because its pertinent to apply yin and yang when the thrust of your response appears to paint some supporters of APA as "innocents" and purveyors of constructive debate:
EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
That still doesent mean that the R77 isn't capable just because it hasn't been used in battle, which was my point.
Ok, could you outline the advantage the SH has in IR countermeasures? And exactly how this gives the AIM 9X a desisive advantage over the R74?
So you agree on a platform v platform basis i.e. pilots of similar capabilities, the flanker is superior in WVR, which was my point.
In BVR the SH will most likely be detected and tracked by the Ibis equiped flanker before it can employ its weapons systems? the AIM 120D. Do you agree? If so then the flanker sets the terms of the engagement, due to its energy advantage. Do you agree with that statement? The AIM 120D is a superior missile system i agree, but the energy of the platform its firing at and being fired from is important too isn't it? There is a such a thing as a NEZ isnt there? Taking all these things into account, not just superior radar and missile systems, could you explain to me why the SH has so much of a huge advantage in BVR combat, because i just dont see it.
Many of the systems used for flanker variants will soon be produced in China and India, including missile systems so reliability problems, "70%" as you put it, will not be so dramatic in the future.
I know you love your platforrm mate, its what you drive. If i had a choice i would drive an F22. You have to admit that even a block III SH wouldnt stand a chance against a raptor, even on a 10 to 1 basis. That would be the worlds best A2A platform, you would have to admit. Would i chose a SH against current Flankers, yes. Would i chose AL41F equiped SU 37 variants with Ibis radar and R77M over a SH? Damn streight.
Fine forget the tanks, but with all those external AAM's its RCS has to be up there. Which still doesent change my original point.
The IAF is funding an L band AEW&C aircraft that's radar system was a contender for the wedetail project. Thats a very nice capability in anyones terms. If you think that the APG 79 is more capable than the Wedetails MESA then it would be the first time i have heard it. And the PLAF's A50E is IINM in the ballpark of an E3A (not as capable but allmost comperable), and i would have a hard time believing its detection and track capability is less than the APG 79. It may not have a passive capability such as the '79 but it would be hard to call it inferior.
Your right i dint know that. but i think you've missed my point. The R77 may indeed have trouble with ground interfierance. But my point was how usefull is this fact in most scenario's. Are you saying if a flanker launches an R77 at you during an eguagement at 30-35000ft your going to roll over, hit the burners and head for the deck???? I dont see that being a usefull tactic, which funnily enough was my original point.
Again you've avoided my original point. Can you launch an A2A missile at super sonic speeds or not? If so then you are confirming the quote you are sighting, whatever the damn things are called.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Look i dont care two bits about APA. They might well be nasty people. However if anyone brings up an argument in favor of the flanker, said members try to discredit it by sighting how evil and nasty APA are and how they say such bad things, which has absoloutly NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand. As i said above i disagree with the accusations made by APA and some of the members here reguarding the MOD and the RAAF. However that doesent have anything to do with any of my posts or the argument I am making, however many memebers have rebutted my points by attacking APA, and not dealing with the argument. Sure some members may have mads similar attacks on the USAF, MOD or RAAF, which also has NOTHING to do with the discussion. Todjager is one of the few participants in this discussion who did not resort to "mud slinging", that is why i made the statement i did, which you quoted. So i ask again, what exactly does this statement have to do with the quote it is adressing?
Also why exactly is it that anyone who agrees with some of APA's arguments or has similar vievs in some instances gets labled an "APA supporter". I personally am scheptical of the SH and to a lesser extent F35's supremacy over advanced flanker variants. But am i an APA supporter? The F111S/F22A idea is a bad one. For one thing the risk involved. Not too mention the reduction in the force structure. Also why is the F111S so vital if the F22 is more than capable at fulfilling the deep strike roleand penitrating an IADS? Seems like a waste of money to me. I am supportive of the F35 purchase, it will be an excellent strike/cas platform and quite capable at A2A, i just think the F22 is vital considering the potential threats. If its really is unavailable for ever then thats really tough poo IMO and not a good thing. So am I an APA supporter because i quoted some of their analysis?
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
How exactly? The AIM-9X and ASRAAM are regarded even by Dr Kopp as superior missiles and JHMCS being a newer technology system is likely to be more capable than Russian systems, even those Sukhoi's that even have them?
The weapons are the most important aspect remember...
Even Dr Kopp admits SH has the superior radar and detection range advantage over current Sukhoi variants. You don't agree with those in USN, USAF, RAAF who state similar things, and even APA admits it. I guess if the biggest and most vocal detractors of SH v SU-30 admit the SH has the advantage at present. Do YOU know something they all don't?
In addition the RCS of SH is acknowledged by everyone as superior to anything short of F-22/F-35/F-117/B-2. The SU-30 has NOT got a particularly brilliant RCS from all reports. Even a slight advantage here is still an advantage and the SH possesses more than a "slight one" in this regard...
Why not choose a star wars "X Wing" fighter. Such a thing exists as much as your Su-37 equipped with an ALF-41 engine putting out 80,000lbs of thrust...
As to the Block III SH's capabilities. Could you enlighten us as to what they may be? Boeing hasn't even finished on a design yet to my knowledge but you seem to have some insight into it...
Do you know a Super Hornet ALREADY has a "kill" on a Raptor in A2A combat (on exercise)?
Why exactly would you choose an SH over a current Flanker? You've spent months telling us how bad they are...
And how is this unique to the SH? Any RCS reduction HAS to be a benefit and the SH has just a bit more than a "slight" advantage in this area.
Once you hang weapons off the Flanker IT'S RCS is going to increase as well. Just like drag etc.
Or maybe the Russian "stealth pods" will eliminate this. Damn how DO they manage to be so much more clueier than these obviously mediocre Western air combat aircraft designers???
The IAF is funding an L band AEW&C aircraft that's radar system was a contender for the wedetail project. Thats a very nice capability in anyones terms. If you think that the APG 79 is more capable than the Wedetails MESA then it would be the first time i have heard it. And the PLAF's A50E is IINM in the ballpark of an E3A (not as capable but allmost comperable), and i would have a hard time believing its detection and track capability is less than the APG 79. It may not have a passive capability such as the '79 but it would be hard to call it inferior.
Your right i dint know that. but i think you've missed my point. The R77 may indeed have trouble with ground interfierance. But my point was how usefull is this fact in most scenario's. Are you saying if a flanker launches an R77 at you during an eguagement at 30-35000ft your going to roll over, hit the burners and head for the deck???? I dont see that being a usefull tactic, which funnily enough was my original point.
