Would it be relevant that T-38 was the aggressor representing Supersonic aircrafts while A-4 was representative threat for Sub-sonic aggressors.
F-35 has won against a sub-sonic plane. Makes me feel very happy actually.
But what puzzles me in the F-35 vs. Rafale debate is that a plane happy with engaging A-4s has the ambition too beat Rafales or even Sukhois.
What is A-4? A 7g airframe, TWR of 0.5 or thereabout, max speed of 0.85 mach.
And Rafale – 11g airframe restricted to 9g, TWR probably in excess of 1, max speed about 1.8 mach.
I have heard of dogs with ambition to fcuk elephants. Sochne mein kya jata hai.
Now imagine this runt trying to outmaneuver a missile that can turn at 40g-90g or gather speeds of 4 mach.
Ok sir ji, Loiter time is dependent on Fuel. F-35 taking along 8.5 ton fuel while A-10 takes 4.5 is a good thing for F-35. And an A-10 with a bigger wing compared to an F-35A is a bad thing for A-10.
But lets exercise our brain cells a little more and see what happens in real life:
Theek hai ji, no fuel involved still you get range and loiter… But does that have some application or none. Ok I will try to be fair the aspect ratios differ too. So yes aspect ratios matter too. And as pointed out elsewhere the BPR of the engines used.
But is it not important that we acknowledge that fuel for an aircraft in actual deployment conditions is a variable and not a fixed parameter. So if my engines do not have to fire too long too wet so the piddly little stubby wings can be made to cut air faster and generate enough lift. Then probably I will get better range and loiter time too. Probably glide ratios have some application. Probably if the wing is not already loaded to an insane extent there would be more wing available to generate lift instead of having to rely on more speed to generate lift and consequently burning up fuel faster.
Ain’t the fuel load itself a variable for differently designed aircrafts and a lower wing loading esp. for h will allow for more loading of fuel too.
Are you trying to impress me with your knowledge? Because I am deeply impressed.
I know Rutowski is common. Point is to what ends.
And I don’t feel like cross checking about F-35A needing it or not. But IIRC even the F-35A had the performance requirements relaxed. I may be wrong. But if I am right then perhaps the F-35A pilot too should simply have taken the Rutowski route to success.
This is how true fighter planes (not meant for specialized CAS) are meant to fly. And Rafale is not very far from these levels.
Remember this is the old Sukhoi-27 souped up for a shot at the record book. Today a S-35S are rumoured to be supercruising in normal layout with nothing take out of it. Rafale too can supercruise without anything taken out of it and with 4 missiles and a fuel tank hung onto it.
MACE rumour was not mine. I don’t consider somebody beating a 20 year old system a great performance. But radar networks don't get updated every 5 years. So MACE is still relevant if they did it.
About the Dash-Supercruise. See if this is relevant for you.
But off course you first have to reach 1.2 mach in an F-35 before you can do that 150 mile super cruising.
So you see sir ji, there is a lot that comes out of my behind. You could try, not standing behind me.
I agree about the firing solutions part but what if you are wrong about the passive tracking?
Because if you are right then the Northrop will have to admit they are wrong. Which is kind of harder for me to digest given that you are very interested in my behind.
And I have deliberately understated the number of emitters that can be tracked by saying in the ‘hundreds’. The rumour is in the range of a track capability against 20,000 emitters. Off course the missile firing solutions will not be provided because most AWACS do not work in bands relevant for Fire Control and missile guidance is not the primary work. But vectors are going to be available for nearly all. Jammers are emitters. Strobeing does not mean Jammers are not tracked it only means that the transmission along the jammed axis is ceased.
This not unlike the active cancellation of terrain returns wherever required, which is also what AWACS are capable of doing and which also does not imply that the return is not kept track of. It is binned and compared and actively cancelled each time to give a clear final picture with useless stuff deleted. This implies that the radar knows what exactly it is looking at.
European, Russian, Chinese and Indian AWACS and AEWCs, are not going to be much different either. Vectoring of fighters is going to be possible for every single emitter.
