EA/18G Growler

[Todjaeger]

You still havent rebutted any of their main arguments. I did ask you to explain exactly how the RCS reduction in the SH can be exploited in a decisive manner, or the advantages in IR countermeasures the SH is suposadly has, but you've yet to do either.

I have some difficulties rebutting some of the arguments made about the SH, but the reason it can be difficult to rebutt them is the accuracy of information just isn't available.

I don't dismiss them, but I find a lot of their "strategic rationale" flawed as well as their "analysis" of comparative air combat capabilities. Re-read a Carlo Kopp article sometime. The SH v Flanker in Jan/Feb 07 Defence Today is a classic example and of course very relevant to our current discussion.

He talks about ALF-41 engines on the Flanker. On face value this gives them a theoretical supercruising capability. Whilst clean, he then admits.

&

AND this is a potential future development. Just like the AESA radar carrying Flankers, and the Flankers with LO improvements, and a new EWSP which "is" going to surpass that employed by SH and so on and so on.

Every capability except sheer aerodynamic performance NOW, is outlcassed by the SH and even Kopp admits this. It is only the "future possibilities" of the SU series that he states are superior. Of course, no mention of the VERY long list of upgrades the SH IS funded to receive is made, nor the enhanced F-414 engine (Kopp compares the Flankers engine to the F-404 in that article; a technical error, the SH uses the more powerful and efficient F-414) NOR the Block III variant that Beoing is developing.

This outlines a number of the problems with the arguments made. As I'd indicated on a previous post (maybe more than one) the actual, factual information on what the aircraft & systems performance is, just isn't available. For some (like the SH & JSF) it is likely due to security classification, for others (like future Su-XX datalinks, IRST, AESA, etc.) because it doesn't exist yet. And then some of the performance data that is available, might be of "questionable" accuracy, either due to being conservative estimates, or marketing hype, or deliberate misinformation for that matter.

For the JSF vs. Su-XX argument, it has be argued that the Su-XX with an IRST would be able to detect the JSF at considerable range. This might be true, then again, it could be completely off. The IR signature of the JSF isn't known publicly, and the IRST being argued is currently just a theoretical idea. It doesn't actually exist yet, never mind exist and perform to the level cited.

For similar reasons, it becomes difficult to discuss the particulars of the effect of the RCS reduction on the SH. On one hand, the estimated RCS of the SH is unknown, while the estimated performance of the Su-XX radar against a given RCS is is listed, but the accuracy of the listing isn't publicly known. For instance, the LO RCS of the SH might be the equivalent of 1m squared (estimates provided by the WAG Institute ) if the BARS phased array performs as listed, then it would detect an SH roughly 80 n miles away. However, if the SH RCS is smaller, and/or the BARS detection range is shorter than listed... That tilts the balance of power in a theoretical engagement.

I believe most people would agree that the F/A-18F (Block II+) engaging a current Su-XX in an A-to-A engagement is likely to emerge the victor, due to the greater situational awareness, etc.

Where there is a "fog" if you will, is what the future will bring. Currently, there are a number of planned upgrades and projects available for the SH and JSF. While there are a few ideas for possible additions to or upgrades of the Su-XX family, the viability of some of them remain in question. Technical challenges, financial difficulties, anticipated needs, these all will play a part. I would personally wish though, that people, when looking at what is possible for the Su-Xx and what is being worked on for the SH & JSF, keep in mind the technological differences.

As for the PRC scenario, I'm still waiting for a good and logical one.

IMV, it would be some time before the PLAN has developed sufficiently to operate a CBG. In order to operate effectively, the PLAN would need a carrier (currently none) and sufficient escort and replenishment ships. I believe the combat strength of the PLAN is roughly twice the size of the RAN in terms of ocean-going warships. In order to not weaken the home fleet, the PLAN would most likely want to have at least 2 new ships built to escort the CV, preferably one AAW and one ASW tasked ships. Is the PLAN developed enough to provide an adequate AAW or ASW ship? I'm unaware of any PRC developments of Aegis/SMART/EMPAR type systems for AAW. Also, an ASW escort would need to potentially detect and engage RMN, RSN, and RAN subs. Then there would be the time needed to design, build and launch the CV, as well as time spent getting pilots qualified to operate from a carrier. I don't imagine that is a quick or easy process, though Big-E I expect could shed some light on this. All of that needed, just to send a CBG to somewhere near Australia.