Again you've avoided my original point. Can you launch an A2A missile at super sonic speeds or not? If so then you are confirming the quote you are sighting, whatever the damn things are called.[/quote]
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sure but i dont think that advantage is decisive. The AIM 9X, ASRAAM and R74 are all very capable missile systems and allthough the X may be somewhat more sophisticated when it comes to some countermeasures, its broadsight capabilities and JHMCS are comperable, so i dont think the missiles are decisive. Whoever gets a decent soloution and fires first, whether its with an X or a 74 given the lethality of both these systems will probably win in a WVR engagement, and given the Flanker's ability to generate higher angles of attack and huge (especially Al41F equiped) kinetic advantage i would think the flanker would be able to generate a souloution first in most cases. So thats how. And AD i have outlined this argument in previous posts you have replied to.
AD did you read the post of mine you are quoteing? Or any of the posts in the discussion we've been having over the last couple of weeks? I never said that the russians had superior radar, just that according to official russian sources the BARS had a slightly higher M2 RCS vs detection range compared to the APG 79. I have never, not once said that the russians have superior sensors, and i didn't say it in the post you quoted. The argument i have put forth in nearly all of the many posts I have made on this topic is that allthough the APG 79 is a superior radar and will detect the Flanker before it is detected it still has to move into the detection and track radii of the flanker, especially Ibis radar equiped versions with 3 times the power output of the BARS, in order to employ its weapons systems. Then the flanker can use its kinetic advantage to the full. It sets the pace of the engagement, it holds the iniiative, it lowes the enemies NEZ and increases its own. I'm yet to hear exactly how the fact that the SH will detect the flanker first can be exploited in a desisive maner, but you keep saying its so important. Why AD? Answer me that. And this advantage is irrelevant if the opponant has an AEW&C's capability.
I have asked you this question before and you didn't answer it, but since you used the same argument i'll try again. Yes the SH has some RCS reduction in the frontal sector, but given the external stores and its limitation to the frontal sector can you explain exactly how it can be exploited in a decisive manner?????
By the way i doubt how stealthy it realy is, and you agreed with me a few weeks ago: post 241
Have you changed your mind AD???
You might not like to think about it much mate since it may be more than 2 years away, which seems to be the limit of your foresight, but the AL41F IS in LRIP, just like the F35, and IS being adapted to the Su37 airframe, and given the fertile export market's in India, China and SEA, is about as likely to see squadron service as the F35 IMO. So i guess X wings are in LRIP too then huh? Maybe thats what the RAAF should be looking at, they do have hyperdrive after all.
I was under the impression the Block III would have similar avionics to the F35, i think i got that impression from you mate, in annother thread. However unless the Block III is a MASIVE design change the SH still doesent have a chance against the F22.
Oh my god!!!!!! Are you serious???? 1 Kill!!!!!! Wow it is a better platform!
I never said the SH was a bad platform, just that ADVANCED SUXX variants will be more capable at A2A combat, not SU27's. And I know it might be a little scary to think about, outside of a 5 year timeframe and all but advanced flanker variants are under deveopment and given the fertile export markets it is more than likely that threat nations will have them in squadron service in the not too distent future. And yes just becaus there may not be any orders at this second does not mean they can be labled irrelevant.
I dont know if you are intentionaly missing my point, not understanding what i'm saying or not reading my posts. The SH relies on its sensor advantage to overcome its deficiencies in kinetic and airodynamic performance, it allready has a sensor lead. If the SH has to enter the flankers detection and track radii before it can usefully employ its weapons systems, given the flankers kinetic advantage the flanker holds the advantage, a higher sensor lead or the SH does not change this fact. Can you explain exactly how first detection can be exploited desicively if you will be detected and tracked before you can employ your weapons systems???
Quo "allthough the X may be somewhat more sophisticated when it comes to some countermeasures,"
Well if it really does share its seeker with ASRAAM, it will do the SAME and lock on FLARES launched by the target drone like it did recently during tests.
Sophistication and performances aren't necessary going together at all time...
Well if it really does share its seeker with ASRAAM, it will do the SAME and lock on FLARES launched by the target drone like it did recently during tests.
Sophistication and performances aren't necessary going together at all time...
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
i think the seekers, even if not identical have near identical capabilities. If this is true and a soft kill was achieved on an ASRAAM by a countermeasure as simple as a flare its "advanced" features may not be as decisive as some would have us believe.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
When such a platform EXISTS anywhere than it's time to discuss it's capability...
As to this capability, I suppose you are right if you consider every tactical situation will be 2 aircraft going head to head in a 1 v 1 ACM incident with no force multiplying effects, no differences in speed, fuel load, types of external stores, other defensive systems (ie: GBAD, Naval AAW capacity etc) other fighter aircraft and a RAAF pilot not utilising the advantages (primarily RCS, radar, MIDS/Link 16 capability and superior EWSP systems ) that he has.
Then yes, there may indeed be something to worry about. Unfortunately this "horizon challenged" mind of mine doesn't seem to think that this tactical scenario will occur all that often.
Which none of our likely opponents have. Tell me if you can, what exactly is the published range of the APG-79? Because I can't find it.
So apart from the published electronic attack capability of the APG-79 which of course is dismissed by the "experts", does the idea that superior detection range amd superior target discrimination not lend itself to the idea that SH has the better situational awareness and thus can choose to fire or leave as the tactical situation so requires? Or is the aircraft such a slow wallowing barge that it cannot disengage from a fight if necessary?
The SH is not an LO aircraft in the same class as F-22 or F-35 I agree. When discussing LO people often seem to forget that detection is ONE PART of the equation. The other is targetting. RCS reduction measures are designed to reduce the range at which a platform can be TARGETTED BY AN OPPOSING FIRE CONTROL RADAR.
If you can't see the tactical advantages inherent in this, than I fail to see the point of continuing this discussion.
Even Dr Kopp admits these measures are as extensive on the SH "as it is worth doing" and should give it a "tactical significant advantage" in the words of the USN as well, to the SH. But of course the USN is simply lying to cover their own inadequacies aren't they?
No. I never said the F/A-18E/F is an all aspect LO aircraft. I believe I've only ever said it reportedly benefits from a reduced front sector RCS. The reasons for this have been outlined any number of times.
I have also acknowledged that external stores as they currently are (ie: no "stealth pods") are likely to increase any RCS of an aircraft carrying them.
My point is that the SU-30 series is a BIG aircraft with a BIG RCS. Hanging stores on it is ALSO going to increase it's RCS JUST AS IT DOES ON THE SUPER HORNET.
However the Super Hornet is STILL going to enjoy the benefits of it's lower RCS.
