• US Pentagon pissed over F-35 costs, lashes out at Lockheed and contractors.
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Morcam;39764834]I'm not even sure what to say anymore. You can also tell that F-35's are in your area with a pair of binoculars. Exploding buildings are also a sure sign. Your only recourse seems to be "Passive 3D Radar" that hasn't even been shown to work against stealth aircraft.[/QUOTE] uh what does VLO airframe have to do with passive radars?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764848]uh what does VLO airframe have to do with passive radars?[/QUOTE] You just stated they can't get a lock on VLO aircraft, which makes them effectively useless. You can tell generally where enemy aircraft are, but you can already do this. It would also be astoundingly easy to jam, and it [I]doesn't even exist yet.[/I] You are basing the future of air defense in your country on one news article about Passive 3D Radar.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39764879]You just stated they can't get a lock on VLO aircraft, which makes them effectively useless. You can tell generally where enemy aircraft are, but you can already do this. It would also be astoundingly easy to jam, and it [I]doesn't even exist yet.[/I] You are basing the future of air defense in your country on one news article about Passive 3D Radar.[/QUOTE] Where did I say they can't adapt passive radars to surface to air missile systems? Passive radars are a game changer, you can't jam it, but you can jam the missiles. Passive radars are a strange future, they basically locate the aircraft by finding and detecting the emitter of signals.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764924]Where did I say they can't adapt passive radars to surface to air missile systems? Passive radars are a game changer, you can't jam it, but you can jam the missiles.[/QUOTE] So then dogfights are impossible.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39764970]So then dogfights are impossible.[/QUOTE] How are they impossible? You can still evade missiles and BVR is still relevant it. It only makes stealth aircraft vulnerable. If its developed and deployed further then it kind of wrecks the purpose of the F-35's VLO centric airframe, since they didn't bother with performance.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764999]How are they impossible? You can still evade missiles and BVR is still relevant it. It only makes stealth aircraft vulnerable. If its developed and deployed further then it kind of wrecks the purpose of the F-35.[/QUOTE] Let me lay this out for you very nicely. There are two possibilities: 1. "3D passive radar" is possible. Stealth is nullified, and therefore virtually no combat takes place in visual range. Missiles cannot be jammed, as you already have a lock from your "3D passive radar", which cannot be broken without megawatt-scale jamming devices. You're wrong. 2. "3D passive radar" is not possible. The F35, then, is beautifully prepared for the next generation of combat. You're wrong again. Do you see the dilemma you've put yourself in?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39765083]Let me lay this out for you very nicely. There are two possibilities: 1. "3D passive radar" is possible. Stealth is nullified, and therefore virtually no combat takes place in visual range. Missiles cannot be jammed, as you already have a lock from your "3D passive radar", which cannot be broken without megawatt-scale jamming devices. You're wrong. 2. "3D passive radar" is not possible. The F35, then, is beautifully prepared for the next generation of combat. You're wrong again. Do you see the dilemma you've put yourself in?[/QUOTE] You know the passive radar cannot control an aircrafts movements? Long range SAM's can be avoided by simply out turning them. In the end, I am correct because passive radar is completely possible as it has been done and is being developed.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39765139]You know the passive radar cannot control an aircrafts movements? Long range SAM's can be avoided by simply out turning them.[/QUOTE] Supermaneuverability is nice. 30 SAM's at once is nicer. [url]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Pk-vs-Salvo-Size.png[/url]
[QUOTE=Morcam;39765155]Supermaneuverability is nice. 30 SAM's at once is nicer. [url]http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Pk-vs-Salvo-Size.png[/url][/QUOTE] Then I guess that dear F-35 of yours is now rendered useless and has less a chance of winning than the competitor.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39765179]Then I guess that dear F-35 of yours is now rendered useless and has less a chance of winning than the competitor.[/QUOTE] Along with every other aircraft in the sky, from beyond visual range. Hence why I think your scenario of super-3d-doom-radar is a bit unlikely. In which case we follow the other path, and the F-35 is just fine.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39765272]Along with every other aircraft in the sky, from beyond visual range. Hence why I think your scenario of super-3d-doom-radar is a bit unlikely. In which case we follow the other path, and the F-35 is just fine.[/QUOTE] How is it unlikely when it is being done.