I would expect, that if the PRC did send a CV somewhere, it would be because they expected things to become overtly hostile. As such, I would expect the ADF would have whatever tools and weapons are available in the event that happens.

-Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

He talks about ALF-41 engines on the Flanker. On face value this gives them a theoretical supercruising capability. Whilst clean, he then admits.

"Clean" isn't a very useful tactical option for a fighter I hope you'll at least agree? Certainly the "clean" Indonesian Flankers at present are not much of a threat are they?

AND this is a potential future development. Just like the AESA radar carrying Flankers, and the Flankers with LO improvements, and a new EWSP which "is" going to surpass that employed by SH and so on and so on.

Every capability except sheer aerodynamic performance NOW, is outlcassed by the SH and even Kopp admits this. It is only the "future possibilities" of the SU series that he states are superior.

Spot on!

The Development of the Super Hornet will not stop, so comparing the future possibilities of the Suhkoi to the current operational aircraft is obsurd. The Suhkoi's are outclassed by the Super Hornet right now and will probably remain so well into the next decade. The F-35 will extend a massive lead as its better than the Super Hornet in RCS, speed and range.

AD points out that Kopp mentions the SU-XX can only supercruise when clean.. thats really helpful

External fuel tanks, a pair of cruise missiles, air to air missiles will see the SU-XX cruise at similar speeds to a fully loaded F-35. With those weapons on the wings the Suhkoi will also have a reduced roll rate and G limit. So if the SU-XX wants to win the dogfight it will have to drop its fuel tanks and cruise missiles to regain its so called "superior kinetic performance"

 

[Big-E]

Then there would be the time needed to design, build and launch the CV, as well as time spent getting pilots qualified to operate from a carrier. I don't imagine that is a quick or easy process, though Big-E I expect could shed some light on this. All of that needed, just to send a CBG to somewhere near Australia.

PLANAF does have a carrier air arm that has been training on the flight of deck of the old HMAS Melbourne. They tore it down and put the arresting gear on it for their navalized Su-30 Mk2s and Su-33s. It has been speculated that the Varyag is being refitted to continue training of PLANAF Flankers on a real world floating deck. PLAN has been moving to better proficiency of it's pilots and continues to increase it's inventory of naval variants. It is quite clear from their stated intentions and actions that they have every intention of building carriers. The lead time to get these pilots CQed from Varyag to an operational deck would be short. China isn't starting the aviation leg of this journey cold, the actual build process is going to be the real time consuming portion of this project.

 

[swerve]

None - they use early model Sea Harriers and have ordered MiG-29Ks.

Magoo

Exactly my point.

 

[swerve]

china considered and may be building 3 or more i will search out the class (iam fairly sure at least 1 has been built and sea trails underway) but they are looking to force projection. su30 and su37 similar types don't know chinese designation

Nope. None building, let alone undergoing sea trials. Carriers are too big to hide from satellites. Obtained a couple of old or unfinished carriers for scrapping, & have studied them & used them as training aids, as Big E says.

Would take them several years to have an operational carrier, even if they start building today, & even allowing for the extensive preparatory work they've done. There will be time to adjust your plans between when you see it building, & when it takes to sea.

 

[tphuang]

Nope. None building, let alone undergoing sea trials. Carriers are too big to hide from satellites. Obtained a couple of old or unfinished carriers for scrapping, & have studied them & used them as training aids, as Big E says.

Would take them several years to have an operational carrier, even if they start building today, & even allowing for the extensive preparatory work they've done. There will be time to adjust your plans between when you see it building, & when it takes to sea.

