It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And Emile, I made no mention on oil so why bring it into the conversation?
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Right, so you're going to sacrifice loiter time?
The difference between mil power and afterburner at that distance is that afterburner will hinder the amount of time the aircraft has to fight. No only is supersonic speeds getting you there faster and at the same time, but also you have more time to fight.
Sure you can kill all your fuel for the sake of the argument, but in the end it's not worth it. If afterburner was the same as super cruise, why invest in super cruise?
The difference between a Trent 900 and a PW-119 is the type of engines they are and what they're used for. You of all people should know that such an analogy doesn't work in this situation. Why compare an airliner high-bypass engine with a military turbo-jet? Because of the thrust rating?
Originally posted by C0bzz
Could I ask a question?
Can four Su-30s band together with there four radars to detect stealth aircraft at longer ranges? I've been searching and searching and searching, and all I've found was the mini-awacs feature.
Originally posted by emile
very funny, before here I saw F-35 was changed its stealth to low observability, now I saw a new definition was called marginal super cruise
Originally posted by Willard856
Four radar focused on the one piece of airspace to detect a stealth platform doesn't make a lot of sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, the probability of detection doesn't change just because you have four radars looking at that piece of sky.
Most modern radar operate in seperate channels anyway so that you don't interfere with your buddies returns, and vice versa. So the saturation theory is wrong too.
Also, the whole idea of focusing radars on a certain piece of airspace to detect a stealth aircraft suggests a level of knowledge of the location of that aircraft already. While there have been some advances in this area, it is far from perfected, and if four aircraft are all sanitising the same piece of airspace, there is a hell of a lot of sky that isn't being sanitised. Which kind of defeats the purpose.
But again, for this to be the case, the Flankers have to be focused on a certain piece of airspace, and breaking up your flight like that leaves you exposed, which generally isn't a good thing.
Newer systems will address this limitation, but until they enter service, the above scenario isn't realistic. Where datalinking has its biggest advantage now is in enhancing situational awareness, and allowing non-voice tactical employment.
Tactics are important. On fighter sweep we fly line-abreast, put two Su-35 60 km then Su-30MK 40 km more each side – see side radio reflections of Pidgeon and pass target location to shooter with best position.
Ah, the mythical R-172. Once it enters service it will be a talking point, but until the Russians solve the myriad of targeting, flyout and carriage issues, the missile is nothing more than a paper tiger IMO.
Inter/Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL)
Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think that Willard was reffering to the ability to pass guidance data for a SARH missile(R-27ER etc) AFTER launch.
Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I'll assume you meant Mig-29's and not Mig-25's. Although I don't think the Su-35 or Mig-29 would be a match for the F-22, I do think that Russia is the only potential enemy of the U.S. capable of fielding an aircraft that could compete with the Raptor in the near future
Lol, ya i tend to make more typos at 4 am than I normally do.
I did hear what Putin said about his hopes for the Russian Aircraft industry but he has a long ways to go if he wants to even catch up to Boeing and Lockheed.
Even the French Aribus's newest GIANT airliner, lost out to Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
Makes no differenct to me though because I dont and wont fly, when i go across country i drive.
Russia is making a very good comeback though. At one time they were just behind Mexico in their economy but they have made a remarkable recovery. I dont know how they did it so quick but knowing the Russians its probably a little shady
Originally posted by wildcat
Highly unlikely, Russia can barely afford it's own future weapons research. Now China is a different story. They can afford building a new superior fighter craft and then sell it to Russia.
Originally posted by Vanguard223
You don't think Russia had a lot of money to invest in R&D during the cold war? Russia now is a shell of what they used to be. If they didn't have nukes, they wouldn't even have a seat on the world stage. All of you who say Russian tech is on par with American tech are living in a dream world.
However, the only problem with the Su-35 is that not enough has been produced to actually make a change, sadly no matter which way you look at it, unless the Su-35 has been produced in more numbers than just 11,
Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Welcome to ATS!
I agree with everything you said. Believe it or not, while the Su-35 probably can't match the F-22 in performance, the fact that its half the price makes it a very comparable aircraft.