USA Fighter Dilemma
- Thread starter God Bless USA
- Start date
Are KS-172s even in threat missile inventories? You might want to look into the "history" of that weapon. Just because you see it on the internet doesn't mean it's in service, operational or that it even works in practice.
-DA
Atilla [TR]
New Member
Does anyone know that the horizontal stabilizers/elevators are behind the engine on a F-22, and F-35 that adds so much more maneuverability, add to the fact that F-35 has the JHMCS thing which locks on any where you are around around 360 degrees. Vertical stabilizers are out of proportion they are massive. And the F-35 does not have TVC that would make it a much much more advanced fighter. Also Aim 120D is right around the corner maybe the Russian planes will hold up till then, for the Aim 120D to see use.
TVC is not necessary to meet the F-35 design criteria and has nothing to do with how advanced a fighter is.Atilla [TR];144027 said:
-DA
Atilla [TR]
New Member
It can add to it's capability. On a F-35 and F-22 fighter I do not think it is possible for the TVC to go side to side right or it will hit the Elevators, or burn them?
Last edited:
Yes in world war 2 most of the kills were from the rear. Thats because they used machine guns...
Today we are in the 21st century and we have a thing called radar. One side can often see the enemy first due to have better sensors or lower signature. Your first instinct might be to fly towards the enemy right into the front detection envelop. However thank God, our pilots have training and wouldn't do something so stupid. They'll instead get into a position to avoid detection and engage the enemy in its blind spot. More often than not that means coming in from the flank.
No, we can take the issue up with you for misinterpreting the authors and failing to use common sense. Remember we have progressed quite far from using machine guns and our eye balls as the primary means of detection.
Yes, aircraft design is all about compromise. The F-22 is optimised from teh ground up for high speed supersonic flight. The wing as a result does not provide outstanding low speed lift as you cant have a wing that provides low speed lift, low drag at high speed while remaining light.
The F-22 needs thrust vectoring otherwise its low speed agility would most likely have been inferior to all of the 4th generation fighters.
The F-35 on the other hand is optimized for subsonic flight and low speed handling which is important for the C version to land on an aircraft carrier. Aircraft like the Superhornet, Eurofighter and F-35 have such high levels of agility that thrust vectoring would add very little except for the extra weight.
Atilla [TR]
New Member
Isn't the Eurofighter meant for high speed maneuverability not low speed?
Since someone feels this has not been refuted, I will do so a piece at time to make it clear.
Now, to skip around a bit since I am getting tired and will be going to sleep soon.
More work will go into this later.
-Preceptor
Nothing on the Wiki page referenced, or the external links, or even the notes, support the assertion that such a test of the AMRAAM was done, nevermind the results. As such, it does not demonstrate the validity of the claim.
A statement I can agree with, given that over time and use, equipment does wear out.
And what does this confrontation between a pair of Libyan MiG-23 Floggers and a pair of F-14 Tomcats have to do with anything? Listening to the recording, and having read about the incident, the USN pilots were well aware of the incoming MiGs. Given that the US was not in a state of war vs. Libya, the US aircraft did not immediately intercept and/or shoot down the MiGs. Instead, they (the MiGs) were allowed to close to basically WVR before they were engaged as a potential threat to the Tomcats and the carrier group. In wartime or shooting situations, the US response would be completely different. Even nearly twenty years ago, the USN had BVR missiles in the form of the AIM-54 Phoenix which could certainly have been used while the Libyans were at the 60 mile mark, instead of being allowed to close to within 10 miles.
Now, to skip around a bit since I am getting tired and will be going to sleep soon.
Per a USN website found here, down at the bottom of the page, the AIM-120C-8 or AIM-120D has the same weight, dimensions and wingspan of the AIM-120C, which does fit within the F-22 internal bays.
Just going to get into the factual issue right now, nevermind the issue with the scenario itself. According to published information the F-22 Raptor supercruises at speeds of somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8 Mach, with a maximum (which is non-supercruise) speed of between 1.8 and 2+ Mach. Some of these figures come specifically from the USAF and the website globalsecurity. In order for the Raptor to supercruise at 1500 knots, that would mean supercruising at around 2.6+ Mach, or about 50% greater than announced supercruising speed. It would similarly imply a significantly high max speed for the Raptor than I have come across before from any reputable source.