Looking at where they are going to build the carrier, I think you are probably going to see work getting started early next year. That doesn't mean the project hasn't started already. Some of the parts needed have already been delivered.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Courtesy of www.Thejakaatapost.com

The Indonesian Air Force received an early birthday present Wednesday from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in the form of Rp 2.8 billion (US$304,000) in spare parts for its C-130 Hercules transport aircraft fleet.

Celebrating its 61st anniversary next Monday, the Indonesian Air Force is in dire need of spare parts for its Hercules fleet, which in addition to military operations is often used in humanitarian missions.

The spare parts were handed over by the RAAF air commander for Australia, Vice Marshall John Quaife, to the director general of defense facilities at the Defense Ministry, Vice Marshall Slamet Prihatino.

Witnessing the presentation was Australian Ambassador to Indonesia Bill Farmer.

Quaife said Australia recognized Indonesia as an archipelagic country that was highly dependent on aircraft to reach and assist remote communities.

"I would find it hard to think of any humanitarian or community support operation that does not in some way rely on this aircraft and their crews for success," said Quaife.

He said the gift was a "small" indication of the further strengthening of relations between the respective nations' air forces.

"It is the small things, plus the larger things, such as the Rajawali Ausindo exercise last year, that highlight and strengthen the relationship that our air forces enjoy," he added.

The Rajawali Ausindo exercise was held in December 2006 and involved joint-activities on C-130 inter-operability at the RAAF's Richmond base.

A total of 170 items covering 27 different parts where donated for use in the maintenance of 12 Indonesian Hercules. Last year, eight Indonesian Hercules aircraft received similar spare parts from Australia.

Slamet said the spare parts would be extremely helpful in the Indonesian Air Force's efforts to upgrade and maintain its Hercules fleet.

"Australia offered more than what we get now, but we asked only for what we really need. There is no need to get any parts that cannot be used," he said.

"They offered more than what we received now, but we received only what we really need. There is no need to receive any parts if we can't use them," said Slamet.

Quaife said Australian and Indonesian C-130 aircraft had worked together during several humanitarian operations, such as in assisting the victims of the devastating 2004 tsunami.

"Such operations highlight the importance of airlift collaboration between neighbors," he said.

C-130s from both countries played a significant role in recovery operations following the tsunami, while Indonesian Air Force C-130s featured in relief operations following the Yogyakarta earthquake in 2006.

"Having retired our C-130E aircraft, it makes sense for Australia to transfer the surplus spare parts to Indonesia to enhance regional humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. We have a mutual interest in regional humanitarian and disaster relief," said Farmer.

He said the transfer of the spare parts demonstrates the strengthening defense relationship between the two countries.

The RAAF currently operates the C-130J Super Hercules and the C-130H models while Indonesia operates the older C-130B and C-130H models.

Oh yes, our regional neighbours are TRULY getting the better of us, air power wise...

 

[Rich]

The geography of the region would play out in Australia's favor during this mythical attack by the PLAN carrier. Even without the massive Intel resources that would be arrayed against it it would be very difficult for a carrier to get thru those waters, toward down under, and thru all those choke points without being detected. Take a good look at a map sometime and you'll see how 3 or 4 Aussie submarines could monitor the potential transverse points while waiting in ambush. No doubt the geography of the region played a part in the decision to go with 6 Collins.

And there's no navy on the planet that wouldn't put a submarine at great risk in order to take out a carrier.

Thats bad water for a carrier. And good water for a submarine, with a lot of depth, canyons...ect to hide in. And no doubt the Aussie skippers know these waters like an old girlfriend. Sure they can go the long way, but the Aussies also have carriers that don't move on Norfolk Island and with their Kiwi friends.

The truth is that Chinese carrier is going to have so many Yank Intel assets following it around they might as well invite us to lunch. They would have a real hard time even making it close to attack range during time of war. Even if only facing the RAN, which they wouldn't be, "only facing".

