Russia demonstrates new fighter jet

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
AIM-64C - What you know about air-to-air combat couldn't fill a thimble.

Since i think i know less than both of you i think i wont speculate.

You are to be congratulated, however, for bein
g the best minsinformation disseminator in recent history.

Don't know where they are keeping you locked up , or if they do, but if or when you do i can point you to some example's of 'good' misinformation.

Frankly, we'd be frightened to have you working on our avionics, because you don't know what you're talking about, and can't accept point outs where you are proven wrong by multiple sources.

Frankly American military aero engineers are pretty ignorant as compared to their Canadian or European brethren who normally do what two or three American crewmen would. If you must blame someone or something blame the pentagon for having allowed such inefficiently to arise or persist.

This thread was pointed out to us by friends as a source of good humor. In that regard, it has been.

And there really is no accounting for taste or really knowledge.

You are wrong about almost everything in this thread, including the basic physics.

I have found that people who talk about basic physics are rarely as clever as they think they are and on occasion makes a self confessed lay person such as myself feel quite 'special' in being able to point out obvious ignorance.

For starters, let's just point out the obvious: a jammer is always more effective against a single illumination source, such as continuous illumination (SARH). Why? Because the jamming signal only needs to go one way, vs. the SARH illumination, which needs to travel to the target and back.

In my admittedly limited knowledge the most serious drawback with SARH is that any interruption in radar illumination will result in a very probable miss. That being said jammers were not until relatively recently,as i understand, all that directional and shear radar power, with directional data links to bridge the gap, would for the most part be sufficient to get the enemy aircraft to turn away as the SARH warhead does not in fact need to data link and just homes on the received returns it was originally locked to.. As i understand it's mostly a power game with jamming becoming easier as the threat comes closer with the inverse being true for radar illumination and data links. Unless strike aircraft can provide their own Jamming or be closely escorted SARH is by no means obsolete and especially not when fired as part of ARM/IR salvo's

In other words, the jammer can be considerably lower power than the transmitting radar and still get the job done.

Depending on the range you wish to jam what it could be but the Russians were not working with low power systems either.

Received power declines as the fourth power of the range, which means that the reflected power from distant targets is very, very small.

The point of SARH being that it functions as a receiver set for the host aircraft thus enabling tracking ability without the need for data links.. Wasn't the logic behind SARH that at the point where jamming power becomes a problem the radar returns start increasing due to the SARH receiver/warhead approaching it's target?

In other words, you need a heck of a lot of transmit power to overcome a small jamming power.

Power is pretty much power and i imagine that jamming power will have to increase at great speed as signal processing power is as well. A combination of ARMS or HOJ with IR and SARH was for long standard load outs on Soviet aircraft and considering that the air war in question were going to take place near soviet airspace i have no reason to suspect that the EW battle would have been so easily won by NATO.

And a continuous wave signal is VERY easy to jam....hence the reason SARH is fading out of use.

SARH is fading out of use mainly because engineering now allows for self home abilities due to miniaturization; SARH was a good solution given the technological and engineering restrictions of the day.

Remember your basic radar equations....time to pick up Simpson's and do some studying buddy. High school physics. Oh wait, you're a Navy tech, so you probably didn't finish high school.

High school physics? I had plenty of that and radar equations just did not get covered... Must be a hoot to poke fun at the people who will largely determine what information you will have available to you up there...

Oh, and I just grabbed that as an example because the physics is easy, a quick Google search on "Radar Equation" will give the readers everything they need to realize you are full of stinky brown material, and it highlights your ignorance.

I can assure you that he is one of the few readers that might actually understand much of what you said. If he didn't/can't your wasting your time trying to play to the crowd.

Suffice it to say that nearly everything you've written about the AIM-9 and AIM-120 is incorrect as well, as our astute Australian ally has already mentioned.

His not all that astute ( and that's saying something given how i know what i do ) and frankly i would not pick him as 'ally'. Since i am utterly dependent on open source information i can but say that officially AIM didn't look to me to be so far off the mark.

Thanks for the laughs, we'll post this above the urinal in the men's room for a few days worth of chuckles.

The Dicemen

I think the joke is on those who wish to fly into the face of modern, not the 1960/70's era crap era air defense the USAF have so much problems with but then , admittedly, what do i know!

You can feel free to respond with whatever level of derision you think you can get past the sensors as i don't mind insults as long as i stand the chance to learn something.

Thanks

Stellar

His not all that astute ( and that's saying something given how i know what i do ) and frankly i would not pick him as 'ally'.

Care to provide an example rather than a blanket claim? You haven't countered a single thing I've posted in this thread, so please feel free to call into question any of my points. In here or any other thread. I'm genuinely interested to see where you believe I lack astuteness.

going back to the LADAR (thanks for the right name btw - allwaysa thought it was LiDAR - same thing but different name)

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

www.aero.org...

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...


looks like the US want to quietly field it - BUT why not on fighter jets?

