AMRAAM and R-77 performance review

[Awang se]

I hate to put another comparison to the on going rivalry between east and west equipment, but here we go. I heard so much about the AMRAAM during the Gulf war and balkan conflict, but i heard less about the R-77, which is said to be comparable to AMRAAM. I would like to know if anyone has the record of their use and how they perform in those record. TQ

[gf0012-aust]

AMRAAM's delta control surfaces are less efficient than the R-77's "lattice" controls. This results in bleeding a bit more energy in manouvres. Its a dated design.

The R-77's fuselage/body strakes enhance body lift with a reduced "cost" in parasite drag.

Russian missiles are exceptional, design enhancements such as:

body strakes
lattice controls
inverse canards
simple but effective thrust vectoring

To date, in combat sequences, the AMRAAM has had 100% kill rate

The Russians offered to develop and share data on a longer range R-77 if Australia purchased SU-35's.

The Russians have alsways been excellent missile designers.
The US are making generational leaps, but its a bit hard to say how they compare against current Russian designs.

The all aspect sidewinder 9x is rumoured to be a far superior short range hitter though.

[Awang se]

What they lack in avionics, they make it back in their missile.

I heard about the improved AMRAAM. it was said they will use revolutionary propulsion system. what was that?

[gf0012-aust]

There is a new version of AMRAAM that is a surface to air version of the package.

Its been called CLAWS (Complementary Low Altitude Weapon System)

The principle purpose is to provide a rapidly deployable, high fire power, all-weather, stand-off air defense system capable of defeating threat aircraft and UAV's beyond the range of currently fielded MANPADS.

Its mounted on a HUMVEE with an intergrated quintuple AMRAAM launcher.

Am not sure whether there has been any change to existing thrusters.

[Londo Molari]

thats basically a jeep that has 4-8 AMRAAMS in a launcher behind it. Its basically a low-cost, medium range, mobile SAM site.

But theres also another version of the AMRAAM in development, that has ramjet propulsion. It will increase its range by a factor of atleast 1.5.

The R-77 already has a Ramjet version.

[gf0012-aust]

The Ramjet is not an AMRRAM. It is not an interation of the Sparrow.

The CLAWS is mounted on a HUMVEE for POC evaluation. Its irrelevant what hardware/vehicle its on. The issue is that you have one of the most effective AAM's now a mobile SAM.

That requires a little more technology that just welding it to an overgrown weapons ring.

It not just a 21st century version of the Chaparal etc...

eg, the system has to:

Integrate with the Expeditionary Air Defense System (EADS)
Integrate with a Remote Terminal Unit (RTU)
Integrate with ground based data links
work in with a separate fire control system that acts in isolation of SEAD
data acquisition, weapons launch; integrate with cues from all available Marine Air Command and Control System (MACCS) sensors e.g. CWAR, AN/TPS-59, CEC/JCTN.

That is a little more involved that reacting from an onboard FCS system in a jet fighter...

:)

[Aussie Digger]

It's funny that everytime Russia releases a new piece of equipment it's superior to anything made anywhere else. It's always faster, long ranged, more accurate, higher tech and amazingly also much much cheaper and yet just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best. Something doesn't quite add up here. If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?

[Winter]

just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best.

Perhaps the personnel and circumstances on both sides operating the equipment?

If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?

Must be a combination of several base factors, such as design innovation or simplicity...maybe? Look at the T-34 project...

:)

[gf0012-aust]

It's funny that everytime Russia releases a new piece of equipment it's superior to anything made anywhere else. It's always faster, long ranged, more accurate, higher tech and amazingly also much much cheaper and yet just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best. Something doesn't quite add up here. If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?

I've worked on some electronic warfare projects. Russian missiles are held in high regard. Their AAM's, SAM's, MANPADs and Theatre weapons are well regarded. Their aircraft on the other hand, although good in design are somewhat of dubious build quality. The Indians are discovering this with the Su-2x, Su-3x series. The germans noted it when they took over the old East German assets. The americans purchased 21 Mig 29's some time ago and found similar probs.

In a recent blue-orange eval between USAF F-15's and Luftwaffe Mig 29's the US commander commented that the Migs could be bested, but that the quality of the German pilots meant that there was no guarantee - they gave them a run for their money. Indian Pilots are good, they have strong focussed training, very similar to the Brit methods.

The "give" is that in combat, in a full on war, that there would be significant probs with attrition with russian/chinese equipment. It gets back to their battle doctrine of believing that overwhelming numbers would carry the battle, so equipment was expendable, didn't have to last etc...

The Gulf War(s) changed all of that "Cold War" thinking. Hence the dramatic shift by China to re-evaluate battle doctrine, and remix their force structure.

I've also seen some Chinese technology up close, they suffer from significant build quality issues. eg their cabling is absolutely bloody awful. It is no way competitive against a US Milspec, or the Euro internal specs. They have a way to go.

Most western military people I deal with have a healthy respect for Russian technology such as missiles and 4th gen aircraft.

As I said in another topic, russian aircraft and missiles using Israeli technology are a devestating combination - They become the capability that the russians intended to make but couldn't. Hence the closer liason between Israel and India, China and India, France and some former Warsaw pact nations.

[Awang se]

Actually, the RMAF pilots find out that their R-27 that they use onboard their Migs are inferior compare to the Sparrow that they use in their F/A-18D. A few years back in the FPDA (Five Powers Defence Arrangements) exercise, the RMAF Migs give the RAAF F/A-18A pilots an unpleasant surprise when the Migs were able to "defeat" The RAAF "Bugs" in the simulated combat. personally, i think the battle is not in equal term since the Bugs only use Sparrow while the Migs got the RVV-AE. I think it is because of this that the RAAF decide to acquire some AMRAAM and the JHMMCS capability for their bugs, since the Migs already has this capability.

[gf0012-aust]

Actually, the RMAF pilots find out that their R-27 that they use onboard their Migs are inferior compare to the Sparrow that they use in their F/A-18D. A few years back in the FPDA (Five Powers Defence Arrangements) exercise, the RMAF Migs give the RAAF F/A-18A pilots an unpleasant surprise when the Migs were able to "defeat" The RAAF "Bugs" in the simulated combat. personally, i think the battle is not in equal term since the Bugs only use Sparrow while the Migs got the RVV-AE. I think it is because of this that the RAAF decide to acquire some AMRAAM and the JHMMCS capability for their bugs, since the Migs already has this capability.

You're right about why we went to AMRAAMs.. It's a good thing we're allies.. ;)

[Awang se]

Yeah! we remember that Aussie help us a lot during the Indonesian confrontations and the Communist insurgencies.

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah! we remember that Aussie help us a lot during the Indonesian confrontations and the Communist insurgencies.

Yes, I hope that both of our countries politicians can stop their arguing and get back to being better friends.

[Red aRRow]

What other world missiles fall into the same category as the above two???

[gf0012-aust]

What other world missiles fall into the same category as the above two???

Skyflash and Meteor

[umair]

Er ! isnt the Skyflash SARH.Also u forgot the SD10.I wonder how it would compare with the AIM120 & the A-A12.Upon taking a closer look one can see that the SD-10 shares design features with both western and eastern missiles(the tail control surfaces seem to be inpired by those of the Alamo).Also there was an active radar homing variant of the A-A 10 but I doubt if it ever entered production. :?

