LOCKHEED MARTIN ANNOUNCES F-16V DEVELOPMENT - A new F-16

[DARKY]

Provided they can see and lock on to an AESA system on an AWACS(most future AEW&C are).. then the missile has to survive massive jamming and countermeasures while being CONSTANTLY illuminated to the target.
Too many variable that need to be constant for it to succeed.

The Russian jets bank on too much untested tech. Figures which are always "Best case"(something the Chinese have started to copy).
Here's an example of Russian exaggeration.
A particular Russian Communications company was offering a low bandwidth compression codec based on a NATO standard that is extremely robust under noise for a particular processor.
I was tasked to evaluate a sample they had sent against existing American standard.
The result was disappointing to say the least... The Russian code failed to perform even close to the benchmark of the US standard. eventually I had to write and adapt existing code based on the standard. the process was long and tedious... but the result now matches the US standard benchmark and outperforms the Russian attempt in many respects.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.. there are many figures stated for Russian equipment in use with our military(and apparently even in India's fleet) that refuse to make up for their performance claims.
So if I am to keep the exact stated Russian capabilities in mind with what they state to be correct.. then in that case one must also take into account what supporting hardware will back up any Russian super fighter.
datalink abilities, ECM, EW..
What caliber?
The fact being that most users of Russian hardware including Malaysia and India have resorting to sourcing supplementing systems from other manufacturers such as Israel,european nations or even the US.
This has less to do with Russian ingenuity and capability.. and more to do with the decade and more lost after the collapse of the USSR.

Lets take it more close to home..
An MKI with its Bars.. and Israeli jammer.. datalinked with the Phalcon.. is a far more capable jet than a pure russian Su-35.
even then.. stand alone.. with untried weapons such as the R-77M(existing or hypothetical LRAAMS) .. one has to handicap it till its proven in combat.
Recent "combat tests" such as red flag have not been so complementing..

System such as the F-16.. have known to work seamlessly in a combat environment and be part of the defense network.
They have proven records.. whether against an inferior enemy or not becomes irrelevant when combat effectiveness is concerned.
After all.. The Rafale proved itself in Libya.. even against an inferior enemy..it went into combat unsupported.. and was able to perform both A2A and A2G taskings in a single mission(even attacking what should be traditional A2A targets using A2G weapons.
That is combat proof..

Yes the lost decade has considerably affected situation was so bad that It might have further broken.... but now that's a thing of past and a decade has been gained...

Do you know.. the R-77 initially was designed with Internal weapon bays in mind.. all those Al-41 item 129/29 all were started in early 80s..

Just see the Su35BM for instance.. or the all new Su 34 fullback...

Those Extended range BVRAAM have their own counter measures... once the missile gets into active mode the AWACS has little chance... and It won't be like only one missile but 4-6 of them... to increase hit probability... try jamming and counter measures there.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------

Provided they can see and lock on to an AESA system on an AWACS(most future AEW&C are).. then the missile has to survive massive jamming and countermeasures while being CONSTANTLY illuminated to the target.
Too many variable that need to be constant for it to succeed.

The Russian jets bank on too much untested tech. Figures which are always "Best case"(something the Chinese have started to copy).
Here's an example of Russian exaggeration.
A particular Russian Communications company was offering a low bandwidth compression codec based on a NATO standard that is extremely robust under noise for a particular processor.
I was tasked to evaluate a sample they had sent against existing American standard.
The result was disappointing to say the least... The Russian code failed to perform even close to the benchmark of the US standard. eventually I had to write and adapt existing code based on the standard. the process was long and tedious... but the result now matches the US standard benchmark and outperforms the Russian attempt in many respects.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.. there are many figures stated for Russian equipment in use with our military(and apparently even in India's fleet) that refuse to make up for their performance claims.
So if I am to keep the exact stated Russian capabilities in mind with what they state to be correct.. then in that case one must also take into account what supporting hardware will back up any Russian super fighter.
datalink abilities, ECM, EW..
What caliber?
The fact being that most users of Russian hardware including Malaysia and India have resorting to sourcing supplementing systems from other manufacturers such as Israel,european nations or even the US.
This has less to do with Russian ingenuity and capability.. and more to do with the decade and more lost after the collapse of the USSR.