Originally posted by Willard856
Care to provide an example rather than a blanket claim? You haven't countered a single thing I've posted in this thread,

It will have to be my 'opinion' only, until i do get around to 'countering' some of the things you have claimed. Is countering with my opinions ( such as the one's your interjecting) enough or should i provide some proof as well?

so please feel free to call into question any of my points. In here or any other thread. I'm genuinely interested to see where you believe I lack astuteness.

Well to be honest we can all lack that so before i point more fingers in undeserving directions you could elaborate a bit.

And if you think that the AA-12 is in any way comparable to the AIM-120 in anything other than the fact that they are both active air to air missiles, then you really don't know anything about air combat

This doesn't offer much as it doesn't give a number of shots per kill assessment. Best I can offer is that I am personally comfortable with the missile and its capabilities.

That said, the newer AMRAAM variants are optomised for EA environments. Loss of the datalink will always degrade performance, the degree to which will have to remain speculation!

I haven't flown against the F-22, so can't comment from personal experience as to how good it is. But I have a friend who has, and his testimony is categoric at how good it is in terms of the total system. The SU-35 had better be damn good if it wants to beat the F-22 the way you describe.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify/elaborate before i attempt to point out where that claim about your astuteness came from. That all being said i'm still at a complete loss to explain what Aim was on about with the beam/SARH stuff. Since i generally like his contributions it's hard for me to explain where he got that from when i can't find such references in the places i could look!


Stellar

Originally posted by Willard856

That said, the newer AMRAAM variants are optomised for EA environments. Loss of the datalink will always degrade performance, the degree to which will have to remain speculation!

From what I have read this is correct that as it has been in my reading the AMRAAM incorporates an active radar with an inertial reference unit and micro-computer system, which makes the missile less dependent upon the fire-control system of the aircraft. Which seems pretty clear to me.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by StellarX
It will have to be my 'opinion' only, until i do get around to 'countering' some of the things you have claimed. Is countering with my opinions ( such as the one's your interjecting) enough or should i provide some proof as well?

Your opinion is fine, it is a discussion board after all. The members can make up their mind on who has presented their case better. As for your use of the term proof, you aren't going to get any real proof on the subject on here. And as I've said elsewhere, I'm not going to prison over something like this. If people think I'm wrong, that's fine.

Originally posted by StellarX
Well to be honest we can all lack that so before i point more fingers in undeserving directions you could elaborate a bit.

I'll see what I can do.

And if you think that the AA-12 is in any way comparable to the AIM-120 in anything other than the fact that they are both active air to air missiles, then you really don't know anything about air combat

There is little point going into this as I can find as many web articles with reasons why the R-77 is better than the AIM-120 as there are claiming the reverse. I can only go back to what is my humble opinion, that the AMRAAM is better in terms of seeker and pole distance. Newer (proposed) R-77 variants, such as the ramjet powered one, may change this assessment, but until this is operational it is a paper tiger, similar to the KS-172.

This doesn't offer much as it doesn't give a number of shots per kill assessment. Best I can offer is that I am personally comfortable with the missile and its capabilities.

AIM-64's scenarios were vague, the set-ups were confusing, and broader force level support was pretty much ignored (particularly for Blue). The devil is in the detail, and part of the detail is the number of missiles available to launch. What was the Flanker's loadout? Altitude? Airspeed? Fuel state? Countermeasure status? Similar questions for Blue. This is part of the reason why discussions on this type of topic actually aren't supposed to be permitted on ATS. Like any model, the starting state must be as free of unknowns as possible (or your assumptions documented), otherwise the output is suspect. Throw in the fact that AIM-64 had demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding in the missile's capabilities, and his entire point of view is called into question.

That said, the newer AMRAAM variants are optomised for EA environments. Loss of the datalink will always degrade performance, the degree to which will have to remain speculation!

Canada summed it up nicely. Specifically, P3I Phase 3, with the AIM-120C7:

Linkincorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range.

I haven't flown against the F-22, so can't comment from personal experience as to how good it is. But I have a friend who has, and his testimony is categoric at how good it is in terms of the total system. The SU-35 had better be damn good if it wants to beat the F-22 the way you describe.

Not sure what else you want me to say on this point. I provided the link to the article where our Aggressor exchange pilot was quoted talking about how infuriating it is to fly against the F-22 in the F-15. Was there another reason you brought this up, or did you just miss the link?

Originally posted by StellarX Thanks for taking the time to clarify/elaborate before i attempt to point out where that claim about your astuteness came from. That all being said i'm still at a complete loss to explain what Aim was on about with the beam/SARH stuff. Since i generally like his contributions it's hard for me to explain where he got that from when i can't find such references in the places i could look!

I'm always happy to clarify and answer questions within the bounds of releasability. I look forward to hearing what prompted the astuteness claim.

Hey, look at what I found...

Серийные поставки самолёта для российских ВВС планируются начать в 2009—2010 годах в количестве 182 единиц.

And for those that have been sleeping during their Russian lessons...

Serial deliveries of aircraft for the Russian Air Force planned to start in the years 2009-2010 in the number of 182 units.

Pried up from the Russian Wiki Article on the Su-35 BM. So it appears as though the BM is being bought shortly, and at a fair number.