[gf0012-aust]

Er ! isnt the Skyflash SARH.Also u forgot the SD10.I wonder how it would compare with the AIM120 & the A-A12.Upon taking a closer look one can see that the SD-10 shares design features with both western and eastern missiles(the tail control surfaces seem to be inpired by those of the Alamo).Also there was an active radar homing variant of the A-A 10 but I doubt if it ever entered production. :?

There are some russian design elements now entering western missile designs, eg lattice fins.

The difference between missile "build" capability seems to be rapidly diminishing.

[Awang se]

It's funny that everytime Russia releases a new piece of equipment it's superior to anything made anywhere else. It's always faster, long ranged, more accurate, higher tech and amazingly also much much cheaper and yet just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best. Something doesn't quite add up here. If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?

I think the problems not lies on the missiles, but on the aircraft. The russian do make their missile good but they don't share the the same attitude toward their aircraft. i think The problem is, the West have a better avionics and thus, better ECM capabilities. this ECM reduce the effectiveness of even the best of missile. The russian aircraft have a poor ECM capabilities and this make them vulnerable to the inferior western missile. at least that what i think.

[Awang se]

I still waiting to see how the meteor stands out. Can it possibly be fitted into an American Fighter, say like, F/A-18?

[gf0012-aust]

I still waiting to see how the meteor stands out. Can it possibly be fitted into an American Fighter, say like, F/A-18?

There are two issues to use use a missile:

Rail or hardpoint mount - physically not an impossibility assuming that the fram can load bear the missile without compromising structural integrity and flight characteristics of the launch platform.

Software - software needed to interface the missile to the fire control system, radar system etc...

fundamentally, get those two right and you have a functioning unit.

IIRC the russians were prepared to port the "Alammo" to work with other Australian aircraft if we decided to get the SU-3xx series to replace the Hornets.

[Awang se]

The Meteor was intended to be use onboard the EF-2000 right? and currently, they use AMRAAM. If the meteor require a different setting from the AMRAAM, that means EF-2000 need a lot of modifications before the missile could fit.

[gf0012-aust]

The Meteor was intended to be use onboard the EF-2000 right? and currently, they use AMRAAM. If the meteor require a different setting from the AMRAAM, that means EF-2000 need a lot of modifications before the missile could fit.

If they are using standard rails, yes, its a bolt on.
The other issues are how the changed missile effects drag, centre of gravity issues, flight characteristics etc... I would assume that the software port is a no brainer.

[umair]

One more missile who's performance is anologous with that of the above two is the French Mica active radar homing aam.The mica looks alot like the AA-12.
The Matra Bae Mica
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/mica.jpg

[gf0012-aust]

The Meteor was intended to be use onboard the EF-2000 right? and currently, they use AMRAAM. If the meteor require a different setting from the AMRAAM, that means EF-2000 need a lot of modifications before the missile could fit.

As long as the missile is under 5 metres it can go on the Typhoon.

EADs have tested a Mach 6.5 missile, they are intending to have it fly at Mach 12.

That will be an awesome missile and would make any pilot a little nervous.

It has already flown Mach 6.5 at 200metres altitude. So any pilot who thinks that they can fly low will also be in trouble. Its pulling 100g's. :)

[Awang se]

The missile must be one tough structure. The G load will be-extra big.

[gf0012-aust]

The missile must be one tough structure. The G load will be-extra big.

Its primarily made of carbon fibre. temps are reaching 2400f

Thats one hot little missile, imagine that hitting an engine and causing sudden temperature changes...

[Awang se]

I bet they depend entirely on body lift for this missile, means no wings right? Can it posibly hit something at the edge of space.

[gf0012-aust]

I bet they depend entirely on body lift for this missile, means no wings right? Can it posibly hit something at the edge of space.

It is a traditional looking missile. The first one had lattice fins, the second version has normal fins.

With the right thrust package, electronics and slaving to a threat response system I would assume that it is low orbit satellite killer capable

[Awang se]

Where do you found out about this missile?

[gf0012-aust]

Where do you found out about this missile?

There was some public domain data avail in europe, my current info is not web avail yet. :smokingc:

Flight International also have published specs about a month ago.

[umair]

TO gf0012
U might have read about the J-F 17 and it's projected abilities.The Pakistani version will be equipped with the latest in French avionics(I know this for a fact) What I want to ask is keeping the above statement in mind which BVR active radar missile would you recommend be fitted on the Thunder. 1)The Mica, 2)The Meteor(when it becomes available), 3)The T-Darter or 4)The SD-10.Also do you have any SRAAM in mind? :? :help

[gf0012-aust]

IMHO French systems would be best with french weapons. I would pick the Mica. Its very impressive on paper.

SRAAM is probably the same, unless you can get hold of sidewinder x's.

But there appears to be a subtle shift away from dogfighting capability. - more BVR fighting (just look at all the missiles avail now!)

[Awang se]

The next generation pilots will not see their opponent before they or their opponent died, i guess.

I wonder why the US didn't apply the SM-1/2 design to the AMRAAM.

[Slyder]

Hi all. Im looking for as much technical Data on the AIM-120 and the R-77

Where could I find some acurate specifications ?

[falcon2k7]

When I see these types of threads, I tend to go with what you know. I know the AMRAAM as a 100% kill rate under combat conditions. The combat ablities of the R-77 is still unknown. It's the old, "Go with what you know until something better comes a long."

[Chrom]

When I see these types of threads, I tend to go with what you know. I know the AMRAAM as a 100% kill rate under combat conditions. The combat ablities of the R-77 is still unknown. It's the old, "Go with what you know until something better comes a long."

When the last time AMRAAM was used in combat conditions? You know, against aircrafts with working ECM and RWR? Against any half-modern aircraft?

Cant see why R-77 will fail to hit say unaware F-4 if that missile dont have much problem hitting Mig-17 training drone.

[XaNDeR]

It's funny that everytime Russia releases a new piece of equipment it's superior to anything made anywhere else. It's always faster, long ranged, more accurate, higher tech and amazingly also much much cheaper and yet just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best. Something doesn't quite add up here. If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?

When did Russia fight versus some western tech anyway?

What are we comparing now , western air to air missiles versus russian air to air missiles , when did they combat then?
Surely your not comparing some Gulf War or something , that is just ridicilous ,because first of all other country's usualy have a downgraded version of something , not the best available thing russians invented , second of all they have bad pilots , third of all USA has AWACS , and with that it just comes down to pidgeon shooting..

[AntiBond007]

Well, there were wars by proxy. Especially in the middle east, and actually the Soviet air to air missiles are what spured Israel to develop what is now the python.

There are things that can be questioned about Soviet/Russian tech, but missiles (of all types) are not one of them. If there is one thing that they can build well, its that. And even events that built up the notion of western supriority (i.e middle east wars), illustrate this point.

[funtz]

i request some one to please answer these questions.
1. Is it possible to get a professional analyses of any of the bvr missles?
2. Can the combat conditions not be created for the sake of testing a missile(awac, electronic jamming, an agile target uav etc etc.)?

[Totoro]

1. what do you mean by professional analysis? Anyone who has first hand access to the missiles will not give out his analysis to the public. All the data about any missile out there is either manufacturer's promo material data, which may or may not be correct (there are objective reasons why they may want to withold precise data) or some independent "analyst's" guesswork.