Australia's involvement in the GWOT has only strengthened ANZUS between us.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The geography of the region would play out in Australia's favor during this mythical attack by the PLAN carrier. Even without the massive Intel resources that would be arrayed against it it would be very difficult for a carrier to get thru those waters, toward down under, and thru all those choke points without being detected. Take a good look at a map sometime and you'll see how 3 or 4 Aussie submarines could monitor the potential transverse points while waiting in ambush. No doubt the geography of the region played a part in the decision to go with 6 Collins.

And there's no navy on the planet that wouldn't put a submarine at great risk in order to take out a carrier.

Thats bad water for a carrier. And good water for a submarine, with a lot of depth, canyons...ect to hide in. And no doubt the Aussie skippers know these waters like an old girlfriend. Sure they can go the long way, but the Aussies also have carriers that don't move on Norfolk Island and with their Kiwi friends.

The truth is that Chinese carrier is going to have so many Yank Intel assets following it around they might as well invite us to lunch. They would have a real hard time even making it close to attack range during time of war. Even if only facing the RAN, which they wouldn't be, "only facing".

Australia's involvement in the GWOT has only strengthened ANZUS between us.

Yeah, but we're not "allowed" to use Collins, or indeed the RAN in this operational scenario remember? For fear of "upsetting" the Chinese and widening the scope of the conflict...

Next we won't be allowed to "use" AMRAAM either....

 

[Rich]

Yeah, but we're not "allowed" to use Collins, or indeed the RAN in this operational scenario remember? For fear of "upsetting" the Chinese and widening the scope of the conflict...

Next we won't be allowed to "use" AMRAAM either....

Oh yeah, right! I forgot about that.nfloorl:

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh yeah, right! I forgot about that.nfloorl:

I know, because apparently a "regional adversary" sailing a CBG off the coast of some unnamed Island where we are conducting a UN sponsored peace-keeping mission and then conducting air combat missions against our deployed forces (said force being deployed entirely by AIR of course, with no RAN participation in this littoral operation!) won't provoke our "reluctant" politicians into strengthening the deployed force that we have.

Nor can we convince ANY other nation to help us, despite said Island being situated SMACK bang in the middle of the AoR (area of operations) of the Five Power Defence Agreement and the Chinese having to sail their CBG PAST many of the nations that have signed up to HELP us in this very instance...

 

[swerve]

Looking at where they are going to build the carrier, I think you are probably going to see work getting started early next year. That doesn't mean the project hasn't started already. Some of the parts needed have already been delivered.

True, metal-cutting & the like would have to start long before assembly could begin. I meant that assembly couldn't be hidden.

 

[alexsa]

They call APA a non-profit site but it is clearly advocating positions that monetarily would benefit them... it is propoganda.

Big-E I agree wiht every thing you said except the propaganda bit ....... its more wishful thinking and a blinker view. These guys are zealots.

 

[Rich]

I don't want to get into naval matters so let me just ask this. Haven't all of you found that in Internet warplane discussions that many guys are very one dimensional when comparing fighter aircraft?

They sit here talking about F-geewhizes and SU-super planes as if they will be engaged in WW-l type dogfights, totally forgetting, or just not including for their own reasons, all the other aspects that will ensure one fighter comes out the winner.

Things like avionics, radars, support, weapons, maintenance, training...ect, and I could go on. For instance until I brought it up, and as far as I know, nobody even mentioned JORN in this thread. The simple fact is the RAAF bought the F-18SH, and will buy the F-35, because they fit in nicely with all the other components of what is a 1st world networked air defense and strike machine.

In other words look at the SH as a component of a system not as a WW-l dogfighter going up against the Red Baron in his SU.

And any edge that is lost in pure aerodynamic performance, "even tho I'm not convinced of that", is more then made up by the strength of the system and its components. Of which there are many.