Malaysia has 18x SU-30 on order and is waiting for them. Indonesia has bought 2x SU-27's and 2x SU-30's. Vietnam has about 20-30 SU-27's. Singapore has 12x F-15's on order.
We have 24x Super Hornets on order.
That's not going to change in 2 years is it?
Let's look at 5 years then shall we?
Our entire SH capability will be in-service as will our weapons package, training capacity and support facilities. The legacy Hornet upgrade program will be substantially complete, their additional weapons capability will be operational, our AAR tankers will be delivered and in-service and Wedgetail and project Vigilaire will likely be in-service too. JORN of course is already in-service as are our new TPS-77 mobile air defence radars. Our upgraded and expanded "radar cued" RBS-70 GBAD system is in-service already and our FFG-UP and ANZAC ASMD will be completed and SM-2IIIA in-service on-board the FFG's.
F-35 will be far more developed and much more will be known about it's capability, price and from when it will be available. It's possible some RAAF pilots and maintainers will already be in the USA undergoing type training.
Indonesia has NOT ordered anymore air combat aircraft as yet. There's is no indication that they can afford to even arm the ones they have, let alone buy additional fighters. Indonesia does not even have plans to acquire a tanking force or an AWACS force, let alone be in a position to purchase one. Statements I have seen indicate TNI-AU would like to have a squadron of 12x SU-30's in-service by 2010. If they intend to keep to this idea they'd better hurry up, based on how long Malaysia's SU-30's have taken to arrive.
Malaysia will probably have it's 18 SU-30 aircraft in-service. It has also expressed a desire to acquire Super Hornet fighters to replace it's existing C/D model Hornet fighters, but so far has been unable to fund them. The desire to acquire them though has not disappeared. To support the SU-30's Malaysia has had to retire most of it's MiG-29 fleet, I understand. While the SU-30 is no doubt the more capable aircraft, it doesn't do much for overall size of the force does it? It's akin to Australia having to retire legacy Hornets to make way for the Super Hornet. Except we haven't had to do that, have we?
Malaysia has announced a desire for an AWACS force, but so far has been unable to afford such a thing. Nor has it been able to acquire a tanking force.
Vietnam operates a force of older model SU-27 fighters. It cannot afford newer generation fighters, nor an AWACS or tanking capability. It's other force multipliers seem suspect too...
Phillipines has no modern air combat capabilities whatsoever and is trying to get Australia to pay for it to obtain a capable maritime patrol capability. There doesn't seem to be any threat there within the next 5 years. Same with East Timor, PNG, Fiji, Soloman Islands, Nauru.
New Zealand has withdrawn it's "air combat force" on political grounds and I can't see this changing within the next 5 or even 10 years.
On top of this lack of threat we are actually on good terms and even (dare I suggest it) Allies with all these "threat nations"...
Yes, we are living in a truly troubled strategic environment, aren't we???
You are probably correct, though of course the SH is a Boeing platform and F-35 is a Lockheed Martin platform...
I would suggest that a Block III variant would look to continue to enhance the strengths of the existing aircraft, it's sensor/networking and stealth capabilities.
An IRST capability will be installed in Block II variants within about 2 years, so this may be improved as well and no doubt such things as EWSP, EO/R targetting and weapons capabilities will continue to improve.
I would suggest that if the aircraft is as aerodynamically inferior as it's detractors constantly suggest, than this may be looked at as well. Afterall if a SU-30 can feature 44,000lbs thrust engines, why not an SH?
Could you please show where I said that? What the SH has done though, is score a kill against the F-22 in an A2A situation. Something no other combat aircraft has achieved and has been announced publicly, to the best of my knowledge.
This doesn't show the SH to be the superior platform and I wouldn't for one moment suggest it is. It shows that it's certainly no slough though, as many yourself included seem to think.
I agree, but there's more to air combat capability than sheet A2A performance. Supporting the aircraft you have for instance is FAR more important. No SU variant no matter how advanced represents a threat when it's grounded.
So-called threat countries such as Indonesia have displayed an inability to properly support their combat aircraft, even when NOT under sanction.
That they suddenly will want to a) threat or attack us anyway, b) over match our ability to resist them in ANY timeframe is unrealistic in the extreme.
Are you so scared about the SH's lack of capability against the F-22? No, because you know we won't ever have to fight the USA. The situation is little different to India or China.
Where does this idea come from that the SH holds the advantage in radar range performance, other sensor performance, networking capability, RCS capability, but can't turn these advantages to it's own use?
The idea seems to me that people acknowledge that the SH itself has all these advantages, but is let down because it's weapons aren't matched to the capabilities the platform enjoys?
That somehow AMRAAM isn't good enough or long ranged enough to take full advantage of the performance of the radar system and that the Russians are able to build such powerful and yet reliable and discriminatory radars and weapons that are at least "equal" in sensor performance yet massively out perform Western weapons kinematically.
How you can tell such things when the USN, Boeing and Raytheon etc don't even publish range performance, sensor performance etc, is very curious.
Where do you get the idea from that the Flanker holds a "sensor lead". What sensor exactly? Radar is the predominant sensor in A2A combat and yet you admit the SH has the advantage here?
I find it ludicrous that USN would risk so much on a platform of ANY kind without weapon systems that are up to the task and fully compatible with the capabilities of the radar systems that will be guiding the weapon...
To answer your question directly, I believe the SH holds the radar detection range advantage over the SU-XX thanks to it's APG-79 AESA radar. I believe that in combination with the latest AMRAAM variants, that the SH will with all else being equal, be able to take long range missile shots, before any SU-XX variant is even aware that the SH has fired...
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote: "How you can tell such things when the USN, Boeing and Raytheon etc don't even publish range performance, sensor performance etc, is very curious. "
Perhaps because some very serious studies by BAE and MBDA did show an inaxeptable exchange rate between a Typhoon and a Su-30 despite the fact that the Eurofighter was conceived to beat it in BVR using AIM-120.
It's not too difficult to guess (SEE) why an AIM-120 would have a smaller NEZ than let's say a MICA (even the C5 version), to start with it was never intended to counter 9G targets...
So when it comes to the Russians AAMs which are the benchmark in the kinetiq sector i guess we now also can see WHY Europe went all the way to design/test METEOR.
Western AAMs are not necessarly "La panacee"" if you see what i mean and in many ways lag behind the Russians perhaps not in electronics but then again, that's all about what they do better when it is the case at all.
