It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 Clubbed like a baby seal by Russians and Chinese

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Which it won't actually get (for radar guided AAMs) until 2016 I believe.


Incorrect, that is simply an unconfirmed and anonymous rumor. The F-35A/C in US service will receive an internal 6 x AAM configuration during Block IV/V upgrades in 2016. All US models entering IOC will have their basic weaponry certified during SDD; AIM-9x and AMRAAM included.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Trimble now has the entire RAND report on his blog. Worth a read. Nothing in there about clubbed seals, but it paints a dim picture in a scenario or two involving China and Taiwan. Worth a read, but it takes awhile. 90 pages.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
As far as i know the aim 9x cant be fitted in the F-35 or the F-22 because it needs to be out side the airframe to track.

An other thing is that the Su 35/37 are fitted with the new IRBIS-E radar that can see a target of 3 m2 up to 400km and a super stealthy target of 0.9 m2 at 90 km. And it also have a angel of 120 degrees up/down and side ways look and search aria.

The russian jets also have AA missiels fitted to their jets that have a greater range then the US made AIM 120D. Now the F-22 and F-35 is going to get the new AIM 120C but not untill year 2015.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
SU-30 T&W ratio is similar or inferior to the F-35 unless you give it uprated engines with terrible TBM which no-one has bought.


Good spot on my screwup. Su-30 hasn't been bought with the uprated engines yet, but Russians have confirmed intent to buy Su-35 BM series in "significant numbers" (I don't remember the number, for some reason 78 is bouncing around in my brain but I thought it was over 100 for some reason.), and that definitely has a TW > 1.0 . It's slated to enter service in 2010-2011, so it will be relevant around the time F-35 is introduced.

My bad. The upshot is that a Su-35 BM is a better idea of what Flankers will be capable of when F-35 is actually introduced. Chances are good that other Flankers currently introduced will be upgraded during the time as well.

Again, sorry for the screwup, I was going off by highest possible stats. Hopefully this will make a better example.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Does anyone have an idea of what the Su-35 would cost per copy? I think we all have ballpark figure for F-35. Are the costs roughly equivalent?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
As far as i know the aim 9x cant be fitted in the F-35 or the F-22 because it needs to be out side the airframe to track.


The F-22A currently uses the AIM-9L/M (-9) variant. The F-22s side bays open up to allow 35 degree off-boresight for either missile. In block increments after 2011 the Raptor will get a JHMCS, AIM-9X Block II, and the AIM-120D. The Block II AIM-9X has lock on after launch ability. They were recently tested on an F-15C. The F-35A will also likely be one of the first aircraft to convert to these variants as they reach IOC.


Originally posted by spy66
An other thing is that the Su 35/37 are fitted with the new IRBIS-E radar that can see a target of 3 m2 up to 400km and a super stealthy target of 0.9 m2 at 90 km. And it also have a angel of 120 degrees up/down and side ways look and search aria.


Such quoted figures are pointless, not only credibility wise but also operationally. Force readiness, training, supply, planning etc... That's what matters. Anyway, A U.S. strike package would likely include, AWACS, ELINT/SIGINT, CC, EA/EW and SEAD/DEAD assets. The situational awareness will be in favor of the F-22s tremendously. These assets also act as force multipliers and give even more of an advantage to the Raptors.
The Raptors will be undetected and have total awareness of what's happening in the battlefield. They can maneuver in a favorable position everytime and make the kill.

Here are a few threads about recent Raptor results.

Nine "Kills", One Mission
F-22 Red Flag Results
F-22 Northern Edge


Originally posted by spy66
The russian jets also have AA missiels fitted to their jets that have a greater range then the US made AIM 120D. Now the F-22 and F-35 is going to get the new AIM 120C but not untill year 2015.


The AIM-120D is the new missile, and the AIM-120C-7 the current version. You have them mixed up. The AIM-120C-7 has a greater range then any other current mass operated Russian variant. The D will add greater capability and increased range; IOC is scheduled for 2011 at the latest. Even still the Raptor and Lightning will dominate. Range is pointless if you cannot detect and track a target.

Point is, the Raptor will not be getting these weapons fitted on first because the legacy systems need them first, F-15C, Super Bug, F-16 etc... The Raptor is fine with the current variants because it just offers so much as a platform. It can take on 3 (AIM-9X/JHMCS F-16s in Red Flag and still hold its own. Never mind about dropping anything airborne from long distance unseen. Ask anyone who's participated in these mass exercises, they will all confirm the results. I firmly believe in the modern battlefield there will be simply stealth fighters, and targets.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I firmly believe in the modern battlefield there will be simply stealth fighters, and targets.


