Gripen , Typhoon , Rafale vs F-15C , F-16C ,F-15E , Su-27 , Mig-29

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

Let's modify the chart a bit in order to get you an idea what I mean..

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / 3D TVC / IRST / HMCS / medium IR AAMs

F-22 / xx / 1.xx / no / no / no / no
Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / no / yes / yes / yes
Rafale / 55 / 1.25 / no / no / no / yes
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / yes / yes / yes / yes

Get my point? I can define whatever criteria I see fit in order to make my design appear "better". There is no indication which says that your criteria are more credible than mine.. For instance, I personally consider LOAL of limited use, much less important than having an IRST onboard.


Bit disingenuous. Firstly, why don't you at least calculate the wing loading and TWR for the F-22? TWR 1.29+, wing loading 65lb/ft^2.

Secondly, why define an R-74 as medium range, when its range is approximately the same as an AIM-9X.

Thirdly, the whole point of specifying IIR was to denote missiles relatively invulnerable to flares.

IRST vs stealth, I'll take stealth.

TVC, good range extender but most people who haven't already fitted it aren't even thinking about it. It adds weight, suicidal to use it in a real world dogfight and HMCS + LOAL achieves the same thing without the suicidal energy bleeding.

You may consider LOAL of limited use but extensive testing has proven otherwise, which is why all Western nations, from the US to the UK, to France, to Germany, to Italy have all invested in the technology.

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 8,850

Bit disingenuous.
Of course, it's totally disingenuous. Created on purpose to make an old Su-27 "win" over an F-22.. Which is utter BS..
but it proves my point that your chart is total BS, as well.

Firstly, why don't you at least calculate the wing loading and TWR for the F-22? TWR 1.29+, wing loading 65lb/ft^2.

Because it's totally irrelevant to the point I am making..

Secondly, why define an R-74 as medium range, when its range is approximately the same as an AIM-9X.
Because it's the R-27ET I am having in mind, not the R-74.

Thirdly, the whole point of specifying IIR was to denote missiles relatively invulnerable to flares.
I am not denying that IIR is a good feature.. But who has decided it's so decisive for aerial combat that it has to be included among the five defining parameters? You?

IRST vs stealth, I'll take stealth.
Everyone takes stealth.. that is why all future developments are stealthy..

TVC, good range extender but most people who haven't already fitted it aren't even thinking about it. It adds weight, suicidal to use it in a real world dogfight and HMCS + LOAL achieves the same thing without the suicidal energy bleeding.
A radar adds weight, too, let's drop it all together..

BTW, the F-22 as the prime air superiority fighter has TVC (2D) and lacks HMCS.. Find a logic in that.. :eagerness:

You may consider LOAL of limited use but extensive testing has proven otherwise, which is why all Western nations, from the US to the UK, to France, to Germany, to Italy have all invested in the technology.
Of course they have... LOAL is important due to internal missile bays.. But can't see that much advantage for aircraft which carry their missiles on the pylons..

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

Of course, it's totally disingenuous. Created on purpose to make an old Su-27 "win" over an F-22.. Which is utter BS..
but it proves my point that your chart is total BS, as well.

Because it's totally irrelevant to the point I am making..

Because it's the R-27ET I am having in mind, not the R-74.

I am not denying that IIR is a good feature.. But who has decided it's so decisive for aerial combat that it has to be included among the five defining parameters? You?

Everyone takes stealth.. that is why all future developments are stealthy..

A radar adds weight, too, let's drop it all together..

BTW, the F-22 as the prime air superiority fighter has TVC (2D) and lacks HMCS.. Find a logic in that.. :eagerness:

Of course they have... LOAL is important due to internal missile bays.. But can't see that much advantage for aircraft which carry their missiles on the pylons..


Ermmm... so by deliberately creating a disingenuous chart, by your own admission, that somehow proves that a genuine attempt at laying out modern qualities was disingenuous?

