Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

F-35 Lightning II : News & Discussions

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. Skull and Bones

    Skull and Bones Doctor Death Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    Country Flag:
    India
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    That is grossly uneconomical, much of the fuel will be wasted by this takeoff scheme.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
  2. Vritra

    Vritra Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    908
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    A fighter-mounted IRST system that can track an F-22 at 60 kilometres? Track an aircraft constructed with composite graphite, titanium, and composite skin with minimum heath and electrical conductivity? Of course. Any links to the existance of such a system? Any credible proof that it exists?

    Apart from that Youtube video you posted a while back that showed infrared aircraft tracking at the range of a couple of kilometres which you suggested was "proof" that F-22 could be tracked equally well at far longer ranges, I mean.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    It took around 15 seconds for him to takeoff. Taking off uses less fuel than landing in VTOL. In takeoff you just go straight up, in landing you have to spend time trying to land on the right spot.

    Either way its a true VTOL.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  4. WMD

    WMD Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    740
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    reminds me of Arnold piloting a harrier jet in True Lies.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
    2 people like this.
  5. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Think about it this way. True VTOL like the Harrier means that when in danger you can do quick takeoffs with more jets than using the ramp.
     
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Planes can be refueled after take off. VTOL will allow the F35 to be used on small ships.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    You only refuel when you are not in danger. Even Harrier can do that but it depends on the situation, with VTOL you can refuel wherever you want.

    Harriers are true VTOL that F35 cannot replace, I bet even the USMC even knows that:

    U.S. To Buy Decommissioned British Harrier Jets | Defense News | defensenews.com
     
    samsonight likes this.
  8. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    You guys are lucky to have the Viraat. Atleast the jets can land and takeoff anywhere and land on other ships to support them.

    Just ashame there is no one trying to build a new VTOL jet because it offers so much more possibilities.
     
  9. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Yeah, good luck with finding enemies that have no jammers and are perfectly content with flying in straight line while missiles are coming at them again... we're talking about war between numerically and technologically comparable forces, or even stealth fighters being outnumbered. And well-equipped enemies will know if missiles are coming at them.

    You're not a good hunter because you have just shot a half-dead dog...

    It isn't everyday's job, and you do need to have a good jammer, but being "almost impossible" for any airborne target is bullshit.
     
    samsonight likes this.
  10. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    You really don't know anything about IRST? How is F-22 coing to deal with air compression, shock cone? And skin always heats up, there is no going around it.

    Sorry, but point of that video was comparision between aircraft's heat signatures...
     
    samsonight likes this.
  11. Vritra

    Vritra Major ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    908
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Going by the content of your posts thus far, you know less about IRST and infrared countermeasures than a rabid mongoose. But let me try to explain this to you: I'm not really an optimist, but I suppose there's always a chance you might actually make the effort to understand.


    None that you can see.

    F-22, like most modern supersonic aircraft, is designed to generate oblique shocks as it flies. Heat generation is greatly reduced this way, with what little heat that is actually produced dispersed across the body of the aircraft and not nearly at the volume you seem to think.

    But I'm not surprised at all that you think there "no going around it". Apparently you've surmised your conclusion from the wikipedia article about the SR-71, and decided that it is perfectly acceptable to apply conclusions drawn from there to your "analysis" of the F-22.



    Of course it was. At a range, as I pointed out, of a few kilometres at best, probably less than that. Apparently (and unsurprisingly) you're unaware of the huge impact that distance and atmosphere has on IR signature detection.


    And I'm still waiting. You have made it quite clear that in your opinion, the F-22 can be detected by fighter-borne infrared systems at a range of 60+ kilometres. Prove that such a device exists. Go on.
     
    2 people like this.
  12. Skull and Bones

    Skull and Bones Doctor Death Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    Country Flag:
    India
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    ^^^

    Actually Vitra, i mention the maximum range of IRST cannot exceed 60km under real conditions. For F-22, i'll be surprised even if it crosses 10 km.
     
  13. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    That's no explaination and thus no justification for the accusation! It's just the repetetion of the same.

    Gripen has none either as of yet as a lot of other combat aircraft around the world. They must all be utterly useless! You'll probably answer with "but Gripen gets one and the F-22 may not" missing the point as usual.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is a strike fighter or in other words a multirole fighter like the Rafale or F/A-18. Arguably not a dedicated AA fighter and thus compromised to a larger extend in comparison to optimised AA platforms, but that hardly means it's completely useless. Your shabby "it has a high wing loading and low TWR" just underlines how pathetic you are. Reducing aircombat capability to these two factors is utterly stupid, oh I forgot "it's expensive and maintenance intensive as well".
    You fail to understand that these options exists in ALL scenarios. Your focus on narrowly defined static scenarios where the success of your theories is completely dependent on a specific constellation of factors clearly demonstrates that you fail to understand the complexity of this subject and the dependencies of individual factors. Otherwise you wouldn't repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

    "Will detect" is not "will detect it before the radar detects its carrier". A subtile but significant difference. And as I explained to you several dozen times already, the relative sensitivity of a RWR is constrained by the size of its aperture. The larger the antenna the better the gain assuming the same level of technology. In addition the direction of arrival is cruicial as fixed antennas loose gain the higher the angle from which transmissions are arriving. And unless the "detection" passes the filter logic of the RWR there is no guarantee that the RWR will alert the pilot at all. Of course it's sensible to assume that a modern RWR will detect and process transmissions of a contemporary radar system. Whether it will do so before the radar actually detects the carrier of the RWR is dependent on factors such as those stated above. Nothing of this is new and all of this has been repeatedly explained to you, you yet chose to ignore these factors and justify this behaviour with "they aren't important". That's either a clear indication of a lack of understanding or pure dishonesty. Take the pick!