As regards your challenge of AWACS being able to “give firing solution”. I never said US E-3 or is meant for giving firing solutions. I did not say that for S-400/S-300 VHF/L-Band radars either. But vectors can be provided by either systems, accurately enough to guide both aircrafts and SAMs with Seekers. Possibly also AAMs with seekers. At least from the Russian side this is the claim which to me is not unreasonable given similar part claims by other countries.
Sir ji mein toa bol raha hun. Kripa kar gyan baantiye. Hum line mein sab sey aagey milenge. Leking aap to hamare behinds check out karne mein jyada interested hain.
Ok not even Atlas Electronik - ATAS makers simply have to be wrong before your shining knowledge.
Check this image out and see if it makes sense to you. This is from Bistatic POV but can be easily applied to multistatic arrangements.
Situation is not going to be much different in the EM realm. Esp. with planform stealth where the reflected radar energy is also sought to be directed into a very limited set of directions. The returns are going to massively increase in these directions. Which implies that sensor range is less important than sensor count.
I am again suggesting that probably the limitations of multistatic arrangements that you have seen are due to poorer peak powers involved. Currently most active multistatic radars deployed or being studied seem to be focusing on chaining up several Bi-static radars for fencing and tracking shadows in their boresight (forward scatter).
But Master ji, AWACS radars will be volume search capable, equally effective in all directions. While all F-35s with a definite mission must fly mostly linear paths to get to their launch points. Don’t you see an inherent challenge in avoiding radars.
With 30 degrees broadside what was the power aperture product involved in that study? Can we have the details to understand what you are talking about?
Anyhow be that as it may, question arises what if the L Band AWACS is already focusing its all its energy in the broader side (with AWACS flying almost parallel to the F-35 making the ingress) and the receiver of the reflected energy is a smaller array on potent fighter (say PAKFA) or many smaller arrays on many smaller fighters. How will the inverse square law play out now? As these smaller fighters race towards the F-35 on strike missions. Would the arrangement make the smaller fighter a Stealth Hunter or not? Now what if the L-Band AWACS is also already cued in by a ground based OTH radar or a VHF/UHF radar. Will that give enough time to the L-Band AWACS to suitably change its flight path to reach the vector I mention above.
I don’t discount the the study by MBDA & BAE. But did that study involve the scenario I mentioned.
To my lay mind there can be many many variations of this arrangement. Each almost equally potent, though with different playoffs.
Are you talking about a forward scatter arrangement. Did the arrangement I stated above involve long baselines? Are they multistatic arrangements?
Actually forward scatters too can be exceedingly difficult to handle for F-35 or F-22. Such arrangements can be made to have a higher degree of redundancy. In the scenario I mentioned if the L-Band AWACS dies the whole arrangement dies out – no redundancy in air defence surveillance even though there is lots in the air defence exchange ratios.
The 5 km baseline I mentioned is something I picked watching videos and reading promotional material on the web (from US, Sweden, Russia). This may or may not be true. But probably is.
SARH need not be CW homing. Can be pulsed homing too. Here is a patent by an American company Raytheon which admits to it. The requirement for CW homing admittedly was later widely used but only to avoid clutter and jamming and not because continuous illumination was required from the launch point itself.
But that is not what I was suggesting when I mentioned LOAL and LOBL for semi active guidance systems. Off course there are several ways to get to your goal – even while using the energy transmitted from an off-board sensor. Track Via Missile is another, Sensor Supported Ground Guidance is still another. Each involving different architecture but each using the energy transmitted by another source, directly or indirectly (indirectly to compute fused tracks shared though datalinks). Which will allow the CW illuminator to come up at the last moment. Essentially not requiring the oneself to expose too much and also allowing for multiple off board guidances.
If I can see the gun flash then why would I wait for the sound signals to arrive at 332 m/s from 33200+ meters away for a bloody 1.7 minutes. If I can see the flash it implies clear line of sight. Why can’t I simply use a WLR or even just a guess work or hand over BFSR and laser-rangers to scouts.
Sound ranging has nothing to do with seeing the flash. It has to do with time delays in arrival, given the multilocated sensors and the knowledge that sound would travel in great circles/spherical.
Here is a general representative diagram of how it works. Kindly show us master ji, how the flash is going to help.