I cant really come up with the figures for the Ruskies but a MICA pulls 10G more than an AMRAAM at extreme range and this is partly why anyone facing the French aircraft in simulated BVR can't believe the way they use it, VS Greeks F-16 which pilots commented that they wouldn't dare calling a kill out of their NEZ... When your AAM does the same speed than an AIM-120 and still can pull 50Gs at more than 70 km it's obviously a clear advantage dont you think so???
Now just imagine the thing is a totally passive IR AAM and you have an idea of the problem...
Range isn't everything, an AAM needs to be able to pull 4 X the amount of Gs of the target (within the NEZ) to score a hit and the gravity of the problem only increases with range, AMRAAM is limited to 40Gs + many aircrafts can eventually pull up to 11.0 11.5 Gs through their "hard stops"... Do your maths...
@Ozzy Blizzard. On the seekers...
Soure: AdA personel.
I would like to add something here, i believe that the F/A-18 E/F/Gs are a very competitive alternative to the F-35.
People get their head spun by the word "Stealth" when in fact F-35 lacks half of it...
Supercruise and high Max Mach...
As far as i can remember the F-22 requierements specified high non-AB cruising speed to significantly narrow an opponent window of detection and engagement.
According to L-M figures in their latest PDF, the aircrafts are still limited to M 1.6, and doesn't supercruise (L-M FAQs).
So to summerise: It is only marginally less vulnerable to EM detection (mainly frontal sector), doesn't supercruise with a 44.000 lb engine, can only carry 2 AIM-120 in stealth/strike configuration = 2 X 2K weapons over a distance not much greater than 1000 nm.
Put equivalent systems on a Super-Hornet with a proper IRST and you're in buziness...
I REALLY wonder WHY people are getting so exited about this....
Perhaps because some very serious studies by BAE and MBDA did show an inaxeptable exchange rate between a Typhoon and a Su-30 despite the fact that the Eurofighter was conceived to beat it in BVR using AIM-120.
It's not too difficult to guess (SEE) why an AIM-120 would have a smaller NEZ than let's say a MICA (even the C5 version), to start with it was never intended to counter 9G targets...
So when it comes to the Russians AAMs which are the benchmark in the kinetiq sector i guess we now also can see WHY Europe went all the way to design/test METEOR.
Western AAMs are not necessarly "La panacee"" if you see what i mean and in many ways lag behind the Russians perhaps not in electronics but then again, that's all about what they do better when it is the case at all.
I cant really come up with the figures for the Ruskies but a MICA pulls 10G more than an AMRAAM at extreme range and this is partly why anyone facing the French aircraft in simulated BVR can't believe the way they use it, VS Greeks F-16 which pilots commented that they wouldn't dare calling a kill out of their NEZ... When your AAM does the same speed than an AIM-120 and still can pull 50Gs at more than 70 km it's obviously a clear advantage dont you think so???
Now just imagine the thing is a totally passive IR AAM and you have an idea of the problem...
Range isn't everything, an AAM needs to be able to pull 4 X the amount of Gs of the target (within the NEZ) to score a hit and the gravity of the problem only increases with range, AMRAAM is limited to 40Gs + many aircrafts can eventually pull up to 11.0 11.5 Gs through their "hard stops"... Do your maths...
@Ozzy Blizzard. On the seekers...
Soure: AdA personel.
I would like to add something here, i believe that the F/A-18 E/F/Gs are a very competitive alternative to the F-35.
People get their head spun by the word "Stealth" when in fact F-35 lacks half of it...
Supercruise and high Max Mach...
As far as i can remember the F-22 requierements specified high non-AB cruising speed to significantly narrow an opponent window of detection and engagement.
According to L-M figures in their latest PDF, the aircrafts are still limited to M 1.6, and doesn't supercruise (L-M FAQs).
So to summerise: It is only marginally less vulnerable to EM detection (mainly frontal sector), doesn't supercruise with a 44.000 lb engine, can only carry 2 AIM-120 in stealth/strike configuration = 2 X 2K weapons over a distance not much greater than 1000 nm.
Put equivalent systems on a Super-Hornet with a proper IRST and you're in buziness...
I REALLY wonder WHY people are getting so exited about this....
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
@Aussie Digger
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hmm. Some proof of this would be interesting. Seems to me that aircraft that NEED a MUCH longer ranged missile: aka Typhoon are getting one.
I'm sure the Serbs would probably disagree with you there...
Finding accurate data like that from public sources is not possible as I'm sure you know.
Can you provide evidence that MICA even possesses this level of range? Most open source AAM comparisons show it barely even being a BVR class missile...
I make no secret of the fact that I am no expert in this field. I can however read and do so extensively. What I read tends to show that the F-35A will be a FAR superior combat aircraft to anything the Europeans have yet created.
Hmm. Fair enough. LM outlines the requirements it is required to meet and they state the F-35 (all variants) does. So do it's likely end users. Given the operational record they have, I think that will suffice as far as I'm concerned...
I've told you I'm no expert in this field. Twice now, but you who apparently are have done little besides tap your nose and state "trust me". Can you blame me for being less than convinced?
What performance precisely? L-M state quite clearly the F-35 is designed to provide the performance agility of F-16/F-18 and replace THESE types along with A-10 and Harrier (in it's variant incarnations).
Given the Countries who look to be acquiring this aircraft ARE users of these types, I suspect they are FIRMLY aware of the performance of existing types and have a pretty good idea of what they'll get to replace it...
Aha. Hence the fantastic effect achieved against LO aircraft to date...
DAS is a TI system I believe. Are clouds going to make a huge difference here? When the Europeans can build a radar set to match the APG-81, perhaps then you might "beat it", but of course to date you haven't. 2012 I believe is the date the AESA RBE2 is expected to be ready I read recently...
Guess what? F-35 CAN carry 6AAM's internally. I am certain you have you heard of dual rail launchers (LAU-127/128/129)?
Less stealth hurts you in A2A combat does it? Ah, now the decision to avoid LO RCS in the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen make sense...
Last edited by a moderator:
Also Rafale & Gripen, & if the Italians have anything to do with it (or if the RAF can persuade the MoD to be less stingy than usual) Meteor will also be integrated on F-35.
Note to BKNO
If you are going to make the effort to post - then plse make the effort to use the proper quoting tools.
It becomes especially tiresome to read long unformatted posts when posters have not bothered to extend the courtesy to contribute in the same posting standard as everyone else does.
I have better things to do than edit everyones posts.
Plse fix up #456 before responding to anymore.
If you are going to make the effort to post - then plse make the effort to use the proper quoting tools.
It becomes especially tiresome to read long unformatted posts when posters have not bothered to extend the courtesy to contribute in the same posting standard as everyone else does.
I have better things to do than edit everyones posts.
Plse fix up #456 before responding to anymore.
