EA/18G Growler

Thumper · Mar 28, 2007

N011M Bars is very much like APG-79 used in F-14Ds. It has slightly less range, is heavier, and less tracking ability. It does have the ability to pass target information on to 4 rather than 2 friendly AC which is an advantage.

The Bars is an excellent radar and is the best thing the Russians have, but very few Flanker types have the radar. India's SU-30MKIs are the only ones that use it to my knowledge.

That said even if you go by NIIPs claims the radar can only detect (not scan) an F-16 sized target out to around 140-160km. The radar is not LPI and it cannot jam opposing radars, both features the APG-79 does. Lets also keep in mind that the clean SHs that are doing the targeting have a frontal RCS anywhere between 1.0M2 and 0.05M2 depending on where you get your information from. This is an order of magitude smaller than the F-16.

Even without lighting up their radars the APG-79 will detect an SU-30 (remember it is big and not at all stealthy) at anywhere between 192-220 Km. If they light them up (the few that play mini AWACs, remember for every four passive Bars you need a fifth active Bars) the SH will detect them long before 300km. Add to it that the AIM120c-8 and AIM 120D's extended rangeand you can see why the SH would have no problem with even the latest SUXX variant.

The only time the SUXX will use all that awesome power and manueverability will be when their RWRs go off and they try to avoid the incoming missile swarm.

If so then why is the F22 so capable in this aspect? Why didnt the USAF just build a larger, stealthier F35 with the APG 77? It definatiely would have been cheaper.

Couple of reasons. At the time the requirement was for an F-15 replacement. Also the technology just was not there yet in 1991.

Now as for Elp and his Rhino bashing. I wonder why he changed his tune.

Elp in his own words in another forum:

Breaking a wedge of F-18E/F AESA aircraft on their way to deliver the mail is another story. When it is set up to go strike something, you have to stop it. Might be kinda difficult. Not because of it's raw performance, ( it doesn't have any ) but because of the avionics on it. Also... once they figure out how to jam and soft-kill opposing sensors/transceivers with AESA watch out.
F-18E/F and later JSF will most likely make a very good team. Consider that anyone in their part of the world doesn't have the operational savvy ( owning a big SU all by itself won't make you a winner...( a non-issue Doc Koop ) ) and more serious no netcentricity, Australia won't have a problem defending it's own back yard.

http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=7442&highlight=apg-79

alexsa · Mar 28, 2007

ELP said:
Organizations are real bad about predicting the future. No one can say what the big SU force in the region will look like in ten years. However "be prepared" isn't such a bad idea. $6 billion for Super Hornet with no other airframe consideration is not good government. Not by a long shot. Even Super Hornets only good thing, it's avionics may get "out growth potential'ed" by the Flanker inside of ten years. What is scary is that Australia, which seems pretty open minded, original and creative in some areas, on the topic of having a fighter fly-off, will absolutely refuse to consider an advance SU as one of the fly-off aircraft to consider. 24 big SUs are:

-Not that expensive
-Have huge growth potential in weapons, avionics and power-plant over the next...... 30 years.
-Have more western-like avionics connectivity with the help of Israel, France, India etc ( look at an Indian big SU and where that program is going )
-Are sustainable, including home work-share to include final assembly of aircraft
-Balance the procurement of Defence goals of Australia being more "self-reliant" ( their words). As it is now you guys are just giving us (U.S.) more and more cash. Go over to Nelson + Show U.S. PowerPoint Brief = Get Cash.
-Big Su can be a regional "joint strike fighter" to work with regional powers in the future that have the same airframe for contingencies where everyone has a common goal.
-It is not a weak weapon system.

That is the short list. Of course I am for an open competition that considers all vendors and at least gives the taxpayer some form of justice on how their money is being spent. Right now I don't see that.

Eurofighter is still effectivley in development. Why would you look at a bridging solution based on a developing system as opposed to a system in series production with the advanced system already fitted. Add to that the commonality issue and cost as this really is a no brainer.

Given the horror of the SU threat I have been waiting for someone to suggest we should buy them but here is the rub even Dr Copp agrees that SH is currently superior in systems aned sensors (Defecne today Jan/Feb 07) to the SU series but he does sound the usual dire warning the planned upgrades will see the positon reversed. Mind you a number of the planned upgrades are things he considers to be a natural prgression and are not actually in existance. So for the SU to exceed SH we still need to look at develomental work. Combine this with very poor engine life, poor build quality (as the Indian air force), lack of date fusion and an RCS and heat signature not disimilar coal fired power plant ...... why would you bother.