One of which is stealth, or LO, or whatever you want to call it. Strange how even after all this history some still question the value of stealth against most of the radars it will be facing. With the F-35 its going to be an edge, when supported by the other components of the system, that is going to be war winning.

But many people don't look at the big picture when their opinions and/or careers are on the line. History is full of examples of comparable air forces, quality wise, going at it with one side winning decisively thru superior training, tactics, organization, and the "little systems" that don't make the front pages of magazines.

The RAAF has never been a service with a significant strategic strike mission. Their mission is the protection of the Land mass/air space and interdiction of the sea lanes an enemy would have to use to get there. I myself don't see any downgrade of this mission in the future with the F-18SH/F-35 plan. The only thing I would change is buying the F-35bs for the LHDs. That, and the deployment of Tomahawk, would be wonderful additions to the Aussie military.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Hi Ozzy

I agree that much can change in 20 years but so can Australia's defence planning. The ADF tries to project 10 years in its forward planning in a constant rolling program. A minimum level of funding is guaranteed by government for this period (currently a 3% increase in real terms each year). In the event that the strategic situation changes the ADF can modify its long term plan to meet needs identified as a result of those changes. If the threat level increases, defence spending and planning can be adjusted to meet it.

But the $20bn we are spending on the primary platform for the RAAF (the primary defencive arm) can not simply be undone. That platform will be the mainstay of the RAAF even if spending increases due to incresing threats, so the choice of platform is seperate from future spending increases. The quote you were refering to was adressing the tendency of some members to dismiss future threat's because they might not happen.

At the present time the government considers that the most likely scenario in which the air combat force will be committed in the next decade is as part of a coalition force as was the case with the FA-18A deployment during the Second Gulf War. The RAAF regards a force of SHs and F-35s as ideal for such a scenario as they would fit seamlessly into a coalition force alongside the USAF, USN and USMC. The US plans to use these same aircraft (supported of course by the rest of their inventory) against all comers during this time frame. They seem very confident that the F-35 and SH will perform very well in any hot situation and in the case of the F-35 in particular they are extremely confident of its capability against the latest Russian and Chinese aircraft for the foreseeable future.

This is the most likely scenario i agree. However this could be said for the rest of the ADF. We can not however mould our force structure around that assumption. The defence of australia or indipendant action has to be the primary consideration.

At this stage the RAAF has chosen to concentrate on a single multi purpose type, the F-35, supported by the FA-18F as a bridging aircraft, or possibly as part of a two tier mix. If things change and the F-35, for example, doesn't live up to expectations, the US will no doubt adjust its ideas and so will Australia. We will have a better idea about how the F-35 is going by the time second pass approval is due in 2008. If things go as hoped and the F-35 is a resounding success it may well be that the RAAF, if the strategic situation deteriorates in the years ahead, will still decide to add another asset to its air combat force in the 2020/2030 time period to work alongside it. This could involve a specialist air dominance fighter along the lines of the F-22 and/or a specialist strike aircraft along the lines of the projected FB-22. The experience gained in operating an advanced 4th generation aircraft like the SH and a 5th generation aircraft like the F35, will position the RAAF well for any future growth.

Cheers

If the F22 becomes available at around the time of the (hopefull) F18F retirement in around 2020, I would be very very supportive of its choice over the 4th squadron of F35's. If however the F35 becomes too expensive and we end up with a 50-50 mix or in the worst case, if project Archangel sucseeds, we may find ourself with 4 squadrons of SH's. This would be a very bad thing IMO.

An expansion in the RAAF to 5 or more squadrons, especially when equiped with 5th gen variants, is very unlikely unless we are at war ore are direcly threatened, due to the masive cost. In any other scenario apart from a slow build up to a major regional war we will have to fight with what we have. So what we choose to equip orselves with is of real, long term importance.

 

[knightrider4]

Independant Action.