i agree with f-35 being bad, i learned my aircraft and dogfighting knowledge from ARMA 2, i saw dozen f-35s lose to the russian planes wtf
[QUOTE=laserguided;39765325]How is it unlikely when it is being done.[/QUOTE] You are suggesting that a pseudo-active radar system is going to detect stealth aircraft designed to be stealthy against active radar systems. The only radar waves that will penetrate the RAM are obviously the longer wavelengths, but I find it hard to believe they will be able to detect those incredibly weak signals with any accuracy in any reasonable length of time. The setup time will also be significant. You have to tune into the locations around you and calibrate your sensors to that baseline. I have no doubt it would work well on civilian aircraft and unstealthed aircraft, but I think stealth aircraft is a bit of an exaggeration.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39765630]You are suggesting that a pseudo-active radar system is going to detect stealth aircraft designed to be stealthy against active radar systems. The only radar waves that will penetrate the RAM are obviously the longer wavelengths, but I find it hard to believe they will be able to detect those incredibly weak signals with any accuracy in any reasonable length of time. The setup time will also be significant. You have to tune into the locations around you and calibrate your sensors to that baseline. I have no doubt it would work well on civilian aircraft and unstealthed aircraft, but I think stealth aircraft is a bit of an exaggeration.[/QUOTE] It doesn't directly look for the airframe like a conventional radar, its going to render it almost obsolete against this kind of detection. It doesn't transmit anything, it relies on third party sources.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39765697]It doesn't detect the airframe, it detects signal emission, for example GPS or comms.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Cassidian, the defence and security division of EADS, has developed what is known as "passive radar" that can locate even difficult-to-detect flying objects such as stealth aircraft and that itself is practically undetectable. [B]In contrast to conventional radar, passive radar doesn't emit any radiation, but instead analyses radiation reflections from other emitters, such as radio and television stations, to detect objects.[/B] [/QUOTE] I know what traditional passive radar is. This is not what you are talking about. Perhaps you should read your sources more carefully next time?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39765774]I know what traditional passive radar is. This is not what you are talking about. Perhaps you should read your sources more carefully next time?[/QUOTE] That is exactly what I am talking about. The quoted text. Yeah, I know it was confusing but you now know what I'm talking about.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39765826]That is exactly what I am talking about. The quoted text. Yeah, I know it was confusing but you now know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] So then you understand that it detects reflections by, say, TV waves off the airframe.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39765877]So then you understand that it detects reflections by, say, TV waves off the airframe.[/QUOTE] Yes. I misworded my statement. The system is still has very good potential.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39765990]Yes. I misworded my statement. The system is still has very good potential.[/QUOTE] You misworded, [QUOTE]It doesn't detect the airframe[/QUOTE] ? Somehow, I get the feeling you don't have any clue what's going on here.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39766025]You misworded, ? Somehow, I get the feeling you don't have any clue what's going on here.[/QUOTE] and I should care what you think of a misworded statement? If you understand what I'm talking about why do you complain about my misworded statement?