Thumper · Mar 28, 2007

Eurofighter is still effectivley in development. Why would you look at a bridging solution based on a developing system as opposed to a system in series production with the advanced system already fitted.

We always dance around this with the EF. EF fans always mention future upgrades, will be available in a few years, tranch 2, etc. But the fact of the matter is all of those developments that may make the EF the equal of better than the SH may or may not happen and they are often years off in the future.The other thing that gets missed is that even though the SH is in series production there is still room for, plans and funding for additional capabilites.

Combine this with very poor engine life, poor build quality (as the Indian air force), lack of date fusion and an RCS and heat signature not disimilar coal fired power plant ...... why would you bother.

Dont tell that to the Indians

Tasman · Mar 28, 2007

alexsa said:
Eurofighter is still effectivley in development. Why would you look at a bridging solution based on a developing system as opposed to a system in series production with the advanced system already fitted. Add to that the commonality issue and cost as this really is a no brainer.

I think this is an excellent summing up of the case for selection of the SH as a bridging solution.

Cheers

Ozzy Blizzard · Mar 28, 2007

Thumper said:
N011M Bars is very much like APG-79 used in F-14Ds. It has slightly less range, is heavier, and less tracking ability. It does have the ability to pass target information on to 4 rather than 2 friendly AC which is an advantage.

The Bars is an excellent radar and is the best thing the Russians have, but very few Flanker types have the radar. India's SU-30MKIs are the only ones that use it to my knowledge.

That said even if you go by NIIPs claims the radar can only detect (not scan) an F-16 sized target out to around 140-160km. The radar is not LPI and it cannot jam opposing radars, both features the APG-79 does. Lets also keep in mind that the clean SHs that are doing the targeting have a frontal RCS anywhere between 1.0M2 and 0.05M2 depending on where you get your information from. This is an order of magitude smaller than the F-16.

The given russisan data that i have says the BARS will detect 1MS sized object at aorund 80NM. That is still a decent range and still outside the expected missile evelope of the AIM 120D if i am not mistaken. (i heard it had a 50% range increase, correct me if i'm rong because i dont know). This is however within the range of the R77M.

Also the SUXX that is acting as the mini AWE&C's can be a fair way infront of the rest. Being able to engage it does not mean being able to down all of them. And what happens if you are up against a real AWE&C's? you dont seem to be giving the enemy much credit. And LPI is only as good as the RWS its pointing at. It wont last forever. Also what would the range be for a clean F18E/F, ie no external fuel??? Kind of limits the usefullness of this scenario.

Even without lighting up their radars the APG-79 will detect an SU-30 (remember it is big and not at all stealthy) at anywhere between 192-220 Km. If they light them up (the few that play mini AWACs, remember for every four passive Bars you need a fifth active Bars) the SH will detect them long before 300km. Add to it that the AIM120c-8 and AIM 120D's extended rangeand you can see why the SH would have no problem with even the latest SUXX variant.

The only time the SUXX will use all that awesome power and manueverability will be when their RWRs go off and they try to avoid the incoming missile swarm.

Couple of reasons. At the time the requirement was for an F-15 replacement. Also the technology just was not there yet in 1991.

Again your not giving the enemy any credit. You're expecting them to just fly around in circles. What would the RCS of a fully loaded SH? 3M2, 4M2? Now your looking at detection ranges in the 100~120Nm range. Is that within the NEZ of the AIM 120D? Is it even in range of the D? And what happens if the enemy jams your datalinks? The SH's may detect the SU's befeore they are detected, but they still have to enter the SU's detection range and missile envelope to engage. Once its there Flanker can use its huge kinetic advantage to set the pace of the engagement. And what if the enemy has AWE&C/AWACS? There are some decent systems coming into the region. The only advantage the SH has is an ability to ambush. As soon as its not an both sides know were each other are then all bets are off, becaus in that scenario Flanker holds all the cards. However the APG 79's ability to jam enemy radars would be very usefull in this situation i agree. I still dont see it.

rjmaz1 · Mar 28, 2007

Wtf.. everyone is saying the F-35 is slow and has no speed to disengage...

Nearly everything i've heard mentions the F-35 can cruise without afterburner above Mach 1.