2. Yes, testing conditions can be created. Thats how every missile gets made, really, after testing it and applying any necessary improvements. But again, no one who has access to the missile will release the results of such tests to the public.

[kato]

When the last time AMRAAM was used in combat conditions? You know, against aircrafts with working ECM and RWR? Against any half-modern aircraft?


Yugoslavia, 1999. MiG-29 vs F-16AM, using AMRAAM.
(in the other engagement vs F-15E, the MiGs' radar was supposedly not working)

[funtz]

1. what do you mean by professional analysis? Anyone who has first hand access to the missiles will not give out his analysis to the public. All the data about any missile out there is either manufacturer's promo material data, which may or may not be correct (there are objective reasons why they may want to withold precise data) or some independent "analyst's" guesswork.

2. Yes, testing conditions can be created. Thats how every missile gets made, really, after testing it and applying any necessary improvements. But again, no one who has access to the missile will release the results of such tests to the public.

ya well thanks for that,so well except the figures there is nothing reliable available.

[contedicavour]

Yugoslavia, 1999. MiG-29 vs F-16AM, using AMRAAM.
(in the other engagement vs F-15E, the MiGs' radar was supposedly not working)

Do we know if the MIG29s shot back with R77s ?

cheers

[Chrom]

Yugoslavia, 1999. MiG-29 vs F-16AM, using AMRAAM.
(in the other engagement vs F-15E, the MiGs' radar was supposedly not working)
In both cases MIG's radar was either not working at all or suffered from concentrated ECM (after all they was the only planes airborne).
There was no ECM package installed on these MIG's. There was no ECM help from other friendly assets.
As i said, average training drone present more challenge than these MIG's.

[Chrom]

Do we know if the MIG29s shot back with R77s ?

cheers
1. Yugoslavian Mig-29 was not R-77 capable
2. I even doubt it had R-73 instead of R-60.
3. It had R-27 in best case.
4. Mig-29 had no chances either way due to altitude disadvantage (even if we disregard ECM, not working radar, etc).

As i said - training drone present more challenge.

[XaNDeR]

Chrom is very much correct
Btw Meteor from " Europe " will be a very effective bvr missile aswell

[paskal]

do any one of u now why singapore stop malaysia from purchasing amraam from the us?

[Aussie Digger]

do any one of u now why singapore stop malaysia from purchasing amraam from the us?
Singapore hasn't stopped Malaysia from buying AMRAAM. The US decides which country is allowed to acquire AMRAAM, no-one else.

Starting conspiracy theories will get you nowhere here.

[pankaj]

Singapore hasn't stopped Malaysia from buying AMRAAM. The US decides which country is allowed to acquire AMRAAM, no-one else.

Starting conspiracy theories will get you nowhere here.

I agree with Aussie Digger . I don't think any country with the possible exception of UK and to a small extent Israel has the clout with US to stop a possible weapon sale by US to another country and that too only in the rarest of rare cases .
What i understand is that US itself has a policy against handling weapon system it considers sufficiently advanced ( amraam is one example) to destabilize strategic balance , to foregin countries .

Guys feel free to correct me if i am worng.

[bobac2855]

Chrom is very much correct
Btw Meteor from " Europe " will be a very effective bvr missile aswell
It is for sure!

[skywalker1901]

Russia has a history of coping technology.
Their first air to air missle were a copy of the sidewinder the US used in Vietnam. As you probally know they made good use of the F-14 radar and avionics they got from Iran.
The first prototype mig of the 80s I think (don't qoute me on it) was almost a exact copy in design of the F-15.
I've seen a sketch of the next generation steath fighter the pak 50 it's design is nearly duplicate to the F-22.
I've heard stories that Russia nor India currently don't have the technology they want to put into the aircraft. That is the technology they are trying to acquire.
They recently offered South Korea some of their most advanced missle technology. I wonder what they want in return.

[Dr Freud]

Russia has a history of coping technology.
Their first air to air missle were a copy of the sidewinder the US used in Vietnam. As you probally know they made good use of the F-14 radar and avionics they got from Iran.
The first prototype mig of the 80s I think (don't qoute me on it) was almost a exact copy in design of the F-15.
I've seen a sketch of the next generation steath fighter the pak 50 it's design is nearly duplicate to the F-22.
I've heard stories that Russia nor India currently don't have the technology they want to put into the aircraft. That is the technology they are trying to acquire.
They recently offered South Korea some of their most advanced missle technology. I wonder what they want in return.

And USA has a history of copying technology too.
Their first a2a ir missile -sidewinder was a copy of luftwaffes Enzian developed in peenemunde.
as you probably know, their first (and russias first) sam was a copy of wasserfall.
their first jet etc, in fact, nearly all their weaponry (exept GPS and laser) is just modification on german stuff, and initially made by germans, werner fon braun comes to mind

[Viktor]

Russia has a history of coping technology.
Their first air to air missle were a copy of the sidewinder the US used in Vietnam. As you probally know they made good use of the F-14 radar and avionics they got from Iran.
The first prototype mig of the 80s I think (don't qoute me on it) was almost a exact copy in design of the F-15.
I've seen a sketch of the next generation steath fighter the pak 50 it's design is nearly duplicate to the F-22.
I've heard stories that Russia nor India currently don't have the technology they want to put into the aircraft. That is the technology they are trying to acquire.
They recently offered South Korea some of their most advanced missle technology. I wonder what they want in return.

Russia as well as USA has history of coping eachother tehnicly advanced designes .. there are fow of that cases but exists on both cases.

You can not say what will PAK-FA look like since no one has seen it. And about tehnology ... lol man you have no idea what you are talking about and Im not about to be one that will teach you ...

Russia will not get anything for giving South Korea ToT for somewhat smaller capabilities S-400 system .. it is a repayment as a part of Soviet debt to S.Korea.

[Aliph Ahmed]

I was reading an article which said that due to complex algorithm codes, AMRAAMs can be restricted against targetting specific aircrafts.

The article specifically pointed out the inability of AMRRAMs sold to UAE to be able to target Israeli warplanes.

How true is that ? and can it be possible ?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And USA has a history of copying technology too.
Their first a2a ir missile -sidewinder was a copy of luftwaffes Enzian developed in peenemunde.
as you probably know, their first (and russias first) sam was a copy of wasserfall.
their first jet etc, in fact, nearly all their weaponry (exept GPS and laser (you forgot nuclear weapons)) is just modification on german stuff, and initially made by germans, werner fon braun comes to mind

Apart from the grab for German scientests and tech advances in 45-46, I disagree with this satatement. There is a real difference between the evoloution of technology and the US coppying/useing German made stuff. If your going to sight the M-16 as simply an evoloution of the MP-44, well allthough the MP-44 was the first firearm to use intermediate ammunition, was an evoloution of the semi automatic rifle which first saw real service with the Americans in the M1 Garand. If your going to sight modern LMG's like the M-60 and Minimi/SAW as a copy or based on the MG-42, well the MG-42 can be traced all back through the MG-32 to the Maxim gun invented by an American (or all the way bak to the gatling gun, again an American invention). Even jet engines were actually first designed by the british. The V1 was an eveoloution of an idea first trialed in WW1. The only real breakthrough tech the germans used was balistic missile technology.

Russia as well as USA has history of coping eachother tehnicly advanced designes .. there are fow of that cases but exists on both cases.