Haha where have a heard that quoted before? I heard that exact same line from a F-35 program manager of some sorts. Any idea where it originated? just something that stuck me just now that seems like a new line to describe stealth capabilities.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
double post*

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


From "Future Dogfights" on the Hist Channel.

Watch Part One.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


The report was an interesting read, but by no means eye opening and it doesn't really change anything with the F-35, or the F-22. Various parts I disagree with... they shouldn't of used Air Power Australia as a source.

[edit on 28/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Yet these same correspondents are willing to believe, on the basis of a Lockmart drivel release, that it is the best A2A platform of all time by a factor of 4!!


The '400% as capable' 'statistic' has been used many times over now, it should always refer to it's superiortiy over 'legacy aircraft'. Legacy aircraft would likely include F-16 Block 30 & F-18, obviously. In this case, I suspect they used the 400% in this case just to throw the media a bone, or, perhaps the media used it out of context - it's the media you know, it doesn't need to be accurate. Furthermore, no one claimed the F-35 is going to be 4x as effective while in the strike role. It is designed to do more than one mission.

[edit on 24/9/2008 by C0bzz]


I think the quote was 400% more capable than ANY 4th Gen fighter, not Blk 30 F-16s.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by intelgurl
Until this aircraft actually starts flying test combat missions with it's full array of avionics, virtual helmet and weapons systems then all of this bickering and arguing is meaningless.


And equally, it appears, the 'over-the top' claims of the manufacturer are just as meaningless - but the taxpayer is still expected to pay up for development on the basis of these 'meaningless claims' (in this case) before even ordering the thing.

Here is a question that (perhaps) nobody here can answer, but I'd be very interested to know.

It appears that current 'best' business practice is to be leveraged to the hilt (presumably otherwise you aren't actually trying). So just how leveraged are major international defense companies? How much business confidence can one have in a company that either can't meet a schedule or a budget, or cannot meet their own claims for a product.

I sure hope that companies such as Boeing and Lockmart are working with their own money - I would not want to see what little is left of my retirement funds being invested in such unreliable businesses.

Under present financial circumstances I'd like to be as sure as you are, intelgurl, that ....
a) The F-35 will ever be produced,
b) Lockmart will exist in 12 month's time, or
c) that you will have a job in 12 month's time.

Without doubt, if the Wall Street bailout doesn't happen, or worse, doesn't work, then the situation in the US in particular (but generally worldwide) will resemble what happened in Russia when the USSR economy collapsed (you know, what America describes as defeating the Evil Empire). There won't be money for any new high-tech defence toys for anyone to play with. But that will depend on the integrity of the traders and their ability to work for the common good rather than for their own greed, or the imposition of regulation to the market - hmm that gives me hope - NOT

But of course, this sort of catastrophe could NEVER HAPPEN in a country as intelligent, loved by God, and technologically advanced as the good old USA - so why should I worry!

One thing is for sure (and you don't have to be Einstein to predict this). In 12 month's time the US economy (and the World Economy) is not going to look anything like it did 12 months ago - nothing in the way business is done (in all spheres of life) will be as it has in the past - there will be ramifications for EVERYONE.

If any of you believe that the US Government can give away (what is the figure at this moment $750 billion - it seems to get larger by the hour - and you can insert your own thoughts regarding who the money will go to) and it not affecting government contracts, then you are living in Disneyland.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]


Have you worked on the F-35 project at any point during its testing? If not, then you have absolutely no idea how it performs to make the sort of claims, that you have been. Apparently the USAF hasn't been displeased with the aerodynamic performance, and they would be in a far better position to know how it flies. I find it interesting that if it's such a dog, the F-16 chase planes have to go into afterburner to keep up with it, and are constantly getting left behind(and this is with the -35's landing gear down).
None of the critics are taking the T/W*D into account, and faulting it due to a large internal fuel capacity(for its weight). An apples to apples comparision would be once it's at an equivalent fuel status with a foe, where its T/W ratio would be very competitive. Then you throw in the superior situational awareness, and first see/first shoot/first kill, and that makes for a pretty good A2A capability. This isn't a stealthy A-7. It outperforms F-16s in turn rates, acceloration, climb, etc...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Originally posted by Darkpr0




An unmodified Su-30 has a range of ~1600 nautical miles, which is more than any of the F-35 variants. Unless of course, you were willing to carry external stores, thereby increasing drag, weight, and RCS on the F-35. But, as you've pointed out, that may not be so smart. Right?


