tell you it is an awful lot.




Originally posted by WestPoint23
Despite ALL other credible evidence saying the opposite.



What credible evidence?


There is NONE, ZILCH, NADDA... apart from the blind faith of a few people dotted around some forums.


Go check out some of the IEEE journals, there are absolutely loads of papers dealing with detecting LPI radarsets.



[edit on 28/2/08 by kilcoo316]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
And there is no in-service Rafale carrying AMRAAM and Sidewinder. Consistency works both ways.


Indeed.


But the Rafale could carry a full AMRAAM load-out tomorrow if needs be.


The S-H could not carry a full 120D loadout as the things aren't gonna be around till 2010.

see here (pdf) page 18/59



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by waynos
To me this looks like not-very-much and I think that the LO properties of the SH may have been exaggerated on this board a little perhaps?


Bingo.

I was just browsing though the post and have the impression that the SH is just a watered down F-22


I find it hard to just pin the blame on people on these forums when they are subject to the promotion material and propaganda that has come from Boeing regarding their plane. What else do you expect them to say and if the person that posts that information doesn't have the insight to look into the situation or when other info comes up refuses to look into, then that is your problem with them at that point. Not the info thats Boeing fault and misleading remarks just like Northrop has done and Lockheed and Suhkoi etc. Yes we can then debate tech specs and our sources but it strikes me and more and more pointless and endless debate due to the fact that the internet doesn't provide the best forum for this type of debate per say. Anyways continue to have fun with the ridiculously long thread.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


How could Rafale carry a full loadout of AMRAAM tomorrow? I didn't realise the French had bought it.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm not an aviation engineer but to me it seems logical that small is good...
When it comes to sportscars there is no way a MB SL AMG is as good as a Lotus Exige througt tight corners, no matter the MB has +600BHP and the Lotus has like 200BHP. Why? The Lotus wheighs 900kg and the MB +2000kg. Light meens tight turns. Quite logical to me. Compare to fighter jets cutting through thin air? It should be the same. In figures that is low wing loading and as high T/W as possible, AND low weight to that. There is no way I can see that a F22 is as responsive as a JAS 39 Gripen, if considering the above, but what do I know? What do you think? Not trying to be offensive, just suspicious...



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Here is my FAVOURITE top 5:

1: SU 27SM (Man, iff you see the pics then you see a prom queen from heaven)
2: SU 35BM (Bring it on!)
3: Rafale (Much better looking then EF and F18 SH)
4: MiG 35 (F16/F35`s please look at your six
)
5: Gripen (So small yet so deadly)

Here is what REALITY top 5 would be:

1: F 22 (think off a Modernised F15 with TVC and stealth and other crapload off stuff)
2: SU 35BM (It only lacks stealth and other lil features, so it just misses the nr 1 spot)
3: EF 2000 (Almost number 2 spot but it lacks TVC and long service length for the airframe to prove itself)
4: Rafale (Its a darn good thing that beats the F18 SH and the SU 30/33 hands down)
5: MiG 35 (A darn good plane with proven airframe design)

Feel free to comment on my SECOND top 5.

Cheers



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Go check out some of the IEEE journals, there are absolutely loads of papers dealing with detecting LPI radarsets.

Would you happen to have any links for these documents?


Thanks in advance.


[edit on 27/8/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Would you happen to have any links for these documents?



Not public - there are literally tons of papers. LPI has been around since the 80s, so there is nearly 30 years of public work in the area.

You can bet that the various manufacturers are far ahead of published work.

Here is a few if you can get hold of them.