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39754516]It makes me want to cry to see so much wasted money. Seriously, one billion sent towards this monster could have modernized the entire fleet of Kiowa Warrior helicopters that the Army has, or even replaced the whole fleet with new aircraft. Such waste absolutely sickens me.[/QUOTE] Or funded relief/advanced peacekeeping efforts, fed hungry families in countries not so privileged to have arbitrary and unnecessary multi-trillion dollar defense systems, etc.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39764623]That is my argument, I'm glad we came to an agreement.[/QUOTE] So basically, the F-35 is well equipped to fight BVR and has no need for dogfighting capability with present levels of technology. And if technological developments improve the ability to detect stealth aircraft, then detection ranges will increase, ease of lock will increase, and dogfighting will become even more irrelevant. With modern IR and radar-homing missiles, a lock is almost certainly a kill. AIM-9Xs aren't fooled by flares, AMRAAMs aren't fooled by chaff, both are capable of higher-G turns than any manned plane in the sky and have a maximum range that exceeds their detection range. You can't outrun them, you can't outfly them, you can't fool them, you can't survive a hit. It's a completely one-sided affair and it's a big part of why emphasis is being placed on stealth over active countermeasures and maneuverability.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39766237]So basically, the F-35 is well equipped to fight BVR and has no need for dogfighting capability with present levels of technology. And if technological developments improve the ability to detect stealth aircraft, then detection ranges will increase, ease of lock will increase, and dogfighting will become even more irrelevant. With modern IR and radar-homing missiles, a lock is almost certainly a kill. AIM-9Xs aren't fooled by flares, AMRAAMs aren't fooled by chaff, both are capable of higher-G turns than any manned plane in the sky and have a maximum range that exceeds their detection range. You can't outrun them, you can't outfly them, you can't fool them, you can't survive a hit. It's a completely one-sided affair and it's a big part of why emphasis is being placed on stealth over active countermeasures and maneuverability.[/QUOTE] You don't need to turn that fast to outturn an AMRAAM. Mathematics here is a bit tricky, but works like this. Missile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed. After firing from Mach 1.5, slow to Mach 0.95 and descent to 12,000 metres – this about 900 kph and good turning speed for Sukhoi. AIM-120D rocket second pulse burning push speed up to about Mach 3.5. Ratio 3.5 / 0.95 = 3.7 which squared is 13.5. So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D. They can also be jammed, as pilots have admitted in simulated exercises.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39766273]You don't need to turn that fast to outturn an AMRAAM. Mathematics here is a bit tricky, but works like this. Missile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed. After firing from Mach 1.5, slow to Mach 0.95 and descent to 12,000 metres – this about 900 kph and good turning speed for Sukhoi. AIM-120D rocket second pulse burning push speed up to about Mach 3.5. Ratio 3.5 / 0.95 = 3.7 which squared is 13.5. So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D. They can also be jammed, as pilots have admitted in simulated exercises.[/QUOTE] Except that it doesn't need to match the maneuvers of the target plane in order to hit it. All missiles today have built-in [url=http://media.moddb.com/images/articles/1/86/85205/auto/1_1_lead_vs_pure.jpg]lead calculation[/url] and can make much more gentle maneuvers than the target while still being able to intercept. A Sukhoi can pull 6G to turn 180 degrees, but still get splashed by the 120 at the end of its turn when it's traveling along the same vector as the missile. The missile is continually updating its course until impact, just turning hard isn't enough to avoid them. The kill record of the 120, especially compared to other missiles, makes it clear that it's a little bit harder than just sustaining a relatively gentle 3G turn.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39766455]Except that it doesn't need to match the maneuvers of the target plane in order to hit it. All missiles today have built-in [url=http://media.moddb.com/images/articles/1/86/85205/auto/1_1_lead_vs_pure.jpg]lead calculation[/url] and can make much more gentle maneuvers than the target while still being able to intercept. A Sukhoi can pull 6G to turn 180 degrees, but still get splashed by the 120 at the end of its turn when it's traveling along the same vector as the missile. The missile is continually updating its course until impact, just turning hard isn't enough to avoid them. The kill record of the 120, especially compared to other missiles, makes it clear that it's a little bit harder than just sustaining a relatively gentle 3G turn.[/QUOTE] Afaik Russian's haven't done air to air combat with the US since Korea.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39766520]Afaik Russian's haven't done air to air combat with the US since Korea.[/QUOTE] How is that relevant? You brought up Sukhois in the first place.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39766713]How is that relevant? You brought up Sukhois in the first place.[/QUOTE] Because afaik the only decent air force equipped with top of the line su-27 variants are the Russians. Unless you count India, which has retarded pilots. There aren't to many decent air forces equipped with Su-27 variants and equipment to dodge a AMRAAM so kill ratio means nothing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.