More work will go into this later.
-Preceptor
Good point. When the USAF/USN begins taking deliveries of the 50% greater range version of an AIM-120 “D”, then yeah we’ll take a look at (Ks-172, Kh-31s and R-77T) The specification for the Ks-172 weapon was issued in mid 1991 and first revealed early in 1993. Has Raytheon have good luck resolving the F-22 weapon bay-AMRAAM harmonics carriage issue(s)? My understanding is that F-35 is doing fitment trials with Meteor (AW&ST).
Interesting link:
www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html
Ok…well no Wiki…so much for the 50% increased range AIM-120D version.
You assume perfect engagement parameters which may not be possible for all manner of political, international or tactical reasons. The determination of intent of the Mig-23 by the USN is obvious as were the weapon malfunctions/pilot frustration(s). We had near perfect engagement parameters in Desert Storm and still F-15C attempted to verify targets with there own IFF gear. If target didn’t squawk right = declared hostile. The French were not allowed to fly their F1 jets to facilitate this and lesson the risk of IFF (eyeball or otherwise) mishaps. How does the USS Vincennes or USS Stark occur if all this is such an exact science?
Yes, my point was to increase the range of a 340lb AMRAAMs by “X” from the confined carriage of F-22 you may need:
1) AIM-54 like flight profile.
2) More thrust and/or motor burn time.
3) A small booster.
4) Air breathing.
Yes. It’s a simplified example. 1500 and 500 knot values were used to illustrate the closure rate issue with big easy round numbers is all. The immense closure rates should not be dismissed; (as you know) things happen very quickly. If your BVR shot misses, or doesn’t come off the jet, you and your opponent can be on top of each other in moments.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Do you have convincing, substantial proof, beyond your deliberate misinterpretation of an interview about the usual stuff that is the very reason that weapons carriage/integration trials are done?
This require convincing evidence, ie more.
Otherwise I believe you're trolling and it may be time for another warning. Particularly since there is a thread on the AIM-120D, you've posted it multiple times and you slip it in as a snide remark in this thread also.
Last edited:
God Bless USA
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
Was the F-14 Tomcat in the same class as the F15 as a fighter. One Navy, one Air Force but how good was the Tomcat?
what Wiki says about that AW&ST ?!
Well whatever. At this point can you prove that there is no issue? (BTW: A 50% range improvement AMRAAM does not yet exist). What's the big deal? Relax. Most all of this info originates from Aviation Week and Space Technology, (you should read what Wiki says about that publication!). These type of interface/development problem are common with new stuff. It's totally normal.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
"In previous tests with the C-7 (the AIM-120C), measurements determined that vibration levels in certain frequencies were harmful to the missile's electronics, Mr. Besson said.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1760.html
This is the quote you're using.
You also did a lateral displacement of discourse in above from you, ie another hallmark of the troll. Lastly the logical fallacy where you contradict what you have previously posted.
it's sorta simple
There are going to be big challenges in making a 340 lbs missile travel 205km (130 mi) if you have tight physical dimension(s) criteria. A radar seeker head of a missile is much less powerful than the platform. So all available energy must be directed in a forward 'cone', because of the missile speed and to try to overcome CM/ECM. As a fire-and-forget missile "wakes up" (during inertial phase it needs a little tap on the shoulder from the platform...he's now over here, over that way please. thank you) and approaches the target the same kill-cone becomes reduced, so there’s a sweet spot to attempt defeat, best to fire 2 or 3 at the same target. Well anyways...
There are going to be big challenges in making a 340 lbs missile travel 205km (130 mi) if you have tight physical dimension(s) criteria. A radar seeker head of a missile is much less powerful than the platform. So all available energy must be directed in a forward 'cone', because of the missile speed and to try to overcome CM/ECM. As a fire-and-forget missile "wakes up" (during inertial phase it needs a little tap on the shoulder from the platform...he's now over here, over that way please. thank you) and approaches the target the same kill-cone becomes reduced, so there’s a sweet spot to attempt defeat, best to fire 2 or 3 at the same target. Well anyways...
Stay on topic and no one liners! You are already on thin ice with the other moderators, keep this up and your stay here will be a short one.
hostility is proportional to ignorance
do whatever dude.
This site’s hostility is proportional to its ignorance.
do whatever dude.