You can not say what will PAK-FA look like since no one has seen it. And about tehnology ... lol man you have no idea what you are talking about and Im not about to be one that will teach you ...

There is a difference between matching capabilities and copying designs, i beleave there is in fact a relatively low instance of each other copying technology. When one came out with a new advance in capability the other would do what they needed to match it, and sometimes they went down similar paths.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I was reading an article which said that due to complex algorithm codes, AMRAAMs can be restricted against targetting specific aircrafts.

The article specifically pointed out the inability of AMRRAMs sold to UAE to be able to target Israeli warplanes.

How true is that ? and can it be possible ?

I doubt it, the AIM 120's seeker would have to be capable of identifying the target by radar signature.

[Dr Freud]

wiki/Wasserfall_missile
The Wasserfall Ferngelenkte Flakrakete (English: Waterfall Remote-Controlled A-A Rocket, also known as Aggregat 5)[1] was a World War II guided surface-to-air missile developed at Peenemünde, Germany. One of the German Wunderwaffen, the Wasserfall design was used as a basis for both the American Hermes-A1 missile and a Soviet research programme under the codename R-101 after World War II.

wiki/Enzian_missile
........Years later the United States Navy adopted this system and perfected it in the development of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air to air missile.

/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_guided_missiles_of_Germany
During World War II, Germany developed many missile systems.

These included the first cruise missile, the first short-range ballistic missile, the first guided surface-to-air missiles, and the first anti-ship missiles.
wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
Between 1950 and 1956, von Braun led the Army's rocket development team at Redstone Arsenal, resulting in the Redstone rocket, which was used for the first live nuclear ballistic missile tests conducted by the United States.
hardly any 45-46 wouldnt you say ?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

wiki/Wasserfall_missile
The Wasserfall Ferngelenkte Flakrakete (English: Waterfall Remote-Controlled A-A Rocket, also known as Aggregat 5)[1] was a World War II guided surface-to-air missile developed at Peenemünde, Germany. One of the German Wunderwaffen, the Wasserfall design was used as a basis for both the American Hermes-A1 missile and a Soviet research programme under the codename R-101 after World War II.


Again grabed in 45-46, which is what i said...

Anyway this system was reliant upon radar detection and track which was pionered by the allies.

wiki/Enzian_missile
........Years later the United States Navy adopted this system and perfected it in the development of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air to air missile.

Again what they grabed immediartly after the war in 45-46.

/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_guided_missiles_of_Germany
During World War II, Germany developed many missile systems.

I'm sure they did. Thakyou wiki....:p:

These included the first cruise missile, the first short-range ballistic missile, the first guided surface-to-air missiles, and the first anti-ship missiles.

The first cruise missile was tested in 1916 IIRC, ofcource it was prop powed and stupidly inacurate but it WAS a cruise missile. i'll try and dig up a link.

wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
Between 1950 and 1956, von Braun led the Army's rocket development team at Redstone Arsenal, resulting in the Redstone rocket, which was used for the first live nuclear ballistic missile tests conducted by the United States.

At which time i'm pretty sure he was an American citizen. Anyway he was grabed by the yanks in, guess when??? 1945-46, which funilly enough what i said.

hardly any 45-46 wouldnt you say ?

Um, actually I would say preceisely in 45-46. 1 or two technological evoloutions is hardly "nearly all their weaponry" is it? Just a few jumps foreward in missile tech. Anyway you could argue that all of the germans work was based on work done by those before on missile's, i.e. based on the work of Emporer Lizong's sceintists/alchemists in 1264. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket

Which is my whole point. Everyones work is based on someone elses, even the Germans. therefore its pointless to make statements like "nearly all of their (US's) weponary is based on work done by the germans" becasue even if thet was the case nearly all of the work done by the germans was based on the work done by someone else.

[Dr Freud]

von braun became us citizen on april 15, 1955

Jet engines can be dated back to the first century AD, when Hero of Alexandria invented the aeolipile. This used steam power directed through two jet nozzles...

....He 178 airframe and flown by Erich Warsitz in the early morning of August 27, 1939, from Marienehe aerodrome, an impressively short time for development. The He 178 was the world's first jet plane.

Meanwhile, Whittle's engine was starting to look useful, and his Power Jets Ltd. started receiving Air Ministry money. In 1941 a flyable version of the engine called the W.1, capable of 1000 lbf (4 kN) of thrust, was fitted to the Gloster E28/39 airframe specially built for it, and first flew on May 15, 1941 at RAF Cranwell.

i guess i didnt say they were coppying/using german stuff,
if memory serves, i said:
"nearly all their weaponry (exept GPS and laser) is just modification on german stuff, and initially made by germans, werner fon braun comes to mind",

modification like aim9 sidewinder etc etc and so forth.

and yes, i didnt mention nuclear weapons, the intention
was not to point out every little piece of weaponry, but rather to point out
that ussr isnt the only one imitating, as skywalker was so indignant over.

when you said 45-46, i interpreted it like all the german stuff and german engineers etc had played out their role in history, and that none of todays technologies has their roots in nazi technology, i guess i interpreted wrong.

you wrote the only breakthrough was ballistic missiles.
i consider a2a missiles was a breakthrough in a2a battles,
otherwise they'd still be doin biggles-baron gun dogfights.

same goes for naval warfare, no missiles, only guns and torpedoes.

and so forth...

[obrescia]

The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AIM-120, and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.

Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release. From here two (2) things could happen. First, the Threat Warning System triggers automatic release of expendables (chaff/flares). Second, Flanker then initiates a defensive 'beaming' / 'beam-turn' / "doppler-turn" maneuver.

Cope India has shown the F-15 weapons package is vulnerable to "less-advanced" aircraft using proper tactics/training, (i.e. Mig-21 Bison, and Su-30MK, note - not MKI).


It's funny that everytime Russia releases a new piece of equipment it's superior to anything made anywhere else. It's always faster, long ranged, more accurate, higher tech and amazingly also much much cheaper and yet just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best. Something doesn't quite add up here. If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?

[ROCK45]

obrescia
The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AIM-120, and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.
Could you possibly list a link to this test or more information about the year or how the test was carried out? Thanks

Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release.
Could you list the name of this "Threat Warning System" of more information on it. Is it in production? Is it operational on any Flankers? The Flanker doesn't have magical powers it will pick up the missiles (maybe) or late and won't have the reaction time needed to evade.

Cope India has shown the F-15 weapons package is vulnerable to
What's does the weapons system in a Raptor has to do with the weapons system of a F-15C? There are many years between the two systems.

The Cope India issue was covered about fifty times over and was not a true showing of either sides real capabilities I'll leave at that.

[obrescia]

Good. Then we all don't need to worry about a Mig-21 Bison type aircraft vs the F-15C. ;)

[obrescia]

This subject isn't a pc-game. At minimum please read the following...and get back to me.

c) Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

d) ...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.

e) Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.

[ROCK45]

So I must read these three books to be at your level?

Back to the post before this you mention items but didn't back up your words. Show me some results or a link of this to this - non-mid-course-update version of AIM-120, and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon. Sounds dated to me.

Do you know how many people say things about Flankers on all the different and wonderful things they say they can do? You didn't list the device name or answer my question is operational or deployed on any Flankers?