Thats thats not _that_ impressive. Sure a F-teen series aircraft may be able to reach these speed but only in a clean config. As most conventional fighters have to carry missiles on their wings this will slow them down slightly. So in a nutshell the F-35 is fairly quick.

The fact is the F-35 has a massive fuel fraction so with internal fuel it will outrange every aircraft by either a small or large margin. A Eurofighter would have to have a full external fuel load to have the range of the F-35, the Eurofighter would now be much slower with the extra drag.

The Russian SU-XX series aircraft cannot cruise at Mach 1 in air to air config.. So i dont see what everyone is talking abotu regarding the SU-30 having greater speed. In most cases it will be equal if not slower than the F-35.

Once the Super Hornet is operational.. Indonesia may have at most 10 SU-30's. I dont think 24 Super Hornets and dozens of Classic Hornets will have much trouble against so few aircraft.

Once the F-35 is operational Indonesia may have at most 20 SU-30's. I dont think 60 F-35's would have any trouble tackling so few aircraft.

We will continously stay ahead of them for the next couple decades so no need to be concerned as we could still wipe the floor with them for a long time to come. If Indonesia does reach their target of 20 aircraft only then should we be worried. Then Australia might consider the last squadron to be a purchase of F-22's. However if indonesia only had a dozen SU-30's then we may as well just buy the F-35.

Also regarding the downgraded F-22 option. The USAF will be upgrading its F-22's software all the time. Also the AESA modules on the current production F-22's actually have more power than the first operational squadron of F-22's. It is highly likely in 10 years they will upgrade the AESA modules a third time giving another 25% increase in detection range.

Australia in 10 years could order the F-22 with the current AESA modules instead of the future upgraded modules. The software loaded onto our F-22's could be one of the early block software so it wont have any electronic attack features. The stealth maintenance kit provided to the RAAF could be downgraded so the radar cross section is reduced to the levels of the F-35.

Australia would then have an aircraft with similar avionic performance to the F-35 but with the aerodynamic performance of the F-22. We then have a good upgrade path with these F-22's. After we had them for a while and Russia/China may have introduced a stealth aircraft Australia could then buy the latest software revision and the better stealth coatings for increased performance.

tphuang · Mar 28, 2007

Ozzy Blizzard said:
The given russisan data that i have says the BARS will detect 1MS sized object at aorund 80NM. That is still a decent range and still outside the expected missile evelope of the AIM 120D if i am not mistaken. (i heard it had a 50% range increase, correct me if i'm rong because i dont know). This is however within the range of the R77M.

R-77M - is not in operation anywhere, it's irrelevant.

Bars - 80 nm vs 1 m^2? maybe in the near future, but in the past the numbers I read were all about 135 km vs Mig-21 - 3 m^2 targets and 160 km vs F-16 (I think they were assuming 5 m^2 for that). That's what the Russians seem to use for their fighter size target.

Whiskyjack · Mar 28, 2007

rjmaz1 said:
Wtf.. everyone is saying the F-35 is slow and has no speed to disengage...

Nearly everything i've heard mentions the F-35 can cruise without afterburner above Mach 1.

Not true as per the below.

http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.

Thumper · Mar 29, 2007

The given russisan data that i have says the BARS will detect 1MS sized object at aorund 80NM

Internet published data says otherwise. You may be confusing the Bars with Irbis which may or may not field in 2010 and may or may not meet those expectations. Design detection range of Bars (not tracking) for an F-16 size target is said to be about 160km. Reality is about 130km.

Keep in mind the RCS of an F-16 is around 5M2. Clean RCS of SH is less than a fraction of that. Do you grasp the significance? Rather than 130km for F-16 detection range of clean SH will be maybe 20-30km at best. And again that is when they light up that nice bright Bars radar for everyone within miles to detect. What part of this don't you understand? At this detection range it really does not matter if the slammer outranges the R-77 or not. You cannot shoot what you cannot get a lock on. Those emitting SU-xx will die first very quickly. Once the passive su-xx see what happens to their buddies I am willing to bet that they stay passive. Su-xx has a huge (its a big plane with a very big radar)RCS and even in passive mode they will be detected veryu quickly and die as well.

Further the SHs in passive mode fire using the active SHs targeting data. These missiles are fired long before the Bars emitters pick up anything. Again do the math.

Lets keep in mind as well that once th 120D comes out later this year the SH then has a 100 mile plus missile with a two way data link at it's disposal.