An Su-30 doesn't have a 1600 mile range with 12-14 AAMS, and it's not gonna give its best aerial performance with that load out either. A more likely load out would be 6 to 8 AAMS, drop tanks and ECM pods.





Why would you go into a combat situation assuming you know exactly what is happening where? Would you risk forces on a bet that you know how many aircraft there actually are in a given zone? Particularly an aircraft which is hailed as being invisible to radar and could therefore hide from your sensors, thus giving you no clear idea of how many there are? If you are going to engage foes, you might as well equip the aircraft fully in case the whole stealth strategy implemented into the F-35 actually works.


It's true you won't know how many F-35(or F-22s) you're going up against, but you'd have a pretty good idea how many 4th Gen aircraft were inbound.
You're gonna want a useful loiter ability, and combat persistence, which means that you'd have to operate closer to base, or mid air refuel frequently, if you're carrying max load out.





The F-35 can only carry a max of 4 missiles internally and retain that aerodynamic "advantage". Which means you're going to have F-35s running back to their mothers very early in an engagement if that's all you choose to equip them with. By comparison, if for whatever reason the Flankers aren't down in the engagement as you're suggesting they will, chances are that they will still have missiles. That means they're still useful, whereas the F-35s who spent all their missiles will have some trouble doing much of anything.


Actually that'll be 6 AAMs at IOC, in VLO mode, and the ability to carry at least 6 more externally if stealth isn't required.





And less thrust. A JSF has at max 40 000 pounds of thrust. Basic Su-30 can manage up to about 56 000 pounds total. Granted, it weighs more, but the thrust-weight is still better. Let's not go into anything newer than the Su-30, it goes less optimally for the F-35.


Actually to be more accurate, you should have said the JSF has at least 40,000 of thrust(with the figure most likely being higher, and with much growth capacity).



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
As far as i know the aim 9x cant be fitted in the F-35 or the F-22 because it needs to be out side the airframe to track.

An other thing is that the Su 35/37 are fitted with the new IRBIS-E radar that can see a target of 3 m2 up to 400km and a super stealthy target of 0.9 m2 at 90 km. And it also have a angel of 120 degrees up/down and side ways look and search aria.

The russian jets also have AA missiels fitted to their jets that have a greater range then the US made AIM 120D. Now the F-22 and F-35 is going to get the new AIM 120C but not untill year 2015.



The F-35 will carry the AIM 9X as will the F-22(not currently, but will have the Block II which has lock on after launch).

The IRBIS can see a 3-5m^2 target at up to 400km, but that's not at every altitude/attitude in relation to the Flanker, and the tracking range will be shorter. As for .9m^2 at 90km(it may actually be .1m^2)- that's not bad, but the problem is that the F-22 and F-35's RCS is considerably less than that. The take away here is that the Flanker won't see the F-22/F-35 before it's well within AIM-120D range(which is in the 180-200km range).
The long range Russian missiles you're referring to, are not operational, and if and when they are, they're designed to be used against AWACS/Tankers/etc.. They're not gonna have a 300-400km range against a fighter(much less a F-22/F-35).



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
And again people getting on here saying why is Australia buying a $16 billion worth of this aircraft.

Look up the facts people we are not buying the base model F-35 but one to our needs, there is more to the Australia F-35 then meets the eyes.

So lets stop bagging this aircraft as it the best thing we will have, the dicission has been made.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GT100FV
 



I just got a question.

Is the radar signeture of the F-22 and F-35 always constent or is it weaker when tracked from the side,under or above. Or is it just constent from a head on tracking radar.

PS. The IRBIS radar is also a pasive tracking radar that can track radio and GPS signal. Now the F-22 and F-35 always need to fly with the GPS system on. Have do they counter that ?


I have read somwhere that the russians dont use a GPS system,because it it american made. What do they use as a positioning system?

I know they are working on their own GPS system but it is not in place yet.









[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Is the radar signeture of the F-22 and F-35 always constent or is it weaker when tracked from the side,under or above. Or is it just constent from a head on tracking radar.

Modern stealthy aircraft are designed to be 'stealthy' from all, or most, angles. That being said, radar cross section is smallest head on; but far larger from other angles, particularly the sides. Obviously, the larger cross section, the higher the detection range - perhaps to the point it's not stealthy to modern radar at all. Some have postulated that newer ground radars, scattered about, could detect stealth aircraft from unstealthy angles, then cue other systems, including aircraft, to the stealthy aircraft.

On stealth:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are also other ways to detect stealth aircraft....:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But it shall be noted the technology is still maturing.


PS. The IRBIS radar is also a pasive tracking radar that can track radio and GPS signal. Now the F-22 and F-35 always need to fly with the GPS system on. Have do they counter that ?