Mig-21 Bison type aircraft vs the F-15C - And do you truly believe a Bison is on the same level as a F-15C? Think out side the box a little think about the size of scanner on the F-15C radar compared to the one on the upgraded Mig-21/93? Don't think the F-15C might just see it first and get into a better firing position first? It was training meet, not real fighting certain setups between aircraft were pre-arranged to serve a purpose so pilots and crews could learn from it.

I'll talk aviation with you 24/7 but you seem to be a bit anti-American and just knock American equipment and not really present any facts to back up your statements. If you want to just push Iran's F-14s and still feel there the best thing flying then that's fine too. India did very well in the mock training Cope India event I won't say they didn't. But it still just training and very far from being real and both sides learn a lot. The Su-30 MKI is a great fighter bet you wish Iran had them.

[Feanor]

he Flanker doesn't have magical powers

I beg to differ. We have the magic power of marketing. Hence why it's such a commercial success. Sounds like magic to me.

[obrescia]

No dude. It just is what it is. When name callers know they're loosing the argument...they turn into...well uh name callers. It's because the Mig-21 did so well that there is a reason for concern. On paper the Fishbed has no chance...but look what can happen(!?) Relax. We can keep our people home flying over friendly airspace (here) and it’s all good.

[obrescia]

am trying to get my 15 posts in before i can link. hold tight. i got your back.

[obrescia]

What’s not real about Cope India? American airplanes flying over other countries in hostile airspace against integrated air defense and scores of "low-tech" enemy aircraft. Yes you're correct...that would never (ever) happen, what was I thinking?!...I must be nuts!?! :rolleyes:

So I must read these three books to be at your level?

Back to the post before this you mention items but didn't back up your words. Show me some results or a link of this to this - non-mid-course-update version of AIM-120, and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon. Sounds dated to me.

Do you know how many people say things about Flankers on all the different and wonderful things they say they can do? You didn't list the device name or answer my question is operational or deployed on any Flankers?

Mig-21 Bison type aircraft vs the F-15C - And do you truly believe a Bison is on the same level as a F-15C? Think out side the box a little think about the size of scanner on the F-15C radar compared to the one on the upgraded Mig-21/93? Don't think the F-15C might just see it first and get into a better firing position first? It was training meet, not real fighting certain setups between aircraft were pre-arranged to serve a purpose so pilots and crews could learn from it.

I'll talk aviation with you 24/7 but you seem to be a bit anti-American and just knock American equipment and not really present any facts to back up your statements. If you want to just push Iran's F-14s and still feel there the best thing flying then that's fine too. India did very well in the mock training Cope India event I won't say they didn't. But it still just training and very far from being real and both sides learn a lot. The Su-30 MKI is a great fighter bet you wish Iran had them.

[obrescia]

Actually I wish the US Navy had em (Flankers). And so does the US Navy.

[Grand Danois]

What’s not real about Cope India? American airplanes flying over other countries in hostile airspace against integrated air defense and scores of "low-tech" enemy aircraft. Yes you're correct...that would never (ever) happen, what was I thinking?!...I must be nuts!?! :rolleyes:

FYI...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1157

[ROCK45]

obrescia I didn't call you any names I just ask you to support your statements that's all, which by the way you still haven't. We all have opinions and there's nothing wrong with that kind of makes forum cool but if I say a Mirage 2000-5 have a device that can jam AIM-120s, you have the right to ask me what device? That's where I was coming from and not calling you names. Read Grand Danois post ask questions there a lot of people that will help.

Feanor - I'm PM you
You mentioned marketing do you think Russia markets there aircraft well? I think Russia could improve on there marketing skills a little. If Russian marketing better there would be even more Flanker uses take away India/China and it has average sales for very capable aircraft platform. If Russia had better training equipment/SIM and were little stronger in training and support areas there would be more Flankers flying. High end Flankers backed with advance/training & support are nasty.

[obrescia]

Whether the F-22 (F-35) should enter service is largely academic. Our 'teen' airframes are wearing out.

The Gulf of Sidra incident, January 4, 1989; just about says all anyone needs to say on this subject matter. (Audio recording of engagement) Select download MP3 file

http://www.ka8vit.com/sd/shootdown.htm

The F-22 tactical use issues (never mind F-35, not even worth discussion) are:

1) Primary main weapon range / Newton’s second law of motion.
2) ECM detection of mid-course update transmission(s) for main weapon.
3) Thermal signature(s) platform & main weapon.
4) Daylight contrail(s) platform & main weapon.
5) Super-cruise only at high altitude.

Reason(s)

1) Despite claim(s) of an AIM-120D version, dimensions may be the issue. First, what is the amount of propellant possible in standard AIM-120 round? Second, FMRAAM (ramjet version) fitment inside F-22 weapons bay? The Europeans who were partnered on the AIM-120 program have since embarked on a more suitable weapon, the Meteor.

If the 'kinematics' augment is to be advanced by F-22 proponents as a key capability, to sweep the airspace of enemy fighters then there are several problems. They include: combined closure rate, maneuverability, airframe thermal heating due to air friction and hot exhaust exposure.

See:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html

Simplified Condition: Initial head-on frontal aspect intercept of Flanker (firing R-77M) by F-22 (firing AIM-120C). A flight of 4 to 6 Flankers flying at 500 knots, against flight of 4 Raptors flying in super cruise at 1500 knots. The combined closer rate of all aircraft would be 2000 knots (500 + 1500).

The 'kinematics' augment says that F-22 will use its faster speed to 'push' its AIM-120 missiles towards Flanker, If both opposing flights of aircraft fire their weapons, both attacker and defender missile range benefit from a head-on engagement via the closure rate. F-22 fires AIM-120C sooner but also effectively flies INTO Flankers R-77M (!) Missile range = launch aircraft speed + missile velocity + target speed. Raptor faces additional problems at higher speeds because of simple physics, Thermal airframe heating (IRST detection) and reduced maneuvering potential due to the limits of pilot G-loads. Flanker moving at 500 knots would have enormous advantage in defensive maneuvering (AIM-120 avoidance) and to turn and fire on exiting Raptor.

Whatever the remaining aircraft, they now flash past each other at approximate 2000 knots and initiate turns, Raptor now exposes it’s hot exhaust to Flanker as F-22 make a wide sweeping turn due to it 1500 knot speed/pilot G-limit. The engagement then starts all over again. Typically this involves into a classic tuning/maneuvering contest...the dogfight.

This whole this boils down to this. If F-22 press their attack, closure rates will be so high and air-air weapons malfunctions (missiles fly wide) such a regular occurrence (on both sides) that F-22 aircrews will be in a dogfight within moments after calling "fox-3" Against the advanced Flanker, this is truly a nightmare scenario.

R-77 See:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

2) Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release. From here two (2) things could happen. First, the Threat Warning System triggers automatic release of expendables (chaff/flares). See page 41 'c'. Second, Flanker pilot then initiates a defensive 'beaming' or 'beam-turn' maneuver. See page 36-37 'c', page 97 ’d’.

3) IRST see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video


Flanker uses as primary system for gun firing solution. Development/advancement cycles for IRST systems would be orders of magnitude more frequent than F-22 airframes changes, combined with IR-versions of the R-77 (R-77M1) missile being the first problem. The second is Flanker radar (slaved to IRST). The IRST may see something and then point its main radar straight at F-22, (straight to ‘track’).

