Re: Russian 5th Generation Fighter !
I'm going to dot point answers or this will chew up bandwidth
F-22 has TVC built into the design (and it's a 20 year old design as well, some people are forgetting the diff in design philosophies pre 1989 and current). The TVC that is retro fitted stands out proud. The RCS of an Su-27 without TVC is like looking at a bus, add TVC and IRST at certain aspects will be singing like Pavarotti. Compare the RCS of the two planes in normal aspect and you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to work our who's detection rate has just gone up.
TVC in missiles wasn't even a reality until the last few years.
The F-22 is designed to close the gap to approx half of the WVR release before launch. Do the maths. Mach 4.5 missile released at 5-7km and then volleyed as well. Pilot initiated evasive manouvres at 7km with a Mach4.5 missile? The Pilot cannot react in that window where the speed of the meeting engagement will probably be in the order of mach5-6 Human reflexes on a salvo? I don't think so.
At 5-7km the energy of the missile is still incredibly high - it hasn't reached any terminal expenditure. Kinematic rates are still very very very high. Just a dual launch will increase the kill chances commensurately.
One of the primary reasons for stealth is to close the gap to ensure the kill. shorter the gap, the higher the probability. change from single to dual to tri-seekers and the chances diminish depressingly quickly. The RAAF studied countermeasures to "brake lock" within months of the Paris event. The work around was developed amongst numerous airforces soon after. To continue to spout it as an effective breach manouvre is somewhat enthusiastic if not dishonest. However, if people want to ignore the maths, and ignore technology changes to seekers and missile technology since then - well, more fool them.
Finally, like most arguments where people argue vociferously that "x" platform is better than "y" platform, they forget that combat is holographic - there are other systems outside of the cockpit that influence and contribute to the outcome. The F-22 on its own will be bad enough, the f-22 in a sympathetic environment supported by atypical USAF/ELINT/EWARFARE/COMINT assets will be a nightmare.
Modern combat is not about biggles sitting in a plane and outflying the red baron, it's about cohesive use of systems working in a sympathetic manner.
I'm going to dot point answers or this will chew up bandwidth
F-35 won't have thrust vectoringhot222 said:
F-22 has TVC built into the design (and it's a 20 year old design as well, some people are forgetting the diff in design philosophies pre 1989 and current). The TVC that is retro fitted stands out proud. The RCS of an Su-27 without TVC is like looking at a bus, add TVC and IRST at certain aspects will be singing like Pavarotti. Compare the RCS of the two planes in normal aspect and you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to work our who's detection rate has just gone up.
TVC in missiles wasn't even a reality until the last few years.
and the clear expectation is that the F-22 and F-35 will be the last manned western fighters built. so, yes, they certainly will be pioneershot222 said:
LOL, you're actually serious?hot222 said:
The F-22 is designed to close the gap to approx half of the WVR release before launch. Do the maths. Mach 4.5 missile released at 5-7km and then volleyed as well. Pilot initiated evasive manouvres at 7km with a Mach4.5 missile? The Pilot cannot react in that window where the speed of the meeting engagement will probably be in the order of mach5-6 Human reflexes on a salvo? I don't think so.
At 5-7km the energy of the missile is still incredibly high - it hasn't reached any terminal expenditure. Kinematic rates are still very very very high. Just a dual launch will increase the kill chances commensurately.
One of the primary reasons for stealth is to close the gap to ensure the kill. shorter the gap, the higher the probability. change from single to dual to tri-seekers and the chances diminish depressingly quickly. The RAAF studied countermeasures to "brake lock" within months of the Paris event. The work around was developed amongst numerous airforces soon after. To continue to spout it as an effective breach manouvre is somewhat enthusiastic if not dishonest. However, if people want to ignore the maths, and ignore technology changes to seekers and missile technology since then - well, more fool them.
Nobody is saying that. But still sprouting a response that was effectively dismissed at air warfare conferences starting from 2001 in London, and then successfully countered in combat flyoffs both real and computer sim'd is a head in the sand approach. Since then the USAF has successfully trialed tri-seekers in TVC missiles. At 5km you can kiss most pilots goodbye. Do you seriously think that the USAF hasn't dummied the brake lock manouvre with their F-22's?hot222 said:
Finally, like most arguments where people argue vociferously that "x" platform is better than "y" platform, they forget that combat is holographic - there are other systems outside of the cockpit that influence and contribute to the outcome. The F-22 on its own will be bad enough, the f-22 in a sympathetic environment supported by atypical USAF/ELINT/EWARFARE/COMINT assets will be a nightmare.
Modern combat is not about biggles sitting in a plane and outflying the red baron, it's about cohesive use of systems working in a sympathetic manner.
