Not according to Eurofighter. They reckon Typhoon can - and does now - supercruise with external fuel & AAMs, & yes, that does mean the whole airframe supersonic, & at least M1.3....With most aircraft due to their size Supercruising means the ability to sustain around Mach 1.3 without afterburner. The Eurofighter can do this clean but the F-22 is the only aircraft that can do it in combat configuration.
....
I would agree that the F35 will be the best strike/CAS platform in the world.People keep under estimating the F-35.. It will definitely be the second best aircraft in the world by a golden mile.
I am not going to continue to argue with you about this. Much of Carlo Kopp’s published “facts” have proven to be inaccurate or incomplete. I will take what the people who fly and maintain the su30MKI (the IAF) say about the Bars capability over what he comes up with any day. Fact is you keep trying to use his arguments and they have been debunked. His research is not objective and it shows his F-22 bias.Have a look for yourself. The graph is aqusistion range vs target RCS in M2. It is referenced.
Bottom line Ozzy is I am now convinced you have no idea of what you are talking about. IRST is no substitute for radar. IRST is a nice supplement but you cannot target a missile using it. You need to have some idea of where to search with IRST; its detection range is a fraction of radar.Bottom line; The only time the F35 has a chance to win is if the flanker allows the F35 to dictate when and how to fight, ie by doing nothing. As soon as the F35's have to react to the Flankers the game is up.
No, the Typhoon is a documented capability, I am saying that the F-35 does not supercruise.I am not trying to muddy the waters, just clarification.
I would be surprised if F-35 supercruises but I was using the example of the Typhoon. The manufacturer claims it supercruises but it was never expected to nor where the engines designed to do so.
Are you saying Typhoon does not supercruise?
I am not going to continue to argue with you about this. Much of Carlo Kopp’s published “facts” have proven to be inaccurate or incomplete. I will take what the people who fly and maintain the su30MKI (the IAF) say about the Bars capability over what he comes up with any day. Fact is you keep trying to use his arguments and they have been debunked. His research is not objective and it shows his F-22 bias.
Keep this in mind the USN is so happy with their SHs that they are thinking about cutting back on F-35s and getting more SHs. One of its greatest supporters in the navy is a former Tomcat pilot.
Even Carlo likes the Superhornet. He started bashing it only when he found out that there was no chance to get the F-22.
“The current configuration of the F/A-18E/F avionic package is the most advanced of any production aircraft based upon a Mil-Std-1553B bussed federated architecture, and is surpassed only by the much newer F-22A and JSF architectures. It is very likely that growth variants of the F/A-18E/F will see the progressive incorporation of avionics technology used in the JSF.”
“In terms of meeting the USN's aim for a low risk F-14/A-6 and F/A-18A-D replacement, in a timescale and budget compatible with current circumstances, and prior to the production of the high risk high payoff full stealth JSF, the F/A-18E/F clearly meets this objective.”
“The Super Hornet is a fighter with exceptional handling qualities, even by modern fighter standards, which even a novice can handle comfortably and with confidence at the edge of the low speed manoeuvre envelope.”
“In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30. The analogue and early generation digital flight controls with hard-wired or hard-coded AoA limiters used in the Russian aircraft are a generation behind the Super Hornet and a much more experienced pilot will be required for the Russian types to match the ease with which the Super Hornet handles high alpha flight regimes.”
http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
Now I know Carlo has this big disclaimer on the document but one has to wonder does Dr Kopp speak out of both sides of his mouth. Oh and lets remember he flew a Block I bird without AESA, the redesigned stealthier front fuselage, and all the other goodies.
You live by the words of Kopp and you die by the Kopp. Do try to use information from a variety of sources next time.
Signed A Former Super Hornet Skeptic.
Bottom line Ozzy is I am now convinced you have no idea of what you are talking about. IRST is no substitute for radar. IRST is a nice supplement but you cannot target a missile using it. You need to have some idea of where to search with IRST; its detection range is a fraction of radar.
Also check out the Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Defence Today by strike publications. An article called Super Hornet vs Flanker by a fellow named Dr. Carlo Kopp. In there he says the Super Hornet is basically uncompetitive to the Flanker. Given the radar upgrades coming down the pike for the Flanker, and its obvious raw outperfromance of the Super Slow Hornet, I would agree.This article predates the mid December, 2006, announcement by Defence that Super Hornets may be be sought as gap fillers for the RAAF. The article does not constitute an endorsement of that proposal in any fashion and should not be interpreted to be such by any parties. Any attempt to do so wiil be considered
to be intentional and mischievous misrepresentation.