Also what would the range be for a clean F18E/F, ie no external fuel??? Kind of limits the usefullness of this scenario.

No it doesn't, ever hear of drop tanks?

What would the RCS of a fully loaded SH? 3M2, 4M2? Now your looking at detection ranges in the 100~120Nm range.

First how do you go from being able to detect an F-16 size (with stores) target at only 130-160km to being able to detect an inherently more stealthy AC with stores at 120Nm? Do the math it does not add up. So plenty low enough to only be detected at fairly close range while Bars is emitting and undetectable when the Bars is not emitting.

And what happens if the enemy jams your datalinks?

Yeah what happens when the data link gets jammed on the Su-xx? I guess we would never find out because they are dead long before they see the SHs.Also you have to be able to detect what you are jamming.

And what if the enemy has AWE&C/AWACS?

Same tactics work or a gun kill using a clean SH to sneak up on the AWACs.

The only advantage the SH has is an ability to ambush.

And that works just about everytime. But there is more. The SH can fly at amazing AOA. It's pointing ability is unmatched and at close range the su-xx can blast right in and get killed using aim-9x.

Flanker holds all the cards

But it does not. It's only two advantages are its raw power and the fuel to use it.

I don;t know how old you are or what you know about cars but the best analogy here is to compare a late 60s muscle car (su-xx) to a modern GT car. The su-xx may be faster in a drag race but put it on a road course and the SH eats its lunch.

No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.

Not to start another discussion but I thought the engines the typhoon uses where not designed to supercruise also and it's ability to do so was unexpected.

Whiskyjack · Mar 29, 2007

Thumper said:
Not to start another discussion but I thought the engines the typhoon uses where not designed to supercruise also and it's ability to do so was unexpected.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. It may very well do this, but then again it may not!

But until it is in service with a documented capability to supercruise, lets go with the official version and not muddy the waters talking about capabilities that have no foundation at this stage.

Thumper · Mar 29, 2007

But until it is in service with a documented capability to supercruise, lets go with the official version

I am not trying to muddy the waters, just clarification.

I would be surprised if F-35 supercruises but I was using the example of the Typhoon. The manufacturer claims it supercruises but it was never expected to nor where the engines designed to do so.

Are you saying Typhoon does not supercruise?

Ozzy Blizzard · Mar 29, 2007

tphuang said:
R-77M - is not in operation anywhere, it's irrelevant.

So the AIM 120D is irrelevant too. I supose all future threats are also ireelevent by that reasoning, as we are discussing the RAAF's air superiority platform for the next 30 to 40 yeas.

Bars - 80 nm vs 1 m^2? maybe in the near future, but in the past the numbers I read were all about 135 km vs Mig-21 - 3 m^2 targets and 160 km vs F-16 (I think they were assuming 5 m^2 for that). That's what the Russians seem to use for their fighter size target.

Have a look for yourself. The graph is aqusistion range vs target RCS in M2. It is referenced.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

Todjaeger · Mar 29, 2007

Food for thought

Given the acrimonious discussion on the merits of the SH vs. other aircraft, it occurred to me that forum members might want to revisit the reason for the SH purchase, and then consider the following questions.

1. Of aircraft in service, in production, or entering production soon, which designs will be able to conduction significant strike missions?

2. Of the list of aircraft coming from question #1, which aircraft will be able to see reliable service for 10+ years?

3. Of the aircraft from question #2, which aircraft can make use of current and upcoming (J-series for example) weapons and datalinks, or can be upgraded to do so?

4. Of the aircraft from question #3, which aircraft can enter IOC with the RAAF in 2010 or 2011?

The way I see it, question #4 is really a sticking point for many aircraft. While a number of aircraft are capable of conducting strike missions, there are few that can enter IOC in that timeframe. Many of the aircraft in production already have their builds scheduled for different nations, and it would take time to train the pilots and ground crew on a new aircraft. Not to mention the time needed to establish the whole support train needed for a new aircraft. While the SH is different from Classic Hornets, there are some commonalities, and there is are builds available to Australia allowing an entry into service in the needed timeframe.

As for the debate between SU-xx vs. F/A-18 A/B/F or F-35A, perhaps it might make sense to start a debate on Australia's need for a strong air superiority fighter?

-Cheers

Rapture · Mar 29, 2007

May be a dumb question but is there an air superiority fighter apart from the F22 (which is not available) that could fit Australia’s needs. As mentioned before it seems ef2000 does not have the range.