Interception of LPI radar signals
Schrick, Gerd; Wiley, Richard G.
IEEE 1990 International Radar Conference


Computer-aided methods of the LPI radar signal detection and classification
Grishin, Yury; Janczak, Dariusz
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
2008, vol. 6937, p 69373O


Detection and parameter estimation of LPI signals in passive radar
Tang, Xiaoming; Jiang, Benqing; Zhang, Caisheng; He, You
CIE International Conference of Radar Proceedings 2006



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
4: Rafale (Its a darn good thing that beats the F18 SH and the SU 30/33 hands down)


I have to tell you, there are quite a few Marine aviators and Navy pilots that would disagree with you there.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
F-22
F-35
Eurofighter
F-15/SU-35
Rafale
Gripen/F-18/F-16/MiG-29
Mirage 2000



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
1. F-22

2. Su-35

3. Typhoon

4. F-15

5. Rafale



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
1. F 22
2. SU 30
3. Eurofighter
4. Rafale
5. MIG 35



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
First of all i don't know what to say about the F-22,all the negative image created by the US media isn't making me believe that it is that good,second the price tag per plane and maintenance cost is through the roof,you need a fleet of planes ready to be in the air 24/7 and still there some rumors about cancelling the project.And I'm not against US jets,it's just that I like russian jets better,they are pure dogfight jets,incredible maneuverability and those sweet rockets with incredible range.

1.SU-35BM/SU-37
2.SU-30MKI
3.Eurofighter Typhoon
4.Dassault Rafale
5.MiG-35
edit on 29-3-2011 by AlinFrost because: some minor errors



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
And it's not the machine,the pilot makes the difference,a highly skilled pilot in a old aircraft can take out a state of the art jet with a poorly trained pilot in it.
Anyway this is just a discussion,i hope we will never find out which of them is better.And about the F-22 versus the newly built Sukhoi PAK FA jet,it's not even in production and it's better at some major chapters such as payload,higher g load,longer operational range,better radar and so on,you cannot make a comparison between different generations planes,the F-22 opponent is the Sukhoi PAK FA so the Raptor is in the wrong thread
.
edit on 29-3-2011 by AlinFrost because: errors



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The F-22 relies mainly on passive acquisition to achieve the kill rates it does, why should that be any different for any other platform? Everyone knows it is easier to see an active radar than be seen by an active radar.


The plane was designed to fly straight toward an airborne target and remain undetected until well within its passive radar range. The F22 appears about the size of a metal marble when facing a target, therefore the F22's passive radar extends beyond pretty much any other airborne radar's active detection radius, that is why it is different. As soon as the plane turns it shows a lot more radar signature, but turning isn't required to fire a missile though it does spike the F22's radar signature a bit, but not as much as showing the broad side of the aircraft. It is sort of the assassin of fighter aircraft.

Combined with the range of US (I say US because no other country has F22s now, don't hate) missiles and AWACs support it is by far the most effective air superiority fighter. The con would be that the stealth function of the F22 is not as effective against ground based radars as they 'see' the bottom of the aircraft a little, where all that expensive radar absorbent coating doesn't cover. It was designed primarily for air superiority, of course.


Originally posted by AlinFrost
And it's not the machine,the pilot makes the difference,a highly skilled pilot in a old aircraft can take out a state of the art jet with a poorly trained pilot in it.


I would beg to differ, the Red Baron in a Fokker triplane is not going to beat an amateur in a Spitfire any day of the week.

Technological advancement does make quite a difference. Though I will agree that cleverness can play a part, but only with the right tools.
edit on 31-3-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
The best of the best will be the first "unmanned" air superiority fighter, whoever gets there first. Lets face it, the day of the manned machines is numbered. The agility of an aircraft with no "human" baggage on board will allow for the stealthiest of stealth design technology. Smaller platforms with shapes allowing for more onboard munitions and fuel and the ability to manuever at g-forces well above any manned platforms capability. We'll still need the pilots of course, but they'll be able to hunker down in a bunker somewhere and will probably be strapped into a "virtual" cockpit that is so sophisticated that for all practical purposes they'lll be as "one" with the
machine as you could be. And who's to say that's not for the best. It's better to loose the machine than loose the pilot any day of the week in my book. people will always be much harder to replace than hardware. But for right now, BVR - F-22 / Close in Guns - Typhoon F.2, hands down. Rafale is very close.
edit on 6-4-2011 by CosmosKid because: left out the "right now" choices





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join