Wow i cant believe people are trying to downplay the F-35 by comparing it to the F-22... Why would Australia be attacking the USA?
We should be comparing the F-35 to the SU-30 which will probably be the only aircraft Australia may fight against. The F-35 cruises just as quick and travels just as far as the SU-30. The F-35 has a HUGE advantage in radar cross section and radar performance compared to the SU-30. The F-35 will be likely to get a shot off before its even detected.
This is why Australia will buy and operate the F-35. Yes the F-22 is better but so is an X-wing with hyperdrive.
We should be comparing the F-35 to the SU-30 which will probably be the only aircraft Australia may fight against. The F-35 cruises just as quick and travels just as far as the SU-30. The F-35 has a HUGE advantage in radar cross section and radar performance compared to the SU-30. The F-35 will be likely to get a shot off before its even detected.
This is why Australia will buy and operate the F-35. Yes the F-22 is better but so is an X-wing with hyperdrive.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I guess you are "off handedly" referring to IRST and "passive missile shots"?
Well I suppose if you decide to ignore the fact that F-35 possesses EXACTLY the same type of capability as this or rather moreso in fact given the LPI nature of the APG-81 radar it will possess and the 2-way data-linked AIM-120D (you so casually dismiss) the capacity of the Euro-Canards against the F-35 doesn't look too bad.
Again the cloud issue will effect ANY IRST system just as it will F-35, but it hardly helps your argument, so obviously you smooth over that point...
Of course the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in A2A combat, so ipso facto it possesses little capability against anything else?
Well F-15 has proven in-effective against the F-22 as well. How do you rate F-15's air combat performance??? 100 odd to nil is pretty hard to argue against...
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The engine, radar and avionics are all in LRIP and are at about the same level of completion as much of the F35 programe. IINM the avionics package on the F35 is still in the test fase. The ibis radar in particular is a fair way down the track and could be operational by 2010. No Lightning II is in service either but you dont seem to have any problems dicussing its capabilities. The SH will be in RAAF service for some time and it would be prudent to discuss possible fufture threats would it not, even if they are still in the test phase? Simply stating that you dicuss a threat capability when its operational and not before is yet annother example of short sighted thinking.
I only outlined general capabilities, not specific scenario's. If you wanted to consider the mirriad of factors that could give one side or the other an advantage we would be chasing our tails for hours. That is not a good basis for a comparison between platforms. IMO even considering the SH defensive capabilities (apart from the APG 79's EA capability which could be very usefull i grant you, but untill we know its capabilities even in general terms it would be hard to argue it was desisive) and countermeasures or advantages such as RCS or link 16, due to the Flankers ability to generate higher angles of attack and its kinetic advantage (especially AL41F equiped variants) it holds the advantage in the horisontal and most of the vertical. So in general terms, the Flanker can employ its weapons systems faster. Now, in favorable circumstances can the SH still win, of cource. Considering the lethality of the weapons systems involved on both sides this single most important factor would be the abilities of the pilot, however this is beyond the scope of a platform analysis.
For one thing i question your definition of a "likely" opponant, but i'll get to that later.
The Ibis radar system is pretty close to being operational and could be in the air by 2010. It will fit just nicely into existing flankers and will probably be offered as part of a block upgrade to current customers, or at least radar upgrade, not to mention equiping later Flanker variants. So wouldn't be prudent to consider its capabilities???
I have never seen exact published data on the range of the APG 79, I have seen a graph that showed the detection range vs M2 RCS of several radars including the BARS and the 79. It has been sighted in a previos post of mine in this thread, it can also be found in the febuary issue of Defence today magazine. It stated that the BARS had a slightly superior detection range vs RCS to the APG 79, whether that is correct or not is annnother story.
The first detection advantage held by the SH is of real use to strike packages i agree. The ability to detect the flanker before it is detected give the SH the ability to disengage if it wishes, or avoid a CAP. Although due to the Flankers superior speed it can also disegage as soon as the SH is detected. However given the nature of the the flankers MSA BARS radar which does not utilise LPI (niether does its more evolved brother the Ibis), and therefore could be pasively detected from a long way off, so the APG 79's detection range is less relevent in this situation, although the Flanker has a datalink too so only the platforms that radiate would be able to be detected passively, and passive detection is irrelevent if the oppponant has an AEW&C capability. This early detection advatage becomes less relevant however if the SH intends to engage. In this scenario, the real question is whether the the SH can employ its weapns systems (i.e. AIM 120D) in a usefull maner before the flanker detects and tracks it. This has more to do with the capabilities of the russian radar's than the APG 79 (apart from its EA capability), and the SH's RCS when fully armed. From what i can gather from public data, ibis equiped variants at least should be able keep this equasion in the black, given the fact that the RCS of the weapons alone on the SH would be significant, and thats not taking its reduced frontal RCS into account (whatever that number is).
LO or reduced RCS's effect on fire controll radars is significant for the F22 and F35 i agree. However taking external stores into account and the exact extent SH's RCS reduction i'm not sure it shares a similar or even significant protection in this respect. The published engagement range for the BARS vs 1 M2 RCS is ~75NM. Taking the fact that this data is from russian sources and could be overstated into account, I still have a hard time believing it would be anything less than somewhere in the 50-60NM range. Now when you consider the Ibis radar has 3 times the power output (peak at arround 20 kilowhatts), a huge apature and better resoloution, its 1M2 detection and engagement range has to be very significant. The effect of RCS reduction on aquisition range for R77 & R27 seekers is also important. The stated aquisition range for these seekers is 10-15NM vs 1M2 RCS. Now this is drastically reduced when targeting LVO or LO aircraft such as the F22 and F35, however due to the nature of the SH's RCS reduction (i have a hard time believing it is in the same ballpark as the F35 and F22, even when running clean), external stores and the angle of the missile's terminal phase, ie from a somewhat balistic trajectory and therefore the seeker will not be facing front on, i dont think aquisition ranges for these systems will be significantly reduced. A graph showing these figures is at the bottom of this post. It can also be found here (i know you'll love this one AD
: ) http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
The SH's RCS reduction is an advantage it holds over the flanker and the USN is right in stating that it is, i have said it was many times. IINM The russians are considering taking similar measures on future flankers. However there is a difference between an advantage and a decisive advantage, or one that will win the fight for you. The flanker will have a higher RCS, and given the capabilities of the radars involved, the SH should enjoy the first detection advantage. However, taking into account the abilities of the Ibis radar, the limitations of the design (i.e. shaping on the SH, it is still a Hornet), and external stores i dont see this advantage being enough to counter the Flankers superior kinetic and airodynamic capability.
