[QUOTE=Apache249;38483259]I understand that, but I me seeing a list of maximum G loads for various missiles isn't going to help me nor you. If we had access to turning radii, we'd have conclusive evidence, because flying things don't usually turn tightest at its G load.[/QUOTE]
But at its supposed maximum the Su-35 would only need to turn 2.2G's and the Su-35 is capable of 9G. Thus I'm right given the calculations in the above article.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38483300]But at its supposed maximum the Su-35 would only need to turn 2.2G's and the Su-35 is capable of 9G. Thus I'm right given the calculations in the above article.[/QUOTE]
Once again, you're arguing against things I never said. All we need to know to conclude is the minimum turning radii of the various missiles, otherwise we'd need to create all of the other values needed for the formula, which wouldn't be accurate, because these factors are highly variable. A missile only has one minimum turn radius, but an infinitely variable set of other parameters which depend on data we can't have.
Not that the turning radius matters.
AMRAAM's are fired in pairs with a short delay between the two launches.
You turn to avoid the first, and the second will cut you off. The maneuverability of the target aircraft ultimately matters very little.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38483490]Not that the turning radius matters.
AMRAAM's are fired in pairs with a short delay between the two launches.
You turn to avoid the first, and the second will cut you off. The maneuverability of the target aircraft ultimately matters very little.[/QUOTE]
Source on it being able to cut the fleeing jet off? I have not heard that before.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;38482919]If I was an airplane I'd have sex with the F-22.[/QUOTE]
If I was an F-22 I'd have sex with Florida
[QUOTE=laserguided;38483549]Source on it being able to cut the fleeing jet off? I have not heard that before.[/QUOTE]
Uh, basic physics.
The aircraft makes a hard bank to avoid the first missile.
That missile follows the same bank as the aircraft.
However the second missile doesn't need to make the same turn. It adjusts its heading towards the aircraft, which is now traveling perpendicular (or some semblance thereof) to the missile. Gaining on it extremely quickly as the aircraft is moving roughly a quarter of the speed of the second missile and is no longer facing away from it.
Now the aircraft, in less than a few seconds, needs to produce an evasive maneuver that will defeat the missiles coming at it from the rear AND the side. As you can imagine, attempting to dodge two objects from two angles trying very hard to hit you when you are traveling mach one max (more and you physically can't maneuver due to human constraints) and they are traveling mach four, is simply not very likely to happen.
This is why nobody gives a crap about maneuverability. Countermeasures are the only things that are going to realistically save you in this situation. Even then you are pretty fucked against a 120D. Far above that, never being detected in the first place is a pretty good idea.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38484069]Uh, basic physics.
The aircraft makes a hard bank to avoid the first missile.
That missile follows the same bank as the aircraft.
However the second missile doesn't need to make the same turn. It adjusts its heading towards the aircraft, which is now traveling perpendicular (or some semblance thereof) to the missile. Gaining on it extremely quickly as the aircraft is moving roughly a quarter of the speed of the second missile and is no longer facing away from it.
Now the aircraft, in less than a few seconds, needs to produce an evasive maneuver that will defeat the missiles coming at it from the rear AND the side. As you can imagine, attempting to dodge two objects from two angles trying very hard to hit you when you are traveling mach one max (more and you physically can't maneuver due to human constraints) and they are traveling mach four, is simply not very likely to happen.
This is why nobody gives a crap about maneuverability. Countermeasures are the only things that are going to realistically save you in this situation. Even then you are pretty fucked against a 120D. Far above that, never being detected in the first place is a pretty good idea.[/QUOTE]
Bad reading, I missed the delay part. Depends on the delay, if its within seconds the turn could still out do both missiles if the pilot does it long enough, plus he has thrust vectoring to his advantage. Its really depends on the pilot. The aircraft is useless if the pilot is bad at getting the most out of his machine.
I wish this plane was real:
[IMG]http://www.nazgulowen.com/gallery/139.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Forumaster;38484615]I wish this plane was real:
[IMG]http://www.nazgulowen.com/gallery/139.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Look how small those fucking intakes are. The whole thing looks a bit bloated.
-
[QUOTE=Morcam;38485392]Cool. Let's throw a couple more missiles in there for good measure. It has nothing to do with the pilot being bad, and it has everything to do with the machine being incapable of resolving such a situation.[/QUOTE]
Okay lets give the Russians some PAK FA's and put them on the offensive. Now you have F-35's trying to flee and being shot down. There are many variables, but who cares?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38485633]Okay lets give the Russians some PAK FA's and put them on the offensive. Now you have F-35's trying to flee and being shot down. There are many variables, but who cares?[/QUOTE]
Remind me again how much experience the Russians/Chinese have with stealth tech?
[QUOTE=GunFox;38485691]Remind me again how much experience the Russians/Chinese have with stealth tech?[/QUOTE]
If you wan't to bring up a stupid argument about who did X first, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev[/url]
[QUOTE=laserguided;38485711]If you wan't to bring up a stupid argument about who did X first, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev[/url][/QUOTE]
It is hardly stupid. Decades upon decades of effort and field use of stealth aircraft have provided the US with the best knowledge in the world. That guy didn't even realize what he had stumbled on.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38485730]It is hardly stupid. Decades upon decades of effort and field use of stealth aircraft have provided the US with the best knowledge in the world. That guy didn't even realize what he had stumbled on.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure he did, but the Soviet leaders didn't even think it could fly. And they were right, this sort of thing was ahead of the time. I don't understand why you think 20 years isn't enough time to study and incorporate their own ideals into a designing a stealth aircraft. After all they did get a jump start with the downing of the F-117.