Mate Australia has been unable to pursue independant action of any kind since long before you were concieved. It may happen in the form of Australia having to defend herself if no aid whatsoever is forthcoming something I find to be a little hard to believe. I f the UK MOD thinks that the UK armed forces are incapable of independant action on a reasonable scale then I think we shall be even less so.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The combat percentage is 80% from 6 to 30 miles with aircraft ranging from Mig-29s to Mig-25s from Iraq to Bosnia. The AIM-120D has much higher accuracy and range than anything we have ever seen. It is safe to say the numbers will be high. This system is combat proven and is getting better all the time.

The only thing to compare it to is the "AMRAAMSKY" R-77. The only thing this has shot down in a real world scenerio was an An-26 civilian liner that was meant for a helo target drone.

6 to 30 miles, so would that be close to or within the NEZ against these fighters?? And what missile systems were they equiped with? R27 SARH variants i would think.

Actually the R27 is being fitted with active homing seekers that are just as capable as the R77. Seems like a sensible and cheap soloution, you dont have to throw away all those stocks of rocket motors, and slow burn variants increase the range.

I wouldn't discount the R77 just because its never been tested in battle, neither has the F22.

I don't know why you think the R-74s off boresight is so much better than the AIM-9X... it's not. I will get first look first kill considering I have better situational awareness and a better off boresight system. I have initiative during all phases of engagement. The flankers higher alpha means he can have his nose floundering in the air while I turn beneath and tear his guts out... I just beg him to do it, especially to try the Cobra. nfloorl:

I never said the R74 had higher off broadsigt than the AIM 9X. You said the X would be decisive, however there missile systems are comperable.

You dont give the falnker driver much credit. He still has the ability to get his weapons pointed at you and employ them quicker than you can, apart from at slow speed. And allthough SH has the advantage in SA, i find it hard to believe that the Flanker driver would not have a good idea of were the SH was in most circumstances.

If the SH keeps his nose pointed at the Flanker he will go undetected for dozens of miles with a reduced RCS. The flanker won't be able to get tone and will have to shoot in the dark. The R-77 is a piece of crap... I'm not too worried about it if I hug the waves. The ability to outpace your opponent is a big draw back of the SH but it's avionics and weapon systems make up for this negative 10 fold.

What would the frontal M2 RCS of a SH be with 2-3 drop tanks and AAM's? In the ball park of a clean Flanker i would think. And yes this means in the frontal aspect detection range is lower but how much so? Without the exact performance data of the russian radars it would be hard to tell exactly but how could this be desisivly exploited? And what happens if the enemy has an AEW&C's capability, that advantage is then meaningless.

Hug the waives, do you mean fly at low altitude??? This deosent seem to be a desisive tactic for most sircumstances.

You can't launch stores on rails at supersonic speeds, the stress would be too great.

Do you mean wingtip rails or all hardpoints? I have a hard time believing that under wing harpoints cant fire AAM's at super sonic speeds.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

For starters no SU-30 has these engines. They are under development, and given Russia's well known financial problems, may not ever complete development. E ven Carlo Kopp acknowledges in DT that the engine "may" only give supercruising capability, it has not been tested nor even displayed to the best of my knowledge. It's akin to his supercruising F-111 idea.

No F35 is in squadron service either, so i guess we can discount it in the future then? It is designed to supercruize. It was designed for the MiG 114 IIRC. However if it did it would only be in the ballpark of the EF2000 and not the F22 taking drag into account. If these engines put out 40 000lb of thrust a peice (and thats a conservative estimate) whether it counld supercruse or not it would be an outstanding kenetic performer, outclassing any other fighter, apart from the F22, in this respect. And it is in LRIP and should be offered on the flanker market in the next 5-7 years.

Audio signals? Damn the Russians have done it again. They've leaped multiple generations of capability and given that the JSF Catbird radar and avionics testing has only JUST got underway it shows how far behind the USAF and USN really are. The Russian's have already outclassed it!