And he goes on with recomendations. The one (F-22) might not be very workable but the others at least gives some form of justice to the taxpayer and at least give the chance to avert getting the SH.Critically, the performance of the Super Hornet means that it cannot realistically be expected to defeat well-flown Flankers in combat.
Here are some bold faced untruth from the Navy RE: Super Hornet . that an independant study by GAO didn't find. ( I refer to: GAO - F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement At High Cost-June 1996 and Operational Testing and Evaluation of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet- maneuverDOD Inspector General- July 7, 1999- Report number 205-99A deferral of the decision to purchase Super Hornets would seem sensible. This could be for 6-12 months, during which the government could:
Gather availability, cost and capability data for the F-22, so that we understand the affordability and feasibility of moving quickly to a high-end fifth generation solution. Only if that proves unfeasible should we move to a fourth generation fallback.
Evaluate the fourth generation options available in the world marketplace and choose the one most likely to provide us with high-end capability through the decade beginning 2020 should we need to go that way.
1. IRST has to be directed by e.g. a radar. It doesn't scan the sky on it's own.
2. IRST doesn't provide a firing solution for a missile. It only provide a bearing - not range. That means no 3d coordinates and no knowledge of speed and direction of target. In other words - poor detection and no track generation.
3. The F-35 does have IR signature management. Not as good as the F-22A, but it does hae some. Flankers have little or zero RCS or IR suppression.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.htmlWhat happens when the existing OLS-27/30/31 series IRST is replaced with a newer longwave Focal Plane Array device - such as a single chip QWIP device? The result will be a capability to engage opposing aircraft under clear sky conditions regardless of RCS reduction measures. While the supercruising F/A-22A can defeat such techniques by kinematics alone, fighters in the teen series performance envelope will have to contend with BVR shots using the R-27ET, R-77, R-77T and R-77M cued by the thermal imaging search and track set. Similar issues arise with the deployment of modern ESM receivers on the Su-30MK, analogous to a number of existing Western systems. The Su-30MK series can then launch long range BVR missiles such as the R-27ET, R-77T with infrared seekers, or the R-27EP and R-77P with passive radio-frequency anti-radiation seekers. If cued by such sensors or offboard sources, these weapons will permit the Su-30MK to engage the JSF despite the JSF's good forward sector radar stealth performance
He is not making it up. He is (you are) overestimating impact.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
So what is he just making stuff up???
Whats the problem? You know your detection range is within your max missile range. You launch a slow burn R27P down the bearing, use its datalink to keep it on the bearing untill its IR seeker aquires the target. I dont see how this isnt feasible. Also the more advanced ESM's get the less chance LPI radars will have that includes wedgetail.
Bottim line thumper; you are living in the this second right now. Advanced variants or IRST will be able detect tanrget at near BVR ranges, and the flankers will be able to fire missiles of it. Cus missiles have never been directed by IR guidance before? And if were going back to the SH thing BARS isn't the only thing your going to have to deal with. In LRIP is the NIIP Ibis E PSA is a much more powerfull, eveolved BARS. It has a peak power output of 20kw compared to 7 on the BARS. It will have more advanced T/R modules and a huge apature size. This radar will be operational in the SU 35 in the 2010 timeframe and is an availavble ugrade for all flanker variants. Bye bye SH. Oh ant this radar is spcifically designed to work with the R172. i.e. keep you AWACS nice and safe.Bottom line Ozzy is I am now convinced you have no idea of what you are talking about. IRST is no substitute for radar. IRST is a nice supplement but you cannot target a missile using it. You need to have some idea of where to search with IRST; its detection range is a fraction of radar.
It still does not change what he wrote.Quote from that same page:
APA Notice
It seems that all the negative crap either you or ozzie every post is attributed to Kopp. Fact is his "facts" have been disputed and disproved by multiple documented sources. As for the radar, like I said you are rehashing an old argument that based on what we know of the documented (other than Carlos) facts does not hold water. You continue to cling to the 70's warfighting paradigm. I suggest you read previous posts for education.Also check out the Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Defence Today by strike publications. An article called Super Hornet vs Flanker by a fellow named Dr. Carlo Kopp. In there he says the Super Hornet is basically uncompetitive to the Flanker. Given the radar upgrades coming down the pike for the Flanker, and its obvious raw outperfromance of the Super Slow Hornet, I would agree.