Here is a nice read into the VLO of a the T-50-3, the fourth airframe.
[url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html[/url]
Clearly, it incorporates stealth while at the same time not breaking the bank and pissing off politicians which American defence industry seems to consistently do. I don't understand why you think Russian engineers are incapable of producing the same quality of American engineers. They excel in a number of areas. Firsts mean nothing, if they weren't capable of doing it, the Russian and Indian governments wouldn't be pouring sacks of money down Sukhoi's mouth.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38485753]Pretty sure he did, but the Soviet leaders didn't even think it could fly. And they were right, this sort of thing was ahead of the time. I don't understand why you think 20 years isn't enough time to study and incorporate their own ideals into a designing a stealth aircraft. After all they did get a jump start with the downing of the F-117.
Here is a nice read into the VLO of a the T-50-3, the fourth airframe.
[url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html[/url]
Clearly, it incorporates stealth while at the same time not breaking the bank and pissing off politicians which American defence industry seems to consistently do.[/QUOTE]
Very little is known about the PAK-FA. You can sit there and analyze the picture all day and still not have a goddamn clue about how effective it actually is or what RADAR cross section it will provide. Even assuming you could magically do all the math, you are only half way there. The coating of the aircraft matters immensely and is again a subject the United States has infinitely more experience with.
The article flat out states that it can only use idealized RAM coatings when making calculations because absolutely nobody has any idea what the Russians have been doing in that field.
[quote]I don't understand why you think Russian engineers are incapable of producing the same quality of American engineers. They excel in a number of areas. Firsts mean nothing, if they weren't capable of doing it, the Russian and Indian governments wouldn't be pouring sacks of money down Sukhoi's mouth.[/quote]
Because the US has been doing this for a long time and has the field experience to recognize what does and doesn't work at this point. The F-117 was frighteningly capable of performing what it was intended to do, but was severely limited in many respects, particularly in the coating department.
Meanwhile we have advanced and have this:
[img]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1627/800pxb2spiritoriginal.jpg[/img]
A strategic bomber that can cruise straight past most air defense RADAR systems without them even batting an eye. This isn't some tiny plane, it is a proper strategic bomber that is functionally invisible.
You don't go from zero to this level of capability.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38485792]Very little is known about the PAK-FA. You can sit there and analyze the picture all day and still not have a goddamn clue about how effective it actually is or what RADAR cross section it will provide. Even assuming you could magically do all the math, you are only half way there. The coating of the aircraft matters immensely and is again a subject the United States has infinitely more experience with.
The article flat out states that it can only use idealized RAM coatings when making calculations because absolutely nobody has any idea what the Russians have been doing in that field.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, which is why you can't question the aircrafts capabilities simply because it is Russian. They have probably been working on RAM since the first F-117 was downed and transferred into Russian hands.
[editline]17th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;38485792]Very little is known about the PAK-FA. You can sit there and analyze the picture all day and still not have a goddamn clue about how effective it actually is or what RADAR cross section it will provide. Even assuming you could magically do all the math, you are only half way there. The coating of the aircraft matters immensely and is again a subject the United States has infinitely more experience with.
The article flat out states that it can only use idealized RAM coatings when making calculations because absolutely nobody has any idea what the Russians have been doing in that field.
Because the US has been doing this for a long time and has the field experience to recognize what does and doesn't work at this point. The F-117 was frighteningly capable of performing what it was intended to do, but was severely limited in many respects, particularly in the coating department.
A strategic bomber that can cruise straight past most air defense RADAR systems without them even batting an eye. This isn't some tiny plane, it is a proper strategic bomber that is functionally invisible.
You don't go from zero to this level of capability.[/QUOTE]
They are working on the PAK DA, so they will also have this capability soon aswell. They already have stealth UAV mockups etc. You have no reason to question the capability since we know very little about their stealth program, so why do you?
They released a press release a few days ago outlining their current project, a unmanned stealth bomber. I'm fairly sure if they can do that then they can build a stealth fighter, they're already building stealth ships using LO design and composites. I'm not doubting them because they have access to some of the best minds in Russia via UAC, they essentially piled all their aircraft design companies under one umbrella.
They aren't Chinese, they actually innovate. Which is why China can't wait to get their hands on even outdated Russian aircraft.
I mean, clearly stealth capability has not changed much given the state of the F-35 which is supposed to be a new fighter jet for all areas of service. Plus the T-50 will be the first jet with 3D thrust vectoring, at least I'm interested.
If he can't question its capabilities, than you can't question its lack there of. :v:
It burns, I've just been zinged.
[editline]17th November 2012[/editline]
This crap isn't even worth debating because everything required is ultra-classified, nobody knows and everything is speculation and guess work.
so many acronyms
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