Originally posted by Willard856
Your opinion is fine, it is a discussion board after all. The members can make up their mind on who has presented their case better. As for your use of the term proof, you aren't going to get any real proof on the subject on here.

I wonder why people keep claiming that? Why can't we get numbers and interpret them as best we can? What is proof other than records meant either to deceive or to in fact keep record?

And as I've said elsewhere, I'm not going to prison over something like this. If people think I'm wrong, that's fine.

And i REALLY wonder how many of the people who talk about prison have something classified to reveal.

I'll see what I can do.:
There is little point going into this as I can find as many web articles with reasons why the R-77 is better than the AIM-120 as there are claiming the reverse.

But both can't be right about any given issue so i ( and i presume we) can do our best until one doesn't see the point to discuss it any further. I have never been in the habit of presuming myself right or the issue concluded truthfully or accurately simply because the person i questioned decided to stop responding.

I can only go back to what is my humble opinion, that the AMRAAM is better in terms of seeker and pole distance. Newer (proposed) R-77 variants, such as the ramjet powered one, may change this assessment, but until this is operational it is a paper tiger, similar to the KS-172.

The R-77 is larger and simply has more fuel and few analyst seem to think that it doesn't have a longer pole distance in it's active variants.

AIM-64's scenarios were vague, the set-ups were confusing, and broader force level support was pretty much ignored (particularly for Blue). The devil is in the detail, and part of the detail is the number of missiles available to launch. What was the Flanker's loadout? Altitude? Airspeed? Fuel state? Countermeasure status? Similar questions for Blue.

Agreed; not even the scenarios are simply to decide on so the results can't be.

This is part of the reason why discussions on this type of topic actually aren't supposed to be permitted on ATS. Like any model, the starting state must be as free of unknowns as possible (or your assumptions documented), otherwise the output is suspect.

Absolutely but suspicion isn't enough and although i just could not make any sense off the guidance claims that's not enough for me to disregard so much else.

Throw in the fact that AIM-64 had demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding in the missile's capabilities, and his entire point of view is called into question.

Maybe a fundamental confusion with something else but the missiles capabilities can't be a state secret when so many states has it.

Canada summed it up nicely. Specifically, P3I Phase 3, with the AIM-120C7:

Linkincorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range.

Ok but this doesn't do much for beside pointing out that there are capabilities that have been adjusted or generally upgraded...

Not sure what else you want me to say on this point. I provided the link to the article where our Aggressor exchange pilot was quoted talking about how infuriating it is to fly against the F-22 in the F-15. Was there another reason you brought this up, or did you just miss the link?

Just the fact that we are dealing with training exercises where technicians adjusts both forces to reflect the believed capabilities of foreign aircraft as well as i suspect, especially in this case, domestic aircraft and fighting systems. It's not that this sort of thing doesn't happen in all planning but the whole pretense that F-15's can get within visual range and still not engage the F-22 with radar guided missiles is so fantastical as to defy comprehension.

I'm always happy to clarify and answer questions within the bounds of releasability. I look forward to hearing what prompted the astuteness claim.

I didn't know 'releasability' qualified as a word. In fact i didn't know , or have much reason to suspect, that you know anything classified but since you wont be able to prove that your not helping me help you by mentioning it so often!

As to the astuteness the best information i have suggests a best case of 60% hit rate for Amraam's fired which considering the outnumbered state ( to say nothing of the technological disadvantages) of the Serbian/Iraqi air forces speaks volumes as to what the likely kill percentages would be over more extended distances or with a enemy who's launching missiles of their own in response. I know i had more specific accusations/disagreements in mind but at this point they don't seem as obvious or worthy of further pursuit as they once did. Your posts were in fact quite astute and our very real, but minor, disagreements should still not have led me to claiming that you were not; you have my apology. .

Stellar

A good place to look for a comaparative analysis would be the PAF (in a year or so from now) who are going to be the lucky recipients of 500 units of the AIM-120C5 and also the recipients of an undisclosed number of SD-12s(reportedly better reverse engineered R-77AEs).

The IAF (if it chooses a western winner for the MMRCA) would also be in a position to make that comparison between R-77AE and the AIM-120C5 or 7, or maybe even the MDBA Meteor; though this would not be before circa 2012.

Originally posted by xmotex
The Russians military policy is largely defensive, unlike the US's.

Stealth is less of a pressing issue for the Russians than raw kinematic performance, as these aircraft are largely intended to be defending their own territory from within their own air defense envelope, not penetrating & establishing air superiority in someone else's. The Russian public is not nearly as sensitive to casualty counts either, another political driving force in the US for prioritizing stealth.

US doctrine is all about force protection, and offensive operations in foreign countries. There is little attention if any given to domestic air defense, even after 9/11.

Russia (and China and India, their biggest foreign customers) are largely concerned with the defense of their own sovereignty.

your a fool. first of all the su-35 is capable of achieving air superiority in a hostile situation even if it did have inferior stealth. Its radar and avionics will make up for it. second of all..what!! the russian people dont care about their soldiers?