    You do in contrast what you claim and every single post of your proves this again and again. And you again fail to understand the nature of the claim which was a general remark, not solely linked to this claim. A RWR WON'T provide you with the same level of situational awareness as a radar can and it won't be able to generate equally useful firing solutions against aerial targets either.
    Answering a question with a question! Another lame attempt to dodge precise questions as you have no credible answer at your disposal!

    It isn't if you would actually understand the nature of these systems, how they work, what they can do and what they can't. But the harsh reality is you have little clue as this, the above and below statements prove. Cueing a missile against angular coordinates isn't even remotely close to a fully resolved firing solution that a radar can provide and unless you know about the characteristics of the threat radar and your RWR is able to actually recognise the pattern to identify it you won't have resolved anything with regards to identification. You always assume that things work and never even attempt to consider not only limitations, but that your narrowly defined static scenarios have little to do with the real world which is dynamic and not as predictable as your imagenary scenarios.

    Good luck in defending your airspace against RF silent foes in limited visibility conditions, lugging around your glorius ARMs. You won't only be blind but toothless as well.

    Usually, but it isn't a prerequisit. You can cue and fire radar guided AAMs the same why that you can fire IR or AR(M) guided missiles. You can fire them against angular coordinates provided by an IRST or RWR if you wish to do so, you can fire them against targets received through the datalink, you can fire them in visual mode or you can fire them against jamming targets. And that's all in addition to the ability to launch them with help of radar data. Your magic ARMs can only be fired against emitting targets, unless they offer an alternative seeker option and the target just needs to cut of transmissions for a limited time you your glorius ARM with miss even without flying any evasive maneuvers or the need to employ any countermeasures. Don't know how you define "tactical considerations" but from what you assert you are imaging exactly one very specific scenarios where everything is happening exactly the way you imagine it. The reality is, if just one variable changes your great theory falls apart.

    A single radar seeker can do the job operating in active or passive mode as the situation demands it. A dual-mode weapon radar+IR would be the best choice extending the frequency bands that you can use. As of now no AAM like this exists and I can't see anyone developing such a missile, except one the Americans IIRC.

    And the logic is sound especially from the perspective back then. LOAL capability wasn't viable for IR missiles back then and the highly weather dependent performance was unacceptable for airdefence missions in particular. Nowadays LOAL is viable for IR missiles, but the weather dependence is still present, albeit performance has improved with the improvement of IR detector technology. The ideal approach would be a radar/IR guided missile with concurrent or independent employment of its seekers. The next best option is a mix of IR and radar guided missiles. Both offer advantages and disadvantages, relying on a single seeker type only entails disadvantages.

    That's first and foremost an assumption. Without doubt consideration must be given to that possibility and thus planning ideally envisages solutions for as many different scenarios as possible.

    In essence right. Whether it will be right in the real world remains to be seen. At this point in time I don't see a stealth only force facing an enemy that seriously outnumbers it.

    I was specifically asking for examples from aerial warfare for a reason!

    And in detecting and tracking non-stealthy targets at significantly longer ranges especially in adverse visibility conditions, guiding long range missiles irrespective of their seeker, provide ground mapping, ground target identification and target coordinate generation at long distances and maintaining greater situational awareness and providing higher quality targeting solutions close in as well as BVR etc. Your ignorance of radar capability is stunning!

    A target must radiate IR emissions as well so the "reflect" part is in this case represented by the "send" part of that frequency band. While it is arguably more difficult to surpress IR signatures than radar signatures it's not entirely impossible either. At this point in time it's more likely to detect a stealthy target in the IR spectrum than in the radar frequency spectrum. Remains to be seen whether it will continue to be in the future. Human inventions have brought many surprises throughout the history of mankind.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  14. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    Then how much do you know?


    Please. You obviously don't know what shock cone is in the first place. And second, aircraft in flight generates a LOT of heat.

    And that is true for all aircraft. Yet modern IRST can detect temperature difference of few degrees Celzius - how do you think will aircraft be "invisible" at any practical range when difference is hundred degrees C or more?

    PIRATE IRST.

    Of course, F-22 is divine design, sent to Earth to save us from the Chinese... :sarcastic:
     
    samsonight likes this.
  15. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Re: On F-35 export "success"

    The F-35B is classified as STOVL, not VTOL. Short Takeoff NOT Vertical Takeoff.
     

Share This Page