The canard equipped versions of the flanker is an astonishing aircraft.
Please see: (w/sound)
YouTube - Su-37 presentation video

YouTube - Sukhoi SU-30 Flight Demonstration

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000976.html

Beaten the F-15 time to clime records,
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Sukhoi%20Su-31.htm

4) Self-evident

5) F-22 low-bypass engines are the key to its high altitude super cruise capability. Low bypass engines require more use of reheat (afterburner) at lower maneuvering speed and/or altitudes. This is plainly evident, see:
YouTube - F22 Langley 2007 Friday Evening Demo


Also F-22 unusual 'speed-brake' control scheme may also reveal its true nature as an aircraft more akin to the Lockheed YF-12, than the plane it replaces, the F-15, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.

The Russians were forced to counter our superb F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Flanker appears to be able to that job (F-14 w/AIM-54 was a big maybe) very (very) well. Cope India was a nasty shock to air force brass. Yes the analysts tried to diminish the results, but they said the same thing about the cobra maneuver, (which the F-22 has been out copying). Now as we all know this maneuver was just a hint at Flankers jaw dropping agility – the analysts were wrong.

A astute observer may also notice things like published range for the F-16 and even the F-15 are always with drop tanks, the Mig-29 and Sukhoi are published without tanks.

The Mig-25 was designed to counter the North American Mach-3 XB-70, the B-58 Hustler and the B-52. There is some method to their madness. The Russians still have the Mig-1.44, Su-47 and a moving target called PAK-FA. Whether they build them or not is likely an issue of need rather than finances.

Mig-21 was designed to counter the high flying B-52. The Mig-31 was designed to counter the low flying FB-111 and B-1A.

The excellent range of Mig-31 and Flanker has to do with geography/history. Russia is the largest country on earth and it’s history has seen Genghis Khan to the Panzer Divisions.

All Flanker (and Mig-31) really need to do is scare off our AWACS, (Joint Stars) and tankers. Bottom line is the next war will likely start and end during the flight time of a KS-172.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L

The Flanker airframe has enormous growth potential typified by the Su-27M and Su-34. The Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) might just be….the most significant fighter aircraft since the Spitfire of WWII.

The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AMRAAM (AIM-120), and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.

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

One last comment. If Mr. Clancy's comments are correct: that a future opponent would need to indeed track every object down to say the size of an insect to 'see' the F-22 Raptor. Uh well, they'd just focus on "insect" sized object(s), flying in a straight line, line abreast of say about a mile separation, at high altitude, around 1.5+ Mach....

Those should be your F-22s.

The Russians appear to have thought through all these issues with the precision of a chess grand master.

Checkmate?

Note: China is in possession of large numbers of Flanker. Historically however the Chinese Air Force combat performance would best be described as abysmal.

- Olaf Brescia / Sacramento, CA

c) Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

d) ...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.

e) Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.

[obrescia]

The 'Siren' RWR on the Mig-25RB detected the F-14A-GR Tomcats PSTT emission update to its AIM-54 after the weapon was fired at the Mig. The Foxbat pilot then executed a maneuver to escape. The engagement occurred 15-May 1981. That was now 27 years ago. Advanced Flanker undoubtedly has a much better Threat Warning System. A description is on page 41 below.

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004

[Feanor]

No dude. It just is what it is. When name callers know they're loosing the argument...they turn into...well uh name callers. It's because the Mig-21 did so well that there is a reason for concern. On paper the Fishbed has no chance...but look what can happen(!?) Relax. We can keep our people home flying over friendly airspace (here) and it’s all good.

Ok. What Flanker variant are you facing you Raptors off again? What conflict is this? (i.e. combatants, and date) You didn't appreciate my good natured humor, then lets debate about this. :)

[obrescia]

Interesting link. (dated 2006). "In previous tests with the (AIM-120C), measurements determined that vibration levels in certain frequencies were harmful to the missile's electronics," Mr. Besson said.

The difference between the AIM-120D and the earlier C-model is in the navigation system, Mr. Yingling said.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/04/mil-060421-afpn03.htm

[obrescia]

Flanker vs Raptor?...geez, no idea. does it really matter for a "what if" deal?

[obrescia]

Interesting link(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-77

General Designer of the Vympel Design Bureau, said that the R-77 missile can be used against medium and long range air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-54 Phoenix, as well as SAMs such as the Patriot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=79


Missiles are often cited with their maximum engagement range, which is very misleading. A missile's effective range is dependent on factors such as altitude, speed, position, and direction of target aircraft. For example the Vympel R-77 has stated range of 100 km. That's only true for a head-on, non-evading target at high altitude. At low altitude, the effective range is reduced by as much as 75%-80% to 20-25 km. If the target is taking evasive action, or in stern-chase position, the effective range is further reduced. See Air-to-Air missile non-comparison table for more information. The effective range of an air-to-air missile is known as the 'no-escape zone', noting the range at which the target can not evade the missile once launched.

Poorly-trained pilots, are known to fire their missiles at maximum-range engagement with poor results. In the 1998-2000 Eritrean-Ethiopian War, fighters from both sides shot over a dozen medium-range R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) missiles at distance with little effect. But when better-trained Ethiopian Su-27 pilots gave chase and attacked with short-range R-73 (AA-11 Archer) missiles, the results were often deadly to the Eritrean aircraft

[gf0012-aust]

Missiles are often cited with their maximum engagement range, which is very misleading. A missile's effective range is dependent on factors such as altitude, speed, position, and direction of target aircraft.


the more critical element is missile to target range and target behaviour after the first 4 seconds. The NEZ is useless for any missile if the first 4 seconds of data is out of whack

[Ozzy Blizzard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=79


Missiles are often cited with their maximum engagement range, which is very misleading. A missile's effective range is dependent on factors such as altitude, speed, position, and direction of target aircraft. For example the Vympel R-77 has stated range of 100 km. That's only true for a head-on, non-evading target at high altitude. At low altitude, the effective range is reduced by as much as 75%-80% to 20-25 km. If the target is taking evasive action, or in stern-chase position, the effective range is further reduced. See Air-to-Air missile non-comparison table for more information. The effective range of an air-to-air missile is known as the 'no-escape zone', noting the range at which the target can not evade the missile once launched.


This is a good point. Maximum range shots are going to have a very low probability of a kill, simply because the missiles terminal kinematics are so poor at the late stage. However, sighting a missiles superiority in maximum range usually indicates a similar superiority in NEZ/V (No Escape Zone/Volume) size. Therefore a missiles maximum range is still relevant. Anyway in point of fact a missile can still be very effective outside of its NEZ: modern ARH missiles only need track data for targeting, therefore it's difficult for the target to know they have actually been fired on. This is especially true for LPI radar equiped fighters. The target may take evasive action if it detects the shooter tracking him, but unlike SARH missiles there is no direct warning that the missile has been fired. Detection of the missile being cued by an LPI radar will usually come from the platforms radar actually getting a return from the missile. NEZ only applies to the target egressing from the threat at top speed and out runing the missile. If the missile is detected later the NEZ increases dramatically.

Poorly-trained pilots, are known to fire their missiles at maximum-range engagement with poor results. In the 1998-2000 Eritrean-Ethiopian War, fighters from both sides shot over a dozen medium-range R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) missiles at distance with little effect. But when better-trained Ethiopian Su-27 pilots gave chase and attacked with short-range R-73 (AA-11 Archer) missiles, the results were often deadly to the Eritrean aircraft

That could also be a result of poor R-27 performance, in addition to bad positioning. R73 is a potent beast, but AFAIK there was some trouble with SARH R-27.