Lets take it more close to home..
An MKI with its Bars.. and Israeli jammer.. datalinked with the Phalcon.. is a far more capable jet than a pure russian Su-35.
even then.. stand alone.. with untried weapons such as the R-77M(existing or hypothetical LRAAMS) .. one has to handicap it till its proven in combat.
Recent "combat tests" such as red flag have not been so complementing..

System such as the F-16.. have known to work seamlessly in a combat environment and be part of the defense network.
They have proven records.. whether against an inferior enemy or not becomes irrelevant when combat effectiveness is concerned.
After all.. The Rafale proved itself in Libya.. even against an inferior enemy..it went into combat unsupported.. and was able to perform both A2A and A2G taskings in a single mission(even attacking what should be traditional A2A targets using A2G weapons.
That is combat proof..

Yes the lost decade has considerably affected situation was so bad that It might have further broken.... but now that's a thing of past and a decade has been gained...

Do you know.. the R-77 initially was designed with Internal weapon bays in mind.. all those Al-41 item 129/29 all were started in early 80s..

Just see the Su35BM for instance.. or the all new Su 34 fullback...

Those Extended range BVRAAM have their own counter measures... once the missile gets into active mode the AWACS has little chance... and It won't be like only one missile but 4-6 of them... to increase hit probability... try jamming and counter measures there.

 

[SQ8]

Yes the lost decade has considerably affected situation was so bad that It might have further broken.... but now that's a thing of past and a decade has been gained...

Do you know.. the R-77 initially was designed with Internal weapon bays in mind.. all those Al-41 item 129/29 all were started in early 80s..

Just see the Su35BM for instance.. or the all new Su 34 fullback...

Those Extended range BVRAAM have their own counter measures... once the missile gets into active mode the AWACS has little chance... and It won't be like only one missile but 4-6 of them... to increase hit probability... try jamming and counter measures there.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------



Yes the lost decade has considerably affected situation was so bad that It might have further broken.... but now that's a thing of past and a decade has been gained...

Do you know.. the R-77 initially was designed with Internal weapon bays in mind.. all those Al-41 item 129/29 all were started in early 80s..

Just see the Su35BM for instance.. or the all new Su 34 fullback...

Those Extended range BVRAAM have their own counter measures... once the missile gets into active mode the AWACS has little chance... and It won't be like only one missile but 4-6 of them... to increase hit probability... try jamming and counter measures there.

But.. is an Su-35BM relevant in age of the F-35?
Is an awacs killer relevant in the days of LPI systems.. extreme jamming?
No Awacs will stand alone... it will stand behind a line of systems protecting it.
Just the very idea that it is being tracked will trigger interceptors.
The Chinese will have their work cut our with the J-20 too.. even though it is a stealth A/C.

 

[DARKY]

But.. is an Su-35BM relevant in age of the F-35?
Is an awacs killer relevant in the days of LPI systems.. extreme jamming?
No Awacs will stand alone... it will stand behind a line of systems protecting it.
Just the very idea that it is being tracked will trigger interceptors.
The Chinese will have their work cut our with the J-20 too.. even though it is a stealth A/C.

Its because of the lost time... even then It holds the ground better against the F-35 among the rest other of its types.
As I told earlier AWACS would be attacked by multiple missiles and from different angles with different seekers used... how many missiles can the AWACS disrupt ?.. say among 4-6 launched towards it at 5-6 mach... how much time it would have...

The 300km range is due to the same reason... stay out of the engagement range of interceptors... and Hit from stand off ranges.

No point in having stealth If you want to hide them in hangers... they are the 1st to strike... even US does the same with B-2 bombers and F-117 night hawk...
F-22A is a different story... most of the time spent under repairs.

 

[SQ8]

Its because of the lost time... even then It holds the ground better against the F-35 among the rest other of its types.
As I told earlier AWACS would be attacked by multiple missiles and from different angles with different seekers used... how many missiles can the AWACS disrupt ?.. say among 4-6 launched towards it at 5-6 mach... how much time it would have...

The 300km range is due to the same reason... stay out of the engagement range of interceptors... and Hit from stand off ranges.

No point in having stealth If you want to hide them in hangers... they are the 1st to strike... even US does the same with B-2 bombers and F-117 night hawk...
F-22A is a different story... most of the time spent under repairs.

All quoted as ideal situations.. everything perfect. Multiple angles.. 300km detection.. not so easy to do in real life.
The F-14's AWG-9 system.. at its time the best intercept radar.. had trouble picking up a Russian tu-95 with its RCS of a warehouse at its stated high range. When radars state upto xm2 at x range..that is when everything goes according to plan.
The Mig-31 for eg.. was able to shoot down targets at 300km using the R-37.
But these tests were never repeated...the conditions in which they were carried out never disclosed...