To me it looks like a passive multistatic arrangement designed to track back the transmitter (of sound).
Anything that uses wavefronts can be directional. But all directional interference will still leave just enough signal that would be relevant for detection. Your mobile detects weak GPS signals sent to you from thousands of kilometers away. What will happen if the listener brings in much much bigger antennas then the F-35 can bring in for listening. Won’t that make even the attenuated interfered signal available. From this point the elimination process starts. You will have to wait for your wish to be granted till laser based datalinks can be developed.
What is so special about directional datalink when massive radars regularly do beam sharpening.
How is directional datalink going to be a uniquely helpful to F-35 when the current kill chains being fielded are designed to actively track the fat turkey.
Wow, I admit man I don’t know.
I moodh agyani have made a mistake.
Till date I thought you would require a Pelena type antenna with all the other associated peripherals to jam an AWACS like persistence.
America is great. Halleluja. They have increased the jamming range by 4 times plus shrunk the jammer size by something like 20 times plus made the jammer capable of fooling all the EM spectrum.
While this moodh agyani was asleep the world moved from jamming singular S-Band radars with this:
To jamming everything with this:
Wow!
Howsoever big the size the point is the robustness of the kill chain within a protected bubble (like 400+ km). And may be secondarily the decampment times (between 6 minutes to 20 minutes). 20 minutes may be a false info. Because similar systems have also achieved around 6 minutes too.
Is it not strange that people are willing to believe 500 km bubbles when it’s a carrier battle group from USA but not a bubble based on land when sourced out of Russia.
Vostok E from Belarus. Almost the same size as the Nebo VHF from Russia. Belarus says 6 minutes. Russia says 20 minutes.
You say permanent.
Mera dil mange more.
No doubt master ji, Physics to aap sey hi shuru hoti hai.
Won’t the MALD standin for the NPI F-35. Are we increasing the foot print or decreasing it this week.
Anyhow Vostok-E processes 250 targets after every ping. You are welcome to try from any direction. Be the Belarussian guest.
Sir ji aapki shradha. Right now the situation is that 10 billion USD sea based X band could not handle the test targets. Some say because of too much debri surrounding the RV representative of the real X band target to be found.
My point is that while making of decoys is easy it becomes much more difficult to make and then lug around for lower bands. In fact that is the rationale when agyani people decided to move lower band for FOPEN needs. You see they argued that things that can reflect lower bands have a higher probability of being man made. With X band even the leaves on trees give a return.
My point is not about complexity of decoys. Anybody can make anything as complex as they want to. Not even gods will stop you if somebody has that desire.
Agreed but detection simply must come before locking.
Detection itself allows you to narrow down your workload. Before detection there is blindness only. After detection you can always use other more aggressive means to establish the kill chain or to reject.
So detection a job half done.
You brought up that figure of 10 km. I don’t have to use anything to prove your point. That is your job.
But was not that post declaratory? Now its just representative!
Yeh I know. Them Russians are dumb. They need this big interrogators when they already had dipoles on nose mounted radars earlier.
USA good. Russia dumb. Russia technology development going in reverse direction.
But what if its not a mere IFF. What if its more than that? What if its designed to serve as homing head for the whole plane.
I dd not even say the following. What the hell are you replying to. Do you even care to read properly.
Sir blame the SAAB people for this idea. Came from them which they are working on for use on their Gripens.
Oh Rafale and PAKFA are not going to remain passive. They are the hunters, not the hunted. The passive part came into the arguments because you started the arguments from “Jamming+Low RCS”. If somebody is already announcing their presence then only cross-checking is required, transmitting is not absolutely necessary.
If Track Via Missile of PAC-2 does not help then kindly try to convince US people. They are the ones using it.
IF Ground Radar Guidance with Missile Sensor receiving updates like the S-400/S-300 is nothing new or special then why do American throw such a tantrum when these are deployed near their forces.
Agreed but all these systems can easily work with each other while rapidly approaching the suspected target/s.
Now you have a definite upper hand. I cannot convince you, I admit.
Did you just posted a picture of towed sonar array as an evidence to " multi static arrangement improved range " ???