This is a pretty good example of your short sighted strategic regional view. I will point out that this is only a 5yr outlook even though the SH will be in RAAF service until 2020 at the minimum, but anyway. The expansion in capabilities the ADF is currently undertanking is very significant and will make us a very prickely customer for even the big boys to handle. However we are not comparing the warfighting capabilities of Australia and its neighbors, but we are comparing the future airial threats that RAAF F18F's may face, mainly advanced SUXX variants (we could talk about strategic strike assets but i'll leave that one alone).
In the list above you outline our SEA's neighbors, oceanic neigbers like Fiji and Naru, even New Zealand (even though we share an extreemly close millitary, economic, constitutional and ploitical alliance, and it would take revoloution in either one of our nations for hostilities to become possible). It tickles my interest as to how exaclty when writing a list thourough eneough to include New Zealand and Naru, you omit the two main regional powers?????
I'm wondering what criteria you use to asess what exactly constitutes a threat nation? Geographic location??? If so then PNG must be our largest threat right??? In terms of ability to attack/damage the Australian mainland or interests in the region, or project power into the air sea gap or northen Australia itself, i.e. pose a threat, even taking geographic location into account, India and China are the largest threats we face. I know Iknow, the're so far away, well taking thier current air and naval capabilities into account, even considering the geographic constraints envolved, they at least have SOME capability to project power into the air/ sea gap and northen australia, more than any of the nations in your list.
Any mention of china or india as a threat to Australia usually provokes several responses, including callis of sinophobia for even sujesting that the PROC may have interests in SEA and may be planing to enforce/defend them by force of arms in the event of a regional conflict, and this may conflict with Australia's interests in the region. So i'm pretty sure i know what the rebuttal to the "IAF & PLAAF's capabilities should be considered" point. I've heard them before. They are usually as follows.
Australia shares close trade links and enjoys good diplomatic relations with both these nations and a war with them is unlikely, therfore the effect their capabilities have on our strategic situation does not need to be considered.
To that i ask which nation has bad diplomatic relations with australia, and again which nation are we likely to go to war with??? Are we somehow more likely to go to war with indonesia, malaysia, naru or even vietnam??? All of these nations feature quite prominantly in your little list. However i dont see conflict with any of these nations as any more likely than with china or india, in fact in PROC's case I see it as less likely. If you were to apply this logic of "dont wory we wont ever fight them anyway" in general terms, i.e. not just on a specific nation/capability, then we could save $10bn pa on defence spending, because we could scrap the combat air arm and the collins, shut down JORN, transform the army into a totaly air mobile, light formation, and buy a few more C17's because the only "likely" deployments will be under USAF air power in GWOT campaigns, or in low intencity UN sanctioned peace keeping operations. You counter capabilities in nations you may possibly have a conflict with, not the ones you are likely too, especially in a time of general peace and stability. If the fact that it is unlikely that we will ever have to face chinese or indian capabilities in battle means that any deficiencies we may have in countering them should not be adressed, then i challange you to justify the billlions of dollars spent on the collins class submarine, given the naval threats in the region and how "likely" it is that the collins will ever be used in anger.
Due to the Geographic location of India and China relative to Australia their capabilities do not pose a threat right now
They do pose some threat right now. But given the massive military and economic expasion going on in both the nations concerned, and some of the capabilities being purchesed, developed or shown stated interest in, this threat will increase expidentially over the next 2 decades. By 2020 PLAN will have a true blue water capability with at least 1 CBG, A50E AEW&C capability will be fully operational as will a much larger tanker fleet, the current upgrade programe for the TU 16 Badger bomber for conversion for cruise missile platforms, PLAAF has stated a strong desire to purchase the TU 23 Backfire strategic strike aircraft (with the speed, payload, ordinance and legs to do us some real damage). You ignore an increase in capabilities like this at your perill. So within the 15~20yr timeframe, PLAAF and PLAN WILL be able to project real power into the air sea gap and even northen Australia.
Why would PROC ever want to expand a regional conflict into SEA?
Quite simply the Malaka streights. The strategic importance of this economic chokepoint to both PROC and the west is very significant. Apart from PROC's stated objective of dominating the streights during any regional conflict, the agressive expansion into the spratley islands and bases in mynmar are evidence of this intention. PLAN have agressively expanded in the spratleys, even leading to clashes with vietnamise naval forces, and have significantly expanded SIGNINT on the islands. Also the construction of at least 4 11000ft runways around burma, all capable of handleing tankers, AEW&C aircraft and bombers, in a nation that only operates lightweight MiG variants such as the MiG 21 show their intention to be used for substantial PLAAF forces. Domination of the Spratleys and Burma will grant PROC domination of the Malaka streights. This shows that PROC have some pretty major strategic interests in SEA and to assume that thier influense in the region will not grow with their economic and military power is not at all realistic.
Having stated that, i do not think that china is intending to launch a war of conquest, and i do acknowlage that in a regional conflict Australia was involved in, it is unlikely that the US would not also be involved. I am not sinophobic and i do not think a war with china is imanant or even likely, just slightly more likely than a conflict with say malaysia, indonesia, naru or new zealand.
My post is too long so please refer to my next post for the rest of my reply.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sorry, just getting back to you now OB.
I'll cover how I would expect such a system to work (if possible) and what equipment would likely be required using the 2 aircraft flight as you stated, and then indicate areas where I see potential difficulties.
Take the two aircraft, let's call them Alpha & Bravo...
Alpha, at location x,y,z, traveling at a known speed and heading, detects a heat source with it's IRST. Given that an IRST doesn't include range information, a line at whatever bearing the heat source was detected at would be plotted and most likely converted this into a GIS database of possible locations of the heat source. The aircraft computer would need to constantly update this database on the... err... fly, as both the heat source and the GPS reference point (Alpha) are in motion.
Simultaneously, aircraft Bravo would need to be doing the exact same thing.
Once each aircraft has a set of possible (constantly changing) coordinates, then the two aircraft would need to exchange the GIS database via datalink to find coordinates in common. These common coordinates are possible locations of the heat source.
Ignoring the accuracy of the IRST, I see several possible issues. In order to provide a detection capability, the fire control computers will need a fair amount of resources given the constant need to update the data coming in from the IRST. Also, more computing power is then required given the need to compare and eliminate all non-matching coordinates between the two (or more) aircraft. Lastly, the datalink between the aircraft needs sufficient capacity to handle the amount of data trafficking in-between.
I'm not sure, but I don't think a current fighter-sized aircraft has the onboard processing capacity to handle that volume of data.