The seeker of the R-77 however.. served as the basis for the seeker on the SD-10.(much improved).
Extensive testing was done in a copycat fashion to how the Aim-120 is tested.
The results have been extremely satisfactory.
Till now ..no such extensive tests have been carried out on any Russian LRM.
Till that is done so.. any Claims.. are just claims, and unlike China.. Russia is no longer that secretive of its military hardware anymore.

 

[DARKY]

All quoted as ideal situations.. everything perfect. Multiple angles.. 300km detection.. not so easy to do in real life.
The F-14's AWG-9 system.. at its time the best intercept radar.. had trouble picking up a Russian tu-95 with its RCS of a warehouse at its stated high range. When radars state upto xm2 at x range..that is when everything goes according to plan.
The Mig-31 for eg.. was able to shoot down targets at 300km using the R-37.
But these tests were never repeated...the conditions in which they were carried out never disclosed...

The seeker of the R-77 however.. served as the basis for the seeker on the SD-10.(much improved).
Extensive testing was done in a copycat fashion to how the Aim-120 is tested.
The results have been extremely satisfactory.
Till now ..no such extensive tests have been carried out on any Russian LRM.
Till that is done so.. any Claims.. are just claims, and unlike China.. Russia is no longer that secretive of its military hardware anymore.

Oh common what would stop the ESA like Ibris or AESA which have ratings as high as 25-30 watts/channel to detect an AWACS from 300km... or even ground LRTR since AWACS fly too high.
Multiple Angles yes due to the long range the curve for strike is larger.

You can say that... but they have demonstrated the capability to strike targets from ground upto 400km... so they must know how to make a decent seeker and Agat is a leading company in that department.
Recently there was a test in Bay of Bengal involving M2K and pilot-less target drones can you guess the missiles used to target the drone.
No one discloses about such test.. that R-37 is upgraded extensively and the electronics have come of age.
What would happen when actual combat would happen is a different story... as you know Aim-7 sparrow was used more in GWI.

 

[Chogy]

It would be very interesting to see the actual results of realistic testing of Russian-made AAM's. Any AAM can hit a drone that is cruising along at 350 knots, straight and level. A more realistic test is a heavy ECM environment, and a strongly maneuvering target.

Manufacturers are financially motivated to portray their test results as being more successful than they really are. But then, in actual combat, the failure rate skyrockets.

The USA went through all of this in the 1960's, when missiles were supposed to be miracle weapons. Since then, testing has become much more stringent, and overseen by neutral parties with no financial gain possibility. Now, we KNOW U.S. made AAM's will do the job.

Until we have a representative sample of actual combat shots of missiles like the R-37, we'll never know, and all we can do is speculate. And those that operate them can simply hope.

 

[DARKY]

It would be very interesting to see the actual results of realistic testing of Russian-made AAM's. Any AAM can hit a drone that is cruising along at 350 knots, straight and level. A more realistic test is a heavy ECM environment, and a strongly maneuvering target.

Manufacturers are financially motivated to portray their test results as being more successful than they really are. But then, in actual combat, the failure rate skyrockets.

The USA went through all of this in the 1960's, when missiles were supposed to be miracle weapons. Since then, testing has become much more stringent, and overseen by neutral parties with no financial gain possibility. Now, we KNOW U.S. made AAM's will do the job.

Until we have a representative sample of actual combat shots of missiles like the R-37, we'll never know, and all we can do is speculate. And those that operate them can simply hope.

Have the US AAM been through heavy ECM environment in a war... with Enemy also possessing comparable If not better EW equipment... No manufacturer tests its SAM on a real combat aircraft can they... but that doesn't mean It is a fizzle... Same could be said for many weapons which are yet to find their use in actual war ..... It is not that US add a special chip on the seeker which automatically makes it better since its written made in USA.. Russian SAMs have shot Airplanes in real war... and In ECM environment too... why else would they be jumping when countries like Iran buy a S-300.

BTW... how strongly can a passenger plane maneuver against a R-37 cruising at 6 mach.

 

[Nishan_101]

I think PAF is happy with the JF-17 production and 50 J-10Bs induction along with the new 18 Block-52 and existing +14 Block-15s. So its for other people.