[Feanor]

Flanker vs Raptor?...geez, no idea. does it really matter for a "what if" deal?

It does matter. It makes a huge difference depending on the variant, the scenario (AWACS support, friendly SAM's, refueling needs, etc.), and many other factors. Your comparison was completely worthless because it ignored all of these factors. Since the USA is the only nation with Raptors, please choose the enemy and date of the conflict. Then we'll analyze how well the Flankers would realistically face up against the Raptors. Let me give you a hint, even if the two aircraft were comparable in performance, there are only a handful of nations flying any substantial fleets of advanced Flankers (Russia not being one of them). I can only think of India and China off the top of my head.

[obrescia]

no problem. I have a big post in the 'Europe and 5th generation aircraft' with my views on Flanker vs Raptor.

[gf0012-aust]

This is a good point. Maximum range shots are going to have a very low probability of a kill, simply because the missiles terminal kinematics are so poor at the late stage.

see my prev.

depending on the missile, it's the launch + 4-8 seconds that count. If the numbers aren't there, then it's success rate will drop accordingly.

missiles and planes have a common denominator in this issue - and no one has adequately articulated it yet (although you're close conceptually) :)

[obrescia]

Agreed. F-22 can carry 6x AIM-120C, but ONLY if they are the short finned version, else only 4 vanilla AMRAAM-C's. Shorter fins with almost certainty, imply less maneuverability.

[Grand Danois]

Agreed. F-22 can carry 6x AIM-120C, but ONLY if they are the short finned version, else only 4 vanilla AMRAAM-C's. Shorter fins with almost certainty, imply less maneuverability.

Errr. Don't all -C variants have clipped wings & fins?

[obrescia]

yeah could be all "C" models are clipped. some ambiguity the last year on what versions with what fins. fair enough.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

[Feanor]

no problem. I have a big post in the 'Europe and 5th generation aircraft' with my views on Flanker vs Raptor.

They don't help. Please address the main question. What conflict are we talking about. Without that the rest is irrelevant.

[obrescia]

If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.

[Feanor]

Obrescia your continuing attempts to dodge the simple question force me to assume that you know that there is no real life conflict where advanced flankers would be support by combat assets comparable to those that would support USAF raptors, and thus invalidating your entire conclusion (which is based on equal conditions).

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.

I've read this before somewhere but i cant put my finger on it. Did you copy it from someone else or pot the exact same thing somewhere else?

That is plainly crap. An F-22A could engage from its high altitude position, Advanced flanker could not engage from any position except in WVR. There is no reason an F-22A would not engage because of a sacrificing positional advantage, it could effectively engage without changing its position.

An engagement between an F-22A and an Advanced Flanker is as different to the BVR incapable Mirage vs Harrier as that is from the Battle of Britain.

[obrescia]

Obrescia your continuing attempts to dodge the simple question force me to assume that you know that there is no real life conflict where advanced flankers would be support by combat assets comparable to those that would support USAF raptors, and thus invalidating your entire conclusion (which is based on equal conditions).

Whether the F-22 (F-35) should enter service is largely academic. Our 'teen' airframes are wearing out.

The Gulf of Sidra incident, January 4, 1989; just about says all anyone needs to say on this subject matter. (Audio recording of engagement) Select download MP3 file

http://www.ka8vit.com/sd/shootdown.htm

The F-22 tactical use issues (never mind F-35, not even worth discussion) are:

1) Primary main weapon range / Newton’s second law of motion.
2) ECM detection of mid-course update transmission(s) for main weapon.
3) Thermal signature(s) platform & main weapon.
4) Daylight contrail(s) platform & main weapon.
5) Super-cruise only at high altitude.

Reason(s)

1) Despite claim(s) of an AIM-120D version, dimensions may be the issue. First, what is the amount of propellant possible in standard AIM-120 round? Second, FMRAAM (ramjet version) fitment inside F-22 weapons bay? The Europeans who were partnered on the AIM-120 program have since embarked on a more suitable weapon, the Meteor.

If the 'kinematics' augment is to be advanced by F-22 proponents as a key capability, to sweep the airspace of enemy fighters then there are several problems. They include: combined closure rate, maneuverability, airframe thermal heating due to air friction and hot exhaust exposure.

See:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html

Simplified Condition: Initial head-on frontal aspect intercept of Flanker (firing R-77M) by F-22 (firing AIM-120C). A flight of 4 to 6 Flankers flying at 500 knots, against flight of 4 Raptors flying in super cruise at 1500 knots. The combined closer rate of all aircraft would be 2000 knots (500 + 1500).

The 'kinematics' augment says that F-22 will use its faster speed to 'push' its AIM-120 missiles towards Flanker, If both opposing flights of aircraft fire their weapons, both attacker and defender missile range benefit from a head-on engagement via the closure rate. F-22 fires AIM-120C sooner but also effectively flies INTO Flankers R-77M (!) Missile range = launch aircraft speed + missile velocity + target speed. Raptor faces additional problems at higher speeds because of simple physics, Thermal airframe heating (IRST detection) and reduced maneuvering potential due to the limits of pilot G-loads. Flanker moving at 500 knots would have enormous advantage in defensive maneuvering (AIM-120 avoidance) and to turn and fire on exiting Raptor.

Whatever the remaining aircraft, they now flash past each other at approximate 2000 knots and initiate turns, Raptor now exposes it’s hot exhaust to Flanker as F-22 make a wide sweeping turn due to it 1500 knot speed/pilot G-limit. The engagement then starts all over again. Typically this involves into a classic tuning/maneuvering contest...the dogfight.

This whole this boils down to this. If F-22 press their attack, closure rates will be so high and air-air weapons malfunctions (missiles fly wide) such a regular occurrence (on both sides) that F-22 aircrews will be in a dogfight within moments after calling "fox-3" Against the advanced Flanker, this is truly a nightmare scenario.

R-77 See:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

2) Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release. From here two (2) things could happen. First, the Threat Warning System triggers automatic release of expendables (chaff/flares). See page 41 'c'. Second, Flanker pilot then initiates a defensive 'beaming' or 'beam-turn' maneuver. See page 36-37 'c', page 97 ’d’.

3) IRST see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video


Flanker uses as primary system for gun firing solution. Development/advancement cycles for IRST systems would be orders of magnitude more frequent than F-22 airframes changes, combined with IR-versions of the R-77 (R-77M1) missile being the first problem. The second is Flanker radar (slaved to IRST). The IRST may see something and then point its main radar straight at F-22, (straight to ‘track’).

The canard equipped versions of the flanker is an astonishing aircraft.
Please see: (w/sound)
YouTube - Su-37 presentation video

YouTube - Sukhoi SU-30 Flight Demonstration

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000976.html

Beaten the F-15 time to clime records,
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Sukhoi%20Su-31.htm

4) Self-evident

5) F-22 low-bypass engines are the key to its high altitude super cruise capability. Low bypass engines require more use of reheat (afterburner) at lower maneuvering speed and/or altitudes. This is plainly evident, see:
YouTube - F22 Langley 2007 Friday Evening Demo


Also F-22 unusual 'speed-brake' control scheme may also reveal its true nature as an aircraft more akin to the Lockheed YF-12, than the plane it replaces, the F-15, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.