Thumper · Mar 29, 2007

Have a look for yourself. The graph is aqusistion range vs target RCS in M2.

That number is in disagreement with most other Internet sources. Russian marketing and reality do not always agree.

"A MiG-21, for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140–160 km"
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html

I would suggest that the Indians who actually use the thing have better more accurate info than the Russian marketing material Kopp used.

So the AIM 120D is irrelevant too.

Not true Aim 120 is in inventory starting fall of this year.

Ozzy Blizzard · Mar 29, 2007

Thumper said:
Internet published data says otherwise. You may be confusing the Bars with Irbis which may or may not field in 2010 and may or may not meet those expectations. Design detection range of Bars (not tracking) for an F-16 size target is said to be about 160km. Reality is about 130km.

Look for yourself. It is referecned and this graph was published in the Jan/Feb issue of Defence Today magazine which is quite respectable.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

Keep in mind the RCS of an F-16 is around 5M2. Clean RCS of SH is less than a fraction of that. Do you grasp the significance? Rather than 130km for F-16 detection range of clean SH will be maybe 20-30km at best. And again that is when they light up that nice bright Bars radar for everyone within miles to detect. What part of this don't you understand? At this detection range it really does not matter if the slammer outranges the R-77 or not. You cannot shoot what you cannot get a lock on. Those emitting SU-xx will die first very quickly. Once the passive su-xx see what happens to their buddies I am willing to bet that they stay passive. Su-xx has a huge (its a big plane with a very big radar)RCS and even in passive mode they will be detected veryu quickly and die as well.

Using APA's numbers a 5m2 object would be detected at 130NM not KM. Which mind you is higher than the APG 79 i might add. And SH with drop tanks and heaps of AAM's would have an RCS which would be in the ball park of 5M2. Again your assuming they dont have AWE&C support. Even with AIM 120D the launch platforms would be in the falnkers detection and missile envelope, ie no ambush. And the R77 does not need radar guidance form the flanker, just target co ondinates, it can be updated via datalink.

Further the SHs in passive mode fire using the active SHs targeting data. These missiles are fired long before the Bars emitters pick up anything. Again do the math.

I am doing the math, and its not adding up. The passive SH's will be detected before maximum launch range is achieved. The RCS reduction is not going to be very usefull woth all that stuff hanging off the wings. SH may have a small missile advantage if its using the AIM 120D, but only just over the R77M. And the AIM 120's NEZ is lower when fireing at a flanker, so launching at 100 miles is just going to get them to burn some fuel. Again no ambush. And why would you need the armed platforms to be passive, if your relying on LPI to keep the SH's that are acting as mini AWACS safe anyway?

Lets keep in mind as well that once th 120D comes out later this year the SH then has a 100 mile plus missile with a two way data link at it's disposal

I am. This missile will change the playing field for the F35 i admit, but not decicively for the FA 18E/F.

First how do you go from being able to detect an F-16 size (with stores) target at only 130-160km to being able to detect an inherently more stealthy AC with stores at 120Nm? Do the math it does not add up. So plenty low enough to only be detected at fairly close range while Bars is emitting and undetectable when the Bars is not emitting.

Simply we're looking at different numbers. I've referenced my sorce. You've just said "internet sata".

Yeah what happens when the data link gets jammed on the Su-xx? I guess we would never find out because they are dead long before they see the SHs.Also you have to be able to detect what you are jamming.

Again i dispute the numbers you are basing your argument on. Without networking the only advantage SH has is its radars ability to jam, although the BARS data can be suplemented by IRST. Everything else is flanker.

Same tactics work or a gun kill using a clean SH to sneak up on the AWACs.

lol. like to see that one!

nfloorl:

And that works just about everytime. But there is more. The SH can fly at amazing AOA. It's pointing ability is unmatched and at close range the su-xx can blast right in and get killed using aim-9x.

So your really saying that the SH can outperform a late model Su XX in a close in fight??? Both platforms have lethal WVR missiles, AIM9X and R74, which are both look down shoot down capable, woith helmet mounted sights and broad enguagement anlgles. They are comperable in capability. So the SH can outperform a late model SU XX equped with thrust vectoring and canards in AoA???? Mate, somehow i dont think so.

But it does not. It's only two advantages are its raw power and the fuel to use it.