You're right, we really ARE in trouble...

ok so were only going to look at the right here and now again are we AD??? Like this second right now. Not tomorow or the day after. How about in 2025??? unless the fighter does not emit enything at all it CAN be detected by ESM. To state that all emisions made by the F35 will be unditectable for the next 30yrs is a great example of best case planing, AGAIN.

So now this mythical threat not only has the power projection capability to send tactical fighters on strike missions more than 8000k's away from any possible home base, (unless of course Indonesia isn't concerned about any retaliation against it or "widening of the conflict) but they also have the tanking capacity to send an AWACS along with them AND peform CAP's within our limited strike range?

The USAF took in excess of 50 in-flight tankings during its El Dorado Canyon raids on Libya in 1986 to get it's 15x F-111's (remember their MUCH longer range than SU-30's?) from England to Libya and back (much shorter flight than India or China to Australia), so would you care to explain how India is going to manage this with a fleet of 3x IL-76 Midas tankers with a meaningful fighter force or China with not too many more?

Still looking at this magical 5 to 10 yr timeframe??? Does it make you feel better not to consider fuftre posibilities or threats that might make one worry??? What happens if PLAAF or IAF aquire bases in SE asia??? And with the massive expansion in the PLAAF and IAF going on your quite happy to assume that current tanker capabilities will not significantly increase in a longer timeframe. All Flankers can buddy refuel ( i know this is no substitute for tankers) which eases the load on the tanker fleet, which is increasing in both air forces in the short term, lor alone the long term.

In the current political/strategic situation in SE asia the PLAAF's closest bases would be in Mynmar or Yu Lin NAS. This is a long way from our shores i agree. However peacefull expansion by PLAAF in particular in SE asia is not at all unlikely. Whether you like to think about it or not we will be looking at a multipolar world in 20 yrs. And althout the US might still be able to defeat any other nation in battle, many nations will be looking toward PROC as a major political, economic and military ally, and bases in SE asia that can be used by PLAAF, that are much closer than Yu Lin, have to be planed for in the future. To simply discount this posibility because it is not likely in the strategic climate we find ourselves in today is yet annother example of short sighted thinking and best case planing.

Why is it that in any future scenario the threat nations will allways be using current capabilities such as the IAF's "3x IL 76" tankers, when we are using AIM120D, Wedgetail and F35? You really are unwilling to consider anything that can not accuratly be predicted, ie outside of a 5 to 10 yr timeframe.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So your quoting the cruising speed of an engine that hasn't even been tested in the air?

I'm quoting its designe specifications. It is designed to allow supersonic dry flight for long periods, and the dry thrust produced should allow supersonic flight even with external stores. I questioned the EF2000's ability to supercruse when flying dirty but it seemes pretty accepted that it can, even with external fuel tanks and AAM's. I see no reason why a dirty flanker couldn't, even if its engines havent actually been flight tested yet.

Thrust to weight ratio is irrelevent for cruising speed. Drag to weight ratio is the most important. Some of the worlds fastest aircraft have a lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-35.

A fully loaded SU-XX will have one of the worst drag co-efficients. It then needs to use huge amounts of thrust to overcome this drag. That means increased fuel consumption and reduced range. Due to this extra drag acceleration is reduced, top speed is reduced, cruising speed is reduced. The SU-XX now has worse performance compared to the F-35.

I dont see the drag of a couple of drop tanks and AAMs being as massive as you are arguing. We are talking about engines than put out 80 000lb's or thrust combined. And you are assumbing that the Flanker would still have its external fuel tanks when going into A2A combat. This is foolish. You would have to be the stupedist pilot in the world if you went into battle with a pair of drop tanks under your wings. And drag is reduced by flying at lower speed. So a FULLY loaded SUXX may have a slower crusing speed than an F35 that is flying clean, ie with only 4 AAM's, but this only effects crusing speed, which is not that relevent to the A2A combat itself, just getting into position without burning to much fuel.

