TOP 10 - World Fighter Aircrafts

[Chogy]

This point by point argument is getting tedious. You truly do not understand the concept of "evading missiles." And conveniently, you never actually answered the question.

Can you, will you, be able to visually acquire a modern AA missile? If you think this is easy, common, or something practiced by fighters, then you are being naive. At typical BVR distances, the maneuvering done is not against the missile, it is against the illuminating/tracking aircraft that is launching the missile. And the best you are going to be able to do is perhaps take the attacker into and through your 3/9 line, change altitudes, perhaps, drop a bit of chaff, and then make a decision to drag out or pitch back in.

I lived and breathed Air to air attack and defense for many years. I know what these systems can, and cannot, do.

Besides, the F-35 has a top speed of Mach 1.67. That's way too slow.

Do you have any idea how much fuel is consumed, how long it takes, to accelerate above mach 1.6? Contrary to internet rumors, movies, and other unreliable sources, the mach 2 regime is rarely seen, or needed. Transonic is where the bulk of the flight takes place. Turn rate, radius, begin to suck mightily above mach 1.2 or so.

In the end, it boils down to this... you believe you are smarter than the thousands of aerospace engineers who designed the F-35... if this fantasy makes you feel better, go for it. I know what the jet can do, and there's a lot none of us know about. It will be an extremely capable fighter.

 

[Birbal]

This point by point argument is getting tedious. You truly do not understand the concept of "evading missiles." And conveniently, you never actually answered the question.

Can you, will you, be able to visually acquire a modern AA missile? If you think this is easy, common, or something practiced by fighters, then you are being naive. At typical BVR distances, the maneuvering done is not against the missile, it is against the illuminating/tracking aircraft that is launching the missile. And the best you are going to be able to do is perhaps take the attacker into and through your 3/9 line, change altitudes, perhaps, drop a bit of chaff, and then make a decision to drag out or pitch back in.

I lived and breathed Air to air attack and defense for many years. I know what these systems can, and cannot, do.

Your question is a strawman. I don't need to visually acquire a missile to take evasive action. If my RWR tells me it's at 11'o clock, I can for example deploy chaff and make a 60 degree beaming maneuver before entering a vertical dive. If I know the launching platform was far away, I can simply run away from the missile instead before turning around and re-engaging.

And don't pull the appeal to authority against me. Carlo Kopp has plenty of credentials related to air combat. Does that mean I should take everything he says at fac

Do you have any idea how much fuel is consumed, how long it takes, to accelerate above mach 1.6? Contrary to internet rumors, movies, and other unreliable sources, the mach 2 regime is rarely seen, or needed. Transonic is where the bulk of the flight takes place. Turn rate, radius, begin to suck mightily above mach 1.2 or so.

I have seen acceleration and range charts for several fourth generation fighter aircraft. I'm not talking about going beyond Mach 2. I'm talking about accelerating to say Mach 1.8. The max speed isn't just about how fast you can go. One of the important things is that your acceleration rate drops as you approach your max speed.

Besides, the Mig-25 was able to survive a few engagements during Desert Storm by outrunning American planes, and this must have been above Mach 2.

In the end, it boils down to this... you believe you are smarter than the thousands of aerospace engineers who designed the F-35... if this fantasy makes you feel better, go for it. I know what the jet can do, and there's a lot none of us know about. It will be an extremely capable fighter.

Aerospace engineers didn't design the F-35. Lockheed Martin did. From the Lockheed Martin people I've talked to, I get the impression that most of the people working on the F-35 are electrical engineers or similar, not aerospace engineers.

 

[SQ8]

Your question is a strawman. I don't need to visually acquire a missile to take evasive action. If my RWR tells me it's at 11'o clock, I can for example deploy chaff and make a 60 degree beaming maneuver before entering a vertical dive. If I know the launching platform was far away, I can simply run away from the missile instead before turning around and re-engaging.

And don't pull the appeal to authority against me. Carlo Kopp has plenty of credentials related to air combat. Does that mean I should take everything he says at fac



I have seen acceleration and range charts for several fourth generation fighter aircraft. I'm not talking about going beyond Mach 2. I'm talking about accelerating to say Mach 1.8. The max speed isn't just about how fast you can go. One of the important things is that your acceleration rate drops as you approach your max speed.

Besides, the Mig-25 was able to survive a few engagements during Desert Storm by outrunning American planes, and this must have been above Mach 2.