The Russians were forced to counter our superb F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Flanker appears to be able to that job (F-14 w/AIM-54 was a big maybe) very (very) well. Cope India was a nasty shock to air force brass. Yes the analysts tried to diminish the results, but they said the same thing about the cobra maneuver, (which the F-22 has been out copying). Now as we all know this maneuver was just a hint at Flankers jaw dropping agility – the analysts were wrong.

A astute observer may also notice things like published range for the F-16 and even the F-15 are always with drop tanks, the Mig-29 and Sukhoi are published without tanks.

The Mig-25 was designed to counter the North American Mach-3 XB-70, the B-58 Hustler and the B-52. There is some method to their madness. The Russians still have the Mig-1.44, Su-47 and a moving target called PAK-FA. Whether they build them or not is likely an issue of need rather than finances.

Mig-21 was designed to counter the high flying B-52. The Mig-31 was designed to counter the low flying FB-111 and B-1A.

The excellent range of Mig-31 and Flanker has to do with geography/history. Russia is the largest country on earth and it’s history has seen Genghis Khan to the Panzer Divisions.

All Flanker (and Mig-31) really need to do is scare off our AWACS, (Joint Stars) and tankers. Bottom line is the next war will likely start and end during the flight time of a KS-172.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L

The Flanker airframe has enormous growth potential typified by the Su-27M and Su-34. The Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) might just be….the most significant fighter aircraft since the Spitfire of WWII.

The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AMRAAM (AIM-120), and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.

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

One last comment. If Mr. Clancy's comments are correct: that a future opponent would need to indeed track every object down to say the size of an insect to 'see' the F-22 Raptor. Uh well, they'd just focus on "insect" sized object(s), flying in a straight line, line abreast of say about a mile separation, at high altitude, around 1.5+ Mach....

Those should be your F-22s.

The Russians appear to have thought through all these issues with the precision of a chess grand master.

Checkmate?

Note: China is in possession of large numbers of Flanker. Historically however the Chinese Air Force combat performance would best be described as abysmal.

- Olaf Brescia / Sacramento, CA

c) Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

d) ...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.

e) Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.

[obrescia]

I've read this before somewhere but i cant put my finger on it. Did you copy it from someone else or pot the exact same thing somewhere else?

That is plainly crap. An F-22A could engage from its high altitude position, Advanced flanker could not engage from any position except in WVR. There is no reason an F-22A would not engage because of a sacrificing positional advantage, it could effectively engage without changing its position.

An engagement between an F-22A and an Advanced Flanker is as different to the BVR incapable Mirage vs Harrier as that is from the Battle of Britain.

If the F-22 was a "force multiplier" (new marketing term) why did the USAF try to buy over 700 of them? There are no real differences, just more tech w/F-22 vs. Flanker. You can’t put afterburning engines in a stealth airplane without complicating other factors and like basic physics. I wrote that original big post & done alot more reading than listed.

[obrescia]

Obrescia your continuing attempts to dodge the simple question force me to assume that you know that there is no real life conflict where advanced flankers would be support by combat assets comparable to those that would support USAF raptors, and thus invalidating your entire conclusion (which is based on equal conditions).

do you NEED a PC-Sim game like scenario?

[obrescia]

Ok if some need a PC-Sim Game framework for your worldly views, fair enough.

Iran.

Assumptions:
1. Present in-the-news scenario on Iranian nuke program.
2. Massive bombardment by USAF/US-Navy planned after this year’s election, but before inauguration.
3. Russia furious about Missile Defense in Poland. France/Germany also against.
4. Direct foreign insolvent in hostilities, (not officially acknowledged); in Iranian markings/colors.

Iran would have Russian stationed personnel, SAM operators, and planes/pilots (like Korean War / Sinai Mig-25 flights / Iran-Iraq wars), clandestine support probable from France/Germany/Iraq. Russian flown Mig-25 flew in Egyptian markings over the Sinai Peninsula during early 70s.

[Aussie Digger]

If the F-22 was a "force multiplier" (new marketing term) why did the USAF try to buy over 700 of them? There are no real differences, just more tech w/F-22 vs. Flanker. You can’t put afterburning engines in a stealth airplane without complicating other factors and like basic physics. I wrote that original big post & done alot more reading than listed.

The F-119 DOES in fact have a reheat function...

[obrescia]

The F-119 DOES in fact have a reheat function...

yes my point is: enough thrust to cause thermal heating of the airframe due to air friction and all the other issues (more w/stealth) you have going real fast.

[DarthAmerica]

see my prev.

depending on the missile, it's the launch + 4-8 seconds that count. If the numbers aren't there, then it's success rate will drop accordingly.

missiles and planes have a common denominator in this issue - and no one has adequately articulated it yet (although you're close conceptually) :)

Are you referring to the burn time of the motor? Most missiles arrive unpowered so they are working with whatever they got out of those few seconds of burn time plus a little help from gravity at the end of a ballistic trajectory. Missiles only have so much useful energy from the burn time. Planes being powered assuming they know they are being shot at can exploit this. At least until about 2012...


-DA

[gf0012-aust]

Are you referring to the burn time of the motor? Most missiles arrive unpowered so they are working with whatever they got out of those few seconds of burn time plus a little help from gravity at the end of a ballistic trajectory. Missiles only have so much useful energy from the burn time. Planes being powered assuming they know they are being shot at can exploit this. At least until about 2012...


-DA

YES :) The first 4-7 seconds are thrust - the rest of the flight including manouvre is based on energy.

like jet fighter combat - energy is the key to engagement. if the engagement loop is too long, if the red platform has superior flight behaviour under power, if red team has better energy management, then any missile going terminal running on energy will be at risk.

all the fancy stats in the world don't change that simple but significant impediment.

it's an energy war in the end

[DarthAmerica]

YES :) The first 4-7 seconds are thrust - the rest of the flight including manouvre is based on energy.

like jet fighter combat - energy is the key to engagement. if the engagement loop is too long, if the red platform has superior flight behaviour under power, if red team has better energy management, then any missile going terminal running on energy will be at risk.

al the fancy stats in the world don't change that simple bug significant impediment.

it's an energy war in the end

I wonder how tactics will change once METEOR and equivalents start proliferating. Besides the obvious method of avoiding detection, I expect to see some very sophisticated countermeasures and anti-missile defenses making their way into tactical platforms otherwise the attrition is going to really get out of hand. Sustained thrust AAMs will also open up some very interesting hybrid seeker possibilities.

-DA

[obrescia]

Does anyone know if there exists a standardized (industry standard) platform launch speed-altitude for published air-to-air missile range specs that is not classified? My understanding is that the max-range spec is understood to be for a head-on aspect approaching non-maneuvering target (at what speed/altitude?).

[Feanor]

Iran would have Russian stationed personnel, SAM operators, and planes/pilots (like Korean War / Sinai Mig-25 flights / Iran-Iraq wars), clandestine support probable from France/Germany/Iraq. Russian flown Mig-25 flew in Egyptian markings over the Sinai Peninsula during early 70s.

So we're looking at Russian Su-27SM aircraft over Iran? They're barely capable against F-15C's. And given 40 flight hours annually that Russian pilots get, it would be a turkey shoot. Old radars, barely updated avionics, worn out airframes, and poorly trained pilots would all make the situation you describe a disaster. Not to mention that the Su-27SM can hardly be considered an advanced flanker.