As stated by me and other posters, Flanker is much more capable kinematically and airodynamically. In slow speed, trans sonic and super sonic manuver, flankler takes the cake. Radar performance is comperable, apart from the cool tricks on the APG 79, missiles are comperable also.

I don;t know how old you are or what you know about cars but the best analogy here is to compare a late 60s muscle car (su-xx) to a modern GT car. The su-xx may be faster in a drag race but put it on a road course and the SH eats its lunch.

What i do and how old i am has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This is a WAY too simplistic analogy. for one thing SU35 and F/A 18 E/F have a similar design heritage in terms of timeframe, so both ure upgraded "60's mussle cars".

Not to start another discussion but I thought the engines the typhoon uses where not designed to supercruise also and it's ability to do so was unexpected.

True air speed for the F35 in cruse is 480kt. That can be found in the link above too.

Markus40 · Mar 29, 2007

Having done some research on the F35 the F-35 is a more advanced aircraft overall compared to the F-22. It incorporates all the lessons learned from the F-22 and about 12 years for technological evolution and development. The best way to describe it is a multi-role fighter which embodies the really important features from the F-22 and none of the nice to have but unnecessary ones. In doing so it plans to achieve a production cost 1/3 that of the Raptor. What it loses is Mach 1.7 cruise and thrust vectoring aided agility -- both of which are nice but not particularly crucial to winning an A2A or A2G contest. The B version of course is the exception.

Just about every system on the F-35 is more advanced. Its radar uses T/R modules two generations newer than those used on the Raptor which allows a higher density array. The Raptor will get these retrofitted in form a new antenna. The upgraded radar will be called the AN/APG-77(v)1. This hasn't happened yet -- partly because the AN/APG-81 of the F-35 is itself still underdevelopment. The F-35 has a cutting edge 360 degree optronics system which is completely fused with its EW suite and Radar. The Raptor lacks an IRST/optronics unit and/or non-RF/RF sensor fusion at this point. It is unclear if the Raptor will receive these even though provisions were made for them in the airframe. The F-35 also pioneers the single monitor display and the Helmet mounted display in lieu of the tradtional multiple LCD/CRT screens and a HUD. There are currently no plans to fit the F-22 with this next generation pilot interface even though it may be possible in the more distant future. The F-35's stealth coating does not require taping and/or puttying on a regular basis like the Raptor's. It is unclear if the Raptor will get the new coating or if this is achieved at the cost at slightly higher RCS. What is clear however is that F-35 panels can be removed and replaced without needing LO treatment touch ups. However this is not true of the Raptor.

nevidimka · Mar 29, 2007

Hi i was browsing the website regarding the superhornet for malaysia and bumped into this forum, got interested and registered.
I'm from malaysia as well.

From what i gather, the bid was made to malaysia around 2002. and the plane been out since 1997.
Malaysia will probably not go ahead with any purchase plan for the current Malaysia 5 year plan since they have used it up for the submarins, tanks etc. I'm sure they will look at it on the next 5 year plan starting from 2010 when funds will be available again, by which time the plane and the original proposal will be 10 years old. Its only fair that Malaysia should request for an upgraded package. I'm thingking of a an F/A -18 F/G version. A Dual seater striker with the growlers EW capability.

This EW will come in handy if it was to defend it self over the Spratly's for example.China's superior numbers and su27/30 makes this a neccesity.

If russian flankers can be made with a combination of western avionics, why cant boeing merge some of the growlers capabilities with its stike version?
I'm sure this can be done and the deal doable.

And i Wish malaysia gets 26 of this type. Since the hornets have an excelent record in Malaysia, I'm sure US could offer this deal for us. Considering Singapore is getting JSF, US wont be introducing any advanced package in this reason, considering that the JSF is stealth itself.

rjmaz1 · Mar 29, 2007

Whiskyjack said:
Not true as per the below.

http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.

No offence but someone needs to go back to school.. I would have thought most people on this forum would know this..

Mach 1 is not supersonic, it is transonic... Supersonic is when the entire aircraft has passed the sound barrier. Mach 1 is where the air at the leading edges of the wing exceed the speed of sound causing the sonic boom.

The F-35 CAN cruise around Mach 1 in combat config. Thats very impressive. So yes like i said before it will probably be equal if not quicker than the suhkoi's.. 480 knots was the cruise speed at 15,000feet.

With most aircraft due to their size Supercruising means the ability to sustain around Mach 1.3 without afterburner. The Eurofighter can do this clean but the F-22 is the only aircraft that can do it in combat configuration.