Aerospace engineers didn't design the F-35. Lockheed Martin did. From the Lockheed Martin people I've talked to, I get the impression that most of the people working on the F-35 are electrical engineers or similar, not aerospace engineers.

1. How do you intend to run away from a Mach 4 missile, well within its range envelope.
2. I still haven't heard of a RWR that can tell of a an IR lock.. after all, its a Radar warning receiver.
3.Carlo Kopp's credentials are ridiculed by EVERY other air combat expert.. tells you volumes on his credentials. Not to mention his scandal in Australia whereby he played down every other proposal once his own proposal was rejected by the Australian ministry of defense.. talk about a sore loser. Apart from Sukhoi fanboys.. nobody appreciates him.

4. the Mig-25's that ran away.. ran away. they did not even stand around to face the USAF... of the 6 or so that did engage.. 4 went down in flames.. one was successful in bringing down an F-18 on a strike mission.. the others were lunch for F-15's who brought them down using the oft ridiculed Aim-7's... wonder what would have happened had there been Aim-120's??

5.Umm.. perhaps you have heard.. LockMart employs aerospace engineers..perhaps you might ask those lockmart engineers who did they outsource the aerodynamic design phase of the F-35 to?.. HAL?
airframe, materials, avionics and engines... electrical engineers did all that??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bevilaqua

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w_Iw3Z6Dh8g

Electrical Engineer.. jeez. where are you getting your stuff??

 

[SQ8]

This thread is for all Aviation news that is not related to the PAF.

 

[MastanKhan]

Aerospace engineers didn't design the F-35. Lockheed Martin did. From the Lockheed Martin people I've talked to, I get the impression that most of the people working on the F-35 are electrical engineers or similar, not aerospace engineers.

Birbal,,

Sir, you are a good man---but please don't lose your integrity by posting comments likes these---electrical engineers did design the electrical/electronic components of the plane---which is obvious---but not the structure---. Secondly---arguing with an ex fighter pilot---'CHOGY'---doesnot do anything for you to prove your point----. Thank you.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

At the end of the day---better electronics packages and smarter missiles will rule---not all countries can get the F22 or the F 35----and neither can all produce and design one----because of the cost and technology involved.

Their only other choice would be to go after smarter missiles and smarter electronics packages---truly---that is the only other way to counter the threat---because you can't match them plane for plane---but if you have a success rate of 25-50%---then you have succeeded.

 

[DARKY]

1. How do you intend to run away from a Mach 4 missile, well within its range envelope.
2. I still haven't heard of a RWR that can tell of a an IR lock.. after all, its a Radar warning receiver.
3.Carlo Kopp's credentials are ridiculed by EVERY other air combat expert.. tells you volumes on his credentials. Not to mention his scandal in Australia whereby he played down every other proposal once his own proposal was rejected by the Australian ministry of defense.. talk about a sore loser. Apart from Sukhoi fanboys.. nobody appreciates him.

4. the Mig-25's that ran away.. ran away. they did not even stand around to face the USAF... of the 6 or so that did engage.. 4 went down in flames.. one was successful in bringing down an F-18 on a strike mission.. the others were lunch for F-15's who brought them down using the oft ridiculed Aim-7's... wonder what would have happened had there been Aim-120's??

5.Umm.. perhaps you have heard.. LockMart employs aerospace engineers..perhaps you might ask those lockmart engineers who did they outsource the aerodynamic design phase of the F-35 to?.. HAL?
airframe, materials, avionics and engines... electrical engineers did all that??

Paul Bevilaqua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-35B Propulsion Story - YouTube

Electrical Engineer.. jeez. where are you getting your stuff??

1. That's what high speed evasive maneuvers are for.

2. There's something called missile approach warning system which uses Optical and IR detection methods.

3. If Kopp says good about Flanker them its BS at the same time he and associates are praised for his works on J-20, F-22, etc.... until recently there were mock combats stimulated by US defense officials who found Su 35 kicking F-35 a** big time..... just wonder If kopp prepared the simulators or Sukhoi fan boys were there to do that.

5. Aerospace and Aeronautics Engg. are just a part of it, they have employ a set of staff well experienced in all aspects associated with a flying airplane.