Now it might be possible to "trim" the amount of data needed if instead of constantly updated GIS coordinnates, the coordinates are transmitted in blocks. By this I mean instead of sending an exact position for something like a five km stretch, positions are sent that represent 1 km increments. Once the two aircraft computers show that a GIS position from each aircraft is within 1 km (or whatever the increment is) that becomes the designated location of the heat source.
I'll respond to the other parts of the post later.
-Cheers
Actually, what I was envisioning was one platform with 3 separate IRST sensors... Keep in mind, I believe the JSF will deploy with a total of 6 EO/IR sensors to provide all-aspect detection capability.
I'll cover how I would expect such a system to work (if possible) and what equipment would likely be required using the 2 aircraft flight as you stated, and then indicate areas where I see potential difficulties.
- Each detecting aircraft would need an IRST capable of detecting a JSF
- Accurate GPS and/or Nav system
- High capacity datalink
- Sufficient computing power and memory
Take the two aircraft, let's call them Alpha & Bravo...
Alpha, at location x,y,z, traveling at a known speed and heading, detects a heat source with it's IRST. Given that an IRST doesn't include range information, a line at whatever bearing the heat source was detected at would be plotted and most likely converted this into a GIS database of possible locations of the heat source. The aircraft computer would need to constantly update this database on the... err... fly, as both the heat source and the GPS reference point (Alpha) are in motion.
Simultaneously, aircraft Bravo would need to be doing the exact same thing.
Once each aircraft has a set of possible (constantly changing) coordinates, then the two aircraft would need to exchange the GIS database via datalink to find coordinates in common. These common coordinates are possible locations of the heat source.
Ignoring the accuracy of the IRST, I see several possible issues. In order to provide a detection capability, the fire control computers will need a fair amount of resources given the constant need to update the data coming in from the IRST. Also, more computing power is then required given the need to compare and eliminate all non-matching coordinates between the two (or more) aircraft. Lastly, the datalink between the aircraft needs sufficient capacity to handle the amount of data trafficking in-between.
I'm not sure, but I don't think a current fighter-sized aircraft has the onboard processing capacity to handle that volume of data.
Now it might be possible to "trim" the amount of data needed if instead of constantly updated GIS coordinnates, the coordinates are transmitted in blocks. By this I mean instead of sending an exact position for something like a five km stretch, positions are sent that represent 1 km increments. Once the two aircraft computers show that a GIS position from each aircraft is within 1 km (or whatever the increment is) that becomes the designated location of the heat source.
I'll respond to the other parts of the post later.
-Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
this is the second half of my last reply, refer to my last post.
All the quotes were originaly posted buy Aussie Digger in post#453.
I'm sure futher reducing RCS would be a priority. Perhaps the APG 81 would be installed also????
As far as the 44000lb thrust engine, i guess the F119's could be shrunk down to fit but i dont really see the point. The SH is a multirole platform with a good deal of its desgn geared towards strike missions. The effect of F119's would have on the SH's allready small internal fuel capacity would not be verry productive for longer range strike missions and would give it less loiter time for CAS, and its airodynamic design is not geared for high supersonic manuever either, this can be seen by its degree of wing sweep.
This is what i mean about platforms diong what they were designed for. The SH is a multi role platform, and it is designed to be one. It was obviosly designed to be a capable A2A performer but not at the detrement of strike/CAS performance. The (Advanced) Flanker is good as a air superiority platform, because all of its design was aimed at achieving that goal. There is no way a SU 37 will be as capable at strike missions as a SH, even if it has thrust vectoring AL41F engines, because it was not its design goal. The F22 will not be as capable as a cas platrom as the F35 for the same reason. I mean there are things a platform can be found to be suited for after design, like the F15E, but generaly its going to be good at what it was intended to do. No platform is the best at everything, and the SH was obviosly not intended to be the best at A2A combat.
I agree it is a capable A2A performer, i never said it was a slough. However i dont think it is a BETTER performer than advanced flanker variants.
If by "so called threat countries" you mean malysia and indonesia then i dont consider them a threat at all, especially given the expansion in capabilities in the ADF and Australia's economic strength. I do however consider the combination of PROCs rapid economic growth, military capability and interests in our region, more of a "threat" than indonesia could ever be. We may never go to war with them, but you dont plan your military capability arround the assumption that you wont go to war with rival interests, and you dont ignore deficiencies in capabilities becaus of this fact. Do i think a war with china likely? No. Do i think that we need to be able to defend ourselves in a reasonable maner from the capabilities china or india posesses or are persueing? yes. A good example is the F35/SH vs the TU 23 Backfire. IF PLAAF do indeed get their hands on some backfires (if they got some i would sujest they would purchase a substantial force) there is now way that the F35 or SH has the kinematic performance to intercept the backfire and stop it reaching lauch points for stand off missiles, i.e. they will have a capability that we can not defend ourselfs from. Sure the USAF MIGHT hit them all on the ground or get them in transit, or base a squadron of F22s in RAAF Darwin, but we need to be able to defend ourselfs from these threats indipendantly, thats would give us a small margin of error. You dont prepare for peace, ie we wont fight them so dont worry about it, you prepare, as much as is reasonable, for war and hope for peace.
however the R77 will still kill you with nice effieciency. So appart from 10~20% more range (depending on the sicumstances) and more accurate seeker i dont see the AIM 120D vs R77M as being a desisve factor, given the different NEZ for each missile and each platform. Ability to employ these systems usefully is much more important.
All the quotes were originaly posted buy Aussie Digger in post#453.
The F35 is a LM platform but i thought that Boeing and LM were sharing most of the projuction and remaining R&D contracts in the US. I would think that the fact that a different company may have made the original design would not stop a boeing designed platform being equiped with avionics from a LM designed platform.
I'm sure futher reducing RCS would be a priority. Perhaps the APG 81 would be installed also????
As far as the 44000lb thrust engine, i guess the F119's could be shrunk down to fit but i dont really see the point. The SH is a multirole platform with a good deal of its desgn geared towards strike missions. The effect of F119's would have on the SH's allready small internal fuel capacity would not be verry productive for longer range strike missions and would give it less loiter time for CAS, and its airodynamic design is not geared for high supersonic manuever either, this can be seen by its degree of wing sweep.
This is what i mean about platforms diong what they were designed for. The SH is a multi role platform, and it is designed to be one. It was obviosly designed to be a capable A2A performer but not at the detrement of strike/CAS performance. The (Advanced) Flanker is good as a air superiority platform, because all of its design was aimed at achieving that goal. There is no way a SU 37 will be as capable at strike missions as a SH, even if it has thrust vectoring AL41F engines, because it was not its design goal. The F22 will not be as capable as a cas platrom as the F35 for the same reason. I mean there are things a platform can be found to be suited for after design, like the F15E, but generaly its going to be good at what it was intended to do. No platform is the best at everything, and the SH was obviosly not intended to be the best at A2A combat.