Maybe someone else could elaborate, but... I find it hard to beleive, any, avionic could simply intercept any datalink and triangulate the position of an aircraft with that - science fiction to me.

...

But you can always fly with INS & VOR / TACAN triangulation, in airliners it's accurate to a few hundred feet.




I have read somwhere that the russians dont use a GPS system,because it it american made. What do they use as a positioning system?

Not sure - I would expect newer aircraft to be Inertial with GPS, GLONASS, & NAVAID triangulation.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Older aircraft might be guided by navaids & ground radar?


I know they are working on their own GPS system but it is not in place yet.

They have GLONASS which works but has sketchy coverage.


As of March 2008, the system is not fully available, however it is maintained and remains partially operational with 16 operational satellites.[7]

In recent years, Russia has kept the satellite orbits optimized for navigating in Chechnya, increasing signal coverage there at the cost of degrading coverage in the rest of the world. In January 2008, with 13 operational satellites, GLONASS availability (the amount of the day when a position can be calculated) in Russia was 66.2% and average availability for the whole Earth was at 56.0%.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...


Hope this helps.

[edit on 28/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
An Su-30 doesn't have a 1600 mile range with 12-14 AAMS, and it's not gonna give its best aerial performance with that load out either. A more likely load out would be 6 to 8 AAMS, drop tanks and ECM pods.


ECM pods take up wingtip rails, the usual abode of R-73 missiles. If you add the wingtippers in you get 14 hardpoints. With ECM, that adds up to 12, so it's included in my totals. Even if you tack on a pair of drop tanks, that leaves you with 10 hardpoints, still more than the F-35.



It's true you won't know how many F-35(or F-22s) you're going up against, but you'd have a pretty good idea how many 4th Gen aircraft were inbound.


That still doesn't solve the problem of not being able to see the other, better aircraft coming to kill you.



Actually that'll be 6 AAMs at IOC, in VLO mode, and the ability to carry at least 6 more externally if stealth isn't required.


I had thought that stealth was exactly what the airframe was made for. The huge advantage of F-22s in their exercises seems to be the fact that they couldn't be seen. Now, if you wanted to bomb an undefended target into oblivion, stealth takes a back set to munitions, but something tells me that when you've got opposing A2A-oriented forces coming to kill you, you're going to want to keep some sort of stealth around.

Just in case.



Actually to be more accurate, you should have said the JSF has at least 40,000 of thrust(with the figure most likely being higher, and with much growth capacity).


Russians are working on the AL-41F1A, to be fitted into production Su-35BMs. Interestingly enough though, it's just a rehash of the AL-31 with advancements made in the preliminary stages of the AL-41 program tested on the Mikoyan Product 1.44. The real AL-41 series will be have a new core, being high-powered and interchangeable with AL-31 Series (including Al-41F1A and 117S) since they're going to be used in later versions of PAK-FA. Hence, you could just as simply upgrade the Flanker forces by giving them new engines as well. This implies that the Flankers have growth potential as well, but of course those Russians just don't like the idea of upgrading the Flanker series.


Out of curiosity, isn't 40 000 the sum figure including other stuff on the airframe, like the LiftFan and roll posts? Of course, The F135 engines on F-35A and F-35C don't have them. So those engines are just plane 40 000?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Out of curiosity, isn't 40 000 the sum figure including other stuff on the airframe, like the LiftFan and roll posts? Of course, The F135 engines on F-35A and F-35C don't have them. So those engines are just plane 40 000?

On all variants, the engine creates 40,000lb + of forward thrust in afterburner, i.e. not combined. In VTOL mode the engine is dry only, however, the lift-fan creates an additional 20,000lb of thrust, so the combined total is likely about 40,000lb still.


The STOVL propulsion system will consist of the core engine, a 3-Bearing Swivel Duct, Roll Nozzles, and a drive shaft connected to a 2-stage counter rotating Lift Fan. Engine thrust rated at 17,600 lbs, Roll Nozzle thrust rated at 3700 lbs, and Lift Fan thrust rated at 18,500 lbs.

www.globalsecurity.org...

39,800lb thrust... (Counted the roll nozzle once. If it was 2x3700lb then that's a heck of a lot of bleed air.)

[edit on 28/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The 40,000 figure is for either engine, all variants. It's rated at 25,000lbs dry, 40,000lbs with afterburner. The lift fan is rated at 18,000lbs from either engine.

The internal fuel is what changes from variant to variant. The A holds 18,480lbs, the B holds about 14,000lbs, and the C holds about 20,000lbs.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join