The F-35 definitely wont reach Mach 1.3 without afterburners so thankyou for informing us that the F-35 cannot supercruise.

Also an engine not designed for supercruise could still supercruise. Its more thrust versus drag rather than engine design. If you have an engine powerful enough to handle the drag force at Mach 1.5 without afterburners then it will supercruise.

The F-22 can supercruise because it has three things going for it..
1) Enough dry thrust to equal the drag force of Mach 1.5
2) Low supersonic drag co-efficient so it might produce 10% less drag.
3) Engine designed around supersonic air entering the engine at high altitude.

Remember that to go 20-30% faster u need 100% more thrust. Drag increases exponentially. For example with a single engine the F-22 would have half the thrust yet could most likely cruise at Mach 1. Thats why the F-35 can still travel pretty quick with relatively low power.

For a superhornet to get the same range as the F-35 it would have to carry atleast 3 external tanks. It would be traveling much slower than the F-35..

People keep under estimating the F-35.. It will definitely be the second best aircraft in the world by a golden mile.

Ozzy Blizzard · Mar 29, 2007

Markus40 said:
Having done some research on the F35 the F-35 is a more advanced aircraft overall compared to the F-22. It incorporates all the lessons learned from the F-22 and about 12 years for technological evolution and development. The best way to describe it is a multi-role fighter which embodies the really important features from the F-22 and none of the nice to have but unnecessary ones. In doing so it plans to achieve a production cost 1/3 that of the Raptor. What it loses is Mach 1.7 cruise and thrust vectoring aided agility -- both of which are nice but not particularly crucial to winning an A2A or A2G contest. The B version of course is the exception.

Just about every system on the F-35 is more advanced. Its radar uses T/R modules two generations newer than those used on the Raptor which allows a higher density array. The Raptor will get these retrofitted in form a new antenna. The upgraded radar will be called the AN/APG-77(v)1. This hasn't happened yet -- partly because the AN/APG-81 of the F-35 is itself still underdevelopment. The F-35 has a cutting edge 360 degree optronics system which is completely fused with its EW suite and Radar. The Raptor lacks an IRST/optronics unit and/or non-RF/RF sensor fusion at this point. It is unclear if the Raptor will receive these even though provisions were made for them in the airframe. The F-35 also pioneers the single monitor display and the Helmet mounted display in lieu of the tradtional multiple LCD/CRT screens and a HUD. There are currently no plans to fit the F-22 with this next generation pilot interface even though it may be possible in the more distant future. The F-35's stealth coating does not require taping and/or puttying on a regular basis like the Raptor's. It is unclear if the Raptor will get the new coating or if this is achieved at the cost at slightly higher RCS. What is clear however is that F-35 panels can be removed and replaced without needing LO treatment touch ups. However this is not true of the Raptor.

The F35 is newer i'll grant you that, but it is no were near as capable as the F22 at air superiority, penitration of IADS and deep presision strike.

Some things i disagree with in your post:

1. The assumption that the features that the F35 lacks, like airodynamic and kenetic performance, are simply "nice to have's". The fact is that these to features are vital to air to air combat, especially since its primary opponant and the F22 have both in spades.

2. The fact is that the JSF was designed as a survivable CAS/BID platform that can defend itself in A2A combat if some leakers get through the F22's on CAP. Its stealth is optimised around the Xband range, designed to defeat fire controll radars on fighters and SAM systems. The 360 degree optical system is designed to detect MANPAD IR SAMS or IR SAMS ingeneral that the RWR wont detect, and this reflects its optimisation as a CAS platform. This is not usefull in A2A unless your are in a knife fight and the guy fires a missile, which RWR would tell you anyway.

3. The APG 81 may be newer, and it may have newer T/R nodules but it is still outclased by the APG 77 in terms of detection/track range vs target RCS. Simply the APG 77 is the most capable radar ever put in a fighter, and the APG 81 will not change that.

4. The Raptor was not designed to have an IRST/Optical sensor because the LPI radar is so powerfull and it does not need one.

5. F35 will be easier to maintain but does not have the RCS of the F22 across the wide spectrum that the F22 does.

EA/18G Growler

Banned Member

Super Moderator

Banned Member

Ship Watcher

New Member

New Member

Super Moderator

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys

Banned Member

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys

Banned Member

New Member

Potstirrer

New Member

Banned Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member