Like i said before the conformal fuel tanks on the F-16 produces 12% of the drag compared to having the same capacity fuel tanks under the wing. The F-35 has a massive fuel fraction as if it has massive conformal tanks. Being internally the drag prouced would be less than 10% than if they aircraft was slimmer with less internal fuel.

External fuel uses so much extra drag that in the F-111 case i heard that with 4 external tanks its range does not increase compared to 2 external tanks. This is because the drag on the extra pair of tanks takes away more energy than the extra fuel provides.

Again your only looking at crusing speed and a flanker with external fuel tanks. This massive drag you're refering to would be external AAM's. And your saying that this drag would make up for the massive deficit in wet and dry thrust the AL 41F gives the flanker over the F35, which has a clean top speed of around M1.5? I dont buy it.

At what speed???? At high altitude and low speed i find that statement about the F111 highly unlikely.

So by adding weapons bays and massive internal fuel tanks the thrust to weight ratio reduces but the drag is reduced _alot_

If you removed the Internal weapons bays, and halved the fuel capacity to have a similar fuel fraction to the SU-XX the F-35 would loose thousands of kilo's and probably weigh the same as the F-16. It would then have a higher thrust to weigh ratio than even the SU-XX and supercruise with ease. That would only be in a clean configuration which is irrelevent. Put external fuel tanks and bombs under the wings the aircraft would then travel far slower and have less range than the F-35 today.

Thats why the F-35 will always have equal if not better speed and agility.

Internal fuel is great i agree, although the Flanker has 10 tonnes of it. And the fact that the Flanker has external weapons is not as desisive as you might argue. The Typhoon has no internal weapons bays either but it can supercruse, and has much better kinetic performance than the F35. Even clean its top speed is ony M1.5, and thats on wet thrust. It may have a higher cruse speed than the SUXX with external fuel. But this configuration and cruse speed is irrelevent to A2A combat, it is only relevent to fast stransit. So that changes nothing apart from getting to the battle area. To claim that the F35 is a better kinetic performer because it has a higher cruse speed discounts all other effets of kinetic performance.

And this isn't operational and may never be operational ever? How about we add magic to the F-35, the magic will make it win every time!! Sure we may work it out in 100 years but lets pretend its available on the F-35 now so we can give a realistic comparison nfloorl:

Well the F35 is only in LRIP too and the RAAF may never see them, (unlikely but possible) so it has the exact same relevence than the AL 41F, or are we only to consider engines and weapons that are in service now, even though the F35 will be in RAAF service for 30 years, thats really smart long term thinking.

Western AWAC's use the same AESA modules as the fighter aircraft.. so the same frequency is used. Do you have a source that says the enemy AWAC's will detect the F-35 earlier, other than the fact the radar has more power?

I'm pretty sure the Wedgetails use L band radar, not X band. And these are not in service yet, so by your reasoning we cant factor them into the discussion either.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Spot on!

The Development of the Super Hornet will not stop, so comparing the future possibilities of the Suhkoi to the current operational aircraft is obsurd. The Suhkoi's are outclassed by the Super Hornet right now and will probably remain so well into the next decade. The F-35 will extend a massive lead as its better than the Super Hornet in RCS, speed and range.

AD points out that Kopp mentions the SU-XX can only supercruise when clean.. thats really helpful

External fuel tanks, a pair of cruise missiles, air to air missiles will see the SU-XX cruise at similar speeds to a fully loaded F-35. With those weapons on the wings the Suhkoi will also have a reduced roll rate and G limit. So if the SU-XX wants to win the dogfight it will have to drop its fuel tanks and cruise missiles to regain its so called "superior kinetic performance"

upgrades on the SH are all avionic or weapon related IINM. You are looking at cruse speed like it is the only thing that dominates A2A combat. Its standoff missiles will probably be fired before the F35 or SH ever gets there. The Drop tanks would only be used in transit and unless you had a stupit pilot you would never face a flanker with cuse missiles and drop tanks in A2A combat. You would face one with AAM's though, and is the massive drag of a few AAM's going to cancell out 80000lbs of thrust????