First note the dates. Not block II. Second the GAO never likes anything the Pentagon funds.F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement At High Cost-June 1996 and Operational Testing and Evaluation of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet- maneuverDOD Inspector General- July 7, 1999-
F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair. Ever hear of them?What is important to note here is why would Australia want a compromised carrier design jet that is designed specifically to deal with carrier like issues? What you are getting is a lot of extra weight.
Do you know who said that on the F-16 forum Elp? I will give you a hint. It was posted by someone with a three letter userid that starts with E and ends with p.Breaking a wedge of F-18E/F AESA aircraft on their way to deliver the mail is another story. When it is set up to go strike something, you have to stop it. Might be kinda difficult. Not because of it's raw performance, ( it doesn't have any ) but because of the avionics on it. Also... once they figure out how to jam and soft-kill opposing sensors/transceivers with AESA watch out.
F-18E/F and later JSF will most likely make a very good team. Consider that anyone in their part of the world doesn't have the operational savvy ( owning a big SU all by itself won't make you a winner...( a non-issue Doc Koop ) ) and more serious no netcentricity, Australia won't have a problem defending it's own back yard.
To a certain extent yes. He cherry picks his arguments and if there are multiple sources with all but one saying just about the same thing but the one he wants to hear saying another he posts that as fact. It shoud be obvious that both he and Elp want the F-22 bad.So what is he just making this stuff up???
He's not saying it will be superior or even equal to Radar and AMRAAM, just that it will allow the JSF to be engaged by the Flanker at BVR ranges. And as bad a performer as the F35 kinematicaly and airodynamicaly this errodes the F35's only advantage, LO at BVR combat.He is not making it up. He is (you are) overestimating impact.
It is feasible. You can fire a missile down a bearing. Here is the drawback: remember that max range for a missile, under operational conditions, is conditioned by targeting data of approp quality. As the IR missile is heading down a bearing only and not a track, which has XYZ plus velocity plus direction, it loses range dramatically. The missile will use its energy compensating for the poor targeting data. An opposing fighter with a radar track and an AMRAAM is superior to the IR all-the-way solution.
Also - IRST still has to be cued at BVR.
Then you are overestimating impact. The Flanker dies in the IRST vs radar BVR engagement. Raw performance regardless.He's not saying it will be superior to Radar and AMRAAM, just that it will allow the JSF to be engaged by the Flanker at BVR ranges. And as bad a performer as the F35 kinematicaly and airodynamicaly this errodes the F35's only advantage, LO at BVR combat.
You can get a range and track by triangulation from multiple sensors, but we'll forget that one for the minet.Then you are overestimating impact. The Flanker dies in the IRST vs radar BVR engagement. Raw performance regardless.
You can get a range and track by triangulation from multiple sensors, but we'll forget that one for the minet.
Maybe a stupid question, but i was wondering if you could enlighten me? If the AMRAAM is fired with a target track generated from radar, am i wrong in assuming that it will be aimed at a certan point in the battle space were it expects the target to be when it gets there? A rough intercept track? I suppose this would be very effficient if the target moved in a steight line untill the terminal phase. But what happens if the target changes direction? I would assume that during a missiles flight the intercept point that it was aimed at when it was launched would move quite a bit depending on the target. I'm trying to figure out why this is so much more effieceint than using IR bearing for your initial launch co ordinates. If the radar guided missile is constantly changing its heading wouldn't it loose energy too? The AMRAAM may have accurate intecept co ordinates at the launch point, but as soon as the target changes direction the missile will have to compensate, just like the IR going down the bearing. Would the F35 use the datalink to point the AMRAAM at a new intercept point? So if the target reversed direction the AMRAAM would have to change direction more abruptly then the IR guided one that is just keeping itself pointed at the target. Unless the target is doesent change direction, i dont see how Radar guidence is THAT much more efficient. i.e enough to be decisive.
That i find very hard to believe. Do you mean first production APG 77's, or testbed systems back in the 90's? At the moment the 77 is much better than the 81. Given the same software and T/R modules (which will more than likely be the case) the 77 will outperform the 81 by a long shot.Actually the first APG-77's fitted to the Raptors will have less range than the first APG-81 to be produced.