You wrote that in response to a post of mine stating that i thout the F22 was a better platform. So you kind of implied it.
I agree it is a capable A2A performer, i never said it was a slough. However i dont think it is a BETTER performer than advanced flanker variants.
We're not comparing the war fighting capabilities of the air forces concerned. We are however comparing the capabilities of the platforms in the region. If we took all the other factors into account when comparing platforms you could argue that an APG 79, AIM 120C equiped F4 in the hands of the RAAF or RAF is a better platform than a brand spanking R77M/Ibis/AL41F equiped flanker in the hands of the nigerian air force. thats no basis for a platform comparison.
If by "so called threat countries" you mean malysia and indonesia then i dont consider them a threat at all, especially given the expansion in capabilities in the ADF and Australia's economic strength. I do however consider the combination of PROCs rapid economic growth, military capability and interests in our region, more of a "threat" than indonesia could ever be. We may never go to war with them, but you dont plan your military capability arround the assumption that you wont go to war with rival interests, and you dont ignore deficiencies in capabilities becaus of this fact. Do i think a war with china likely? No. Do i think that we need to be able to defend ourselves in a reasonable maner from the capabilities china or india posesses or are persueing? yes. A good example is the F35/SH vs the TU 23 Backfire. IF PLAAF do indeed get their hands on some backfires (if they got some i would sujest they would purchase a substantial force) there is now way that the F35 or SH has the kinematic performance to intercept the backfire and stop it reaching lauch points for stand off missiles, i.e. they will have a capability that we can not defend ourselfs from. Sure the USAF MIGHT hit them all on the ground or get them in transit, or base a squadron of F22s in RAAF Darwin, but we need to be able to defend ourselfs from these threats indipendantly, thats would give us a small margin of error. You dont prepare for peace, ie we wont fight them so dont worry about it, you prepare, as much as is reasonable, for war and hope for peace.
I't can, these are its major advantages. However your relying on them to overcome the large (massive in the AL41F's case) kinematic and airdynamic disadvantage, and unless you can take usefull long range BVR missile shots from beyond the Flankers detection and track radii, i cant figure out how the SH's information advantage can adress its inadequacies in most cases.
I'm sure the sensor capabilities on the AIM 120D are better than the R77M,
however the R77 will still kill you with nice effieciency. So appart from 10~20% more range (depending on the sicumstances) and more accurate seeker i dont see the AIM 120D vs R77M as being a desisve factor, given the different NEZ for each missile and each platform. Ability to employ these systems usefully is much more important.
I'm sure AIM 120D is the best missile in the world and takes full advantage of the APG 79's capabilities. The Ibis is a very powerfull and discrimitory radar. Is it up to western AESA standards? no. Is the 79/120D combination better than the Ibis/R77M combination? Yes. However i dont think the difference between these systems will make up for the iniatinve that is lost to the flanker as soon as the SH is detected, or the effects of its kinematic advantage, or its airodynamic advantage in WVR.
We do the best we can out here in the public domain. Allthough even if western radars are even better than stated, it still wouldn't alter the core of my argument, which has more to do with russian radar capabilities than SH's.
I think you missunderstood me. The SH has the sensor lead, because of its radar and networking. However once it enters the flankers ditection and track radii, that lead losses its main advantage.
Where are you getting this idea from? i never said the AIM 120D wasn't up to scratch with the capabilities of the APG 79, however given the capabilities of the R77M and the Ibis radar (not as good but stil very capable), i dont see it making up for the SH's dissadvantages. Put it in a F22 and it wont have any problem.
This is an interesting point and would effectively lower the NEZ of the AMRAAM untill it was detected by the flankers radar. This is reliant on LPI fire controll doing what it's meant to, but sinse its classified we'l have to asume that SH's emmisions remain unditectable. However as soon as the flanker detects the SH it is still the flanker who sets the terms/pace of the engagement, and if it is equiped with longer ranged missiles than the R77M like the R172 can counter with shots at allmost the outer limit of its detection radii. And the Flanker not seeing the AMRAAM at launch will only lower its NEZ, and less significantly with supercuising variants. However i have to ask whether the SH would know it had been fired on? It would know it was being tracked by the Ibis, but it would probably only detect the missile launch when it detected the missile itself. This would be at a longer range due to the superiority of the APG 79 over the Ibis, but this would be offset by the SH's slower acceleration and top speed. Again i have to ask how this advantage is a desicive one.
They are not shrinking the F119 engine into the Super Hornet. They are however evolving the F414 engine which already uses some technology from the F119. It will end up very similar to the F135/F119 engines but be smaller in size.
Thrust doesn't give you speed. First we have to look at engine design. The velocity of of the thrust coming out is what gives you speed. You could have a massive turboprop that puts out as much thrust as an F-22, but as the air from the prop is not travelng as fast as the jet thrust then it will not be able to travel as fast. It sure would accelerate quick but would run out of puff easily. Put simply no matter how much air is coming out of an engine if its only coming out at 900km/h the aircraft cannot travel quicker than this speed.
Afterburners gives a large boost in exhaust velocity as well as extra thrust. Its the combination of both of these that makes the top speed much quicker. The F119 engine is designed to give afterburner like exhaust velocity at dry thrust levels. Designed this way it also helps give extra thrust at higher altitudes which can increase cruising speed when up high. This is one of the reasons why the F-22 can supercruise at such high speed. This is also one of the reasons why the F-119 core run so hot which can only now be acheived reliably with todays technology.
The upgraded engine that is planned for the Super Hornet will not only have 20-25% extra thrust but it will have increased exhaust velocity. Thrust at higher altitude will also be significantly increased combined with the extra exhaust velocity we may see future Super Hornets cruising over 100 knots faster at higher altitudes. As the air is less dense at higher altitudes the wing sweep and aerodynamics of the Super Hornet are less of a problem. Range will most likely be improved as well due to the above factors. Range increase may be only slight but the big improvement will be transit speed as it can get to the targets slightly quicker. Endurance will most likely not be reduced as it can now loitor at a higher altitude, this would give the Super Hornet a bigger sensor footprint as well.
Also having 25% extra thrust means that you do not hit the afterburners as often, this will also help increase range on future Super Hornet models. 100 knots is what i've been told by a good source. The extra 100 knots cruising speed will be significant. It moves the Super Hornet away from being called slow and brings it up to the pace of an F-16 and F-15 which is fine.