 

[SQ8]

1. That's what high speed evasive maneuvers are for.

2. There's something called missile approach warning system which uses Optical and IR detection methods.

3. If Kopp says good about Flanker them its BS at the same time he and associates are praised for his works on J-20, F-22, etc.... until recently there were mock combats stimulated by US defense officials who found Su 35 kicking F-35 a** big time..... just wonder If kopp prepared the simulators or Sukhoi fan boys were there to do that.

5. Aerospace and Aeronautics Engg. are just a part of it, they have employ a set of staff well experienced in all aspects associated with a flying airplane.

1. What is the success rate?
2. Its still not called RWR.
3. I find all of his works BS..even those on the J-20. The F-22 already has many more .. and much more qualified people to praise it..Kopp does it to promote his own agenda since his proposal was thrashed in favor of the F-35.. he decided to hold a personal grudge against the jet.
5. Not sure what you added there.

 

[DARKY]

1. What is the success rate?
2. Its still not called RWR.
3. I find all of his works BS..even those on the J-20. The F-22 already has many more .. and much more qualified people to praise it..Kopp does it to promote his own agenda since his proposal was thrashed in favor of the F-35.. he decided to hold a personal grudge against the jet.
5. Not sure what you added there.

1. Depends the rookie pilots are taught by senior..... means it has considerable importance in air combat.
2. I think He meant what I said..... RWR mostly works at very long ranges.
3. Ok..... agreed about the personal grudge.... he's a human after all.
5. I wanted to point out that a whole set of guys right from aeronautics to metallurgy are important for a new aerospace project..... different labs functions in a synergic manner to bring out the best possible.

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

1. What is the success rate?
2. Its still not called RWR.
3. I find all of his works BS..even those on the J-20. The F-22 already has many more .. and much more qualified people to praise it..Kopp does it to promote his own agenda since his proposal was thrashed in favor of the F-35.. he decided to hold a personal grudge against the jet.
5. Not sure what you added there.

1. Depends the rookie pilots are taught by senior..... means it has considerable importance in air combat.
2. I think He meant what I said..... RWR mostly works at very long ranges.
3. Ok..... agreed about the personal grudge.... he's a human after all.
5. I wanted to point out that a whole set of guys right from aeronautics to metallurgy are important for a new aerospace project..... different labs functions in a synergic manner to bring out the best possible.

 

[SQ8]

Exactly.. so it isnt just electrical engineers..
I work in R&D.. I am an electrical guy with comm exp..
But My work is usually on DSPs... Im co-coordinating with electronics(hardware folks).. and CS guys working on Ethernet and comm protocols.
Yet none of us can claim or should claim that XYZ product is our baby.
it s combined effort. I can Program a 64 tap FIR but that doesn't mean jack if the board on which the DSP is mounted and will run is ready.. similarly.. that board is useless till the modem board can be configured to transmit the FIR data over a Ethernet.

The electronics guys can just build a board and make it run... but it will be within their limited knowledge.
I can create an efficient voice compression codec.. but Ill still be running it on emulators.
But only when our expertise meets can we make a good product.

 

[Chogy]

RWR isn't nearly as useful as supposed. Consider the difficulties... RWR can get moderately decent azimuth data, but being able to calculate range is almost impossible, as range cues are based upon RF power more than anything. If they know that a particular radar emits "X" watts, then given the received energy, the RWR system attempts to calculate a range. It is often way off.

As for elevation, forget it. Almost impossible to determine, unless the radar is ground-based. So all you've got is a rough azimuth of the attacking radar.

Once you know that, your options are very limited. You know he's there, that's about it. You can turn to put him onto your 3-9 line, your "beam", and hope that denies the track. Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well as it used to. Chaff? The chaff decelerates instantly to near zero knots, and the radar can recognize this and maintain track.

Of course, RWR is 100% useless vs. a non-emitting enemy, who can find you using AWACS or buddy data, or perhaps IRST, which I believe wildly over-rated.

All of this is why it is important to find and attack the other guy FIRST, and stealth + powerful radar (plus good missiles) helps in this.

Visually acquiring and maneuvering against a modern A-A missile is pure fantasy. About the only time it ever happens is when you see the attacking aircraft, he is already very close, and the best you'll get is the smoke puff as the missile leaves the rail. The tiny mach 3 sliver will be immediately invisible; the best you can do is roughly predict where it will make the intercept. Finally, software creates an intercept algorithm that actually "pulls lead" a bit so that the older error of the missile falling through the extended flight path to the outside of the turn doesn't happen so much any more.