IIRC the F22s will be on the production line for a while, and wahts to stopping them from undergoing block upgrades?The F-22's are switching over to the new generation AESA modules now, with the new modules the APG-77 will have a longer detection range. In the future if production has ceased on the F-22 and a newer AESA module comes out then the F-22 will not get their modules upgraded however the F-35's coming off the production line will get these modules straight away.
In short no. not at the same time. Late model 81's may be more powerfull than early model 77's but this is not a vailid comparison.So the F-35 may end up having a more powerful radar even with less modules.
Sure does. But it really doesent matter because the F22 will defeat any of these shots on an energy basis alone. Without LO the Raptor would still easily defeat any flanker, advanced or not, in 99% of situations. The truth is its LO is the bit that is "nice to have" without it the raptor would still be the most capable fighter on the plannet for decades to come.Also the heat produced from an F-22 at Mach 1.5 will be greater than a subsonic F-35. This makes the F-22 no better against this IRST capability of the suhkois.
Why? They will both be in service for a similar timeframe?I believe during the lifespan of both F-22 and F-35 that the F-35 will no doubt receive more upgrades.
Yeah and with more efficient flux capacitors time travel will be possible. Fact is ozzie how can you design a more effective RWR against LPI radar when the exact way it works is classified. Sort of like those pesky GPS jammers.Also with more advanced RWR, LPI radars such as the APG 81 will not be so LPI any more.
Making a bit of a stretch there ozzie. See, they fitted the plane with an LPI radar. Say while we are talking about the future how much do you want to bet that within a few very short years the US will come out with satellites that can track jet fighter and pass the targeting information on. I mean hell we can all speculate on “future” capabilities can’t we?Another major problem with the F35, it wont be LO if it can be detected every time it radiates.
And LM is going to be sitting on their hands in the meantime. Ever consider how far stealth has come since the F-117 days? It is not a zero sum game. Both sides make advances.Everyones thinking about the here and now, this aircraft will be our ONLY air superiority platform for the next 30-40yrs!!! Can you imagine the advances in ECM and passive sensor technology in that timeframe.
Yeah that and the fact that it has a huge RCS and massive heat signature.And thats the scary think about the SU XX family, its growth porential.
Of speed are no longer relevant. If it where, there would be Mach 3 fighters already in production. As I recall the Mig 25 had Mach 3.2 capability. Where is it today. The US has built a Mach 3 bomber 35 years ago. I am sure they could build a Mach 3 fighter today with ease. Why don’t they? Why didn’t they give the Raptor that kind of speed?the Flankers advantages
.Now, consider that SH is a reasonable strike jet, Yet, in a negative event where it has to disengage, because of it's slow speed, it isn't going to have that option. Many aircraft made including the latest 3rd or 4th gen ( depending on how you like to use those terms) can contempt of engage a SH
But they could not outrun their missilesF-14s ( in the speed class of SU ) in exercises in the 90's as bombcats with 4 Mk83's could avoid legacy Hornets
To the contrary it is a fully in production AC with a long list of upgrades planned and funded. It is actually very low risk.Super Hornet is filled with so much risk
Don’t worry, you are.I really hope I am WRONG
When will you start using facts other than those of Kopps? I am not attacking him. You asked if he is to be believed. I pointed out that he has an obvious desire for the RAAF to acquire the F-22 and he has tried to make an argument for it using exaggerations, cherry picking and incorrect/uncorroborated data and speculation passing as data.. That is not attacking someone, just pointing out the shortcomings of his logic. I am not attacking you, just pointing out where you are wrong. Try citing a source other than Kopp’s.Thumper you stoped arguing the facts and started attacking the man a fair while ago,
The radar feeds it updated targeting information.Maybe a stupid question, but i was wondering if you could enlighten me? If the AMRAAM is fired with a target track generated from radar, am i wrong in assuming that it will be aimed at a certan point in the battle space were it expects the target to be when it gets there? A rough intercept track? I suppose this would be very effficient if the target moved in a steight line untill the terminal phase. But what happens if the target changes direction?
Almost missed this gem. Are you serious?i dont see how Radar guidence is THAT much more efficient. i.e enough to be decisive.
Don’t be so sure they put a lot of work into IR suppression as well.Also the heat produced from an F-22 at Mach 1.5 will be greater than a subsonic F-35.