Okay.

The R-27ET is LOBL only and the maximum seeker range is 20km.

Well I would have thought most would appreciate that a seeker not susceptible to flares is better than one that is.

Agreed.

The F-22 was originally intended to have IRST and will be getting both IRST and HMCS in future upgrades. TVC was to improve range and reduce drag in higher speed turns.

Other than the ability to engage an enemy on a 360deg basis thus presenting a threat with full spherical coverage, with no time delay and without having to bleed speed or adjust course.:confused:

The title was also only talking about 4th gen aircraft.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

There is no plan to install an IRST on the F-22. Anything that may be planned is probably going to be so far out that it is rather pointless to even begin to ballpark a time-frame. There are plenty of other areas of capability and interoperability that they would like to address first and that will take well over a decade of upgrades. The HMS is a short term (3-4 or so years) thing and they could have done it faster had the timing of the sequester not curtailed their efforts to conduct preliminary integration evaluations of the Scorpion but as I had mentioned, the benefits of having one would have only come once the full capability of the Aim-9X was integrated around the end of 2017 at the earliest.

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

There is no plan to install an IRST on the F-22. Anything that may be planned is probably going to be so far out that it is rather pointless to even begin to ballpark a time-frame. There are plenty of other areas of capability and interoperability that they would like to address first and that will take well over a decade of upgrades. The HMS is a short term (3-4 or so years) thing and they could have done it faster had the timing of the sequester not allowed them to conduct preliminary integration evaluations of the Scorpion but as I had mentioned, the benefits of having one would have only come once the full capability of the Aim-9X was integrated around the end of 2017.

Weren't they going to upgrade the MAWS to function as an IRST?
Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

Weren't they going to upgrade the MAWS to function as an IRST?

I haven't come across any of those plans.

Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 6,983

Weren't they going to upgrade the MAWS to function as an IRST?

not a good idea, MAWS lose its function if it zoom in, and MAWS must be detuned as to not set off alarm all the time,
making it a worthless IRST yet again

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

I forgot where I saw it originally, but it's mentioned here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Upgrades

Seems like a fairly logical upgrade once the software and processing power are in place.

I'd have to look into it, but the only things confirmed beyond the Inc. 3,2B from what I understand is the FY18 HMS award and the shift to OMS being pursued under the tactical mandates program.

not a good idea, MAWS lose its function if it zoom in, and MAWS must be detuned as to not set off alarm all the time,
making it a worthless IRST yet again

It would obviously be a short range feature (if they could and would do it). The designers of the EODAS had short range IRST in mind and that feature was accepted in the final version that became a part of the F-35 concept. Seperate advanced IRST's are in the works for future applications but I'm not sure whether the current F-22's have the room for an IRST that was available earlier given the competing SwAP challenges in modernization (There are data-link, EW, radar and other mission system modernization yet to come).

The DAS performs these functions: short range IR search and track, missile launch detection, point of origin of missile launch, and navigation imaging.

DAS was made sensitive enough, precise enough, and long-range enough to include aircraft detection and track capabilities ~ Pete “Toes” Bartos of Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35-combat-system-enterprise/

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 5,198

I haven't come across any of those plans.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/missile-launch-detector-mld/mfc-mld-pc.pdf

Lockheed Martin continues to advance the modular design of MLD with the
development of both high resolution and multi-spectral sensors and an expanded
algorithm that incorporates situational awareness and defensive Infrared Search and
Track (IRST).
Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

Thanks Spud. This is however different from what the IRST application originally envisioned was to achieve through the dedicated IRST instalation.

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 5,198

Correct, it's more of an EODAS-Lite application.

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

X

The F-22 had developmental setbacks, and programatic adjustments throughout the latter half of its development as some tried to cancel it, while others tried to protect it. A lot of the features that eventually got chopped were present in its design and actually pursued in development. The program went through plenty of 'adjustments' as the political environment changed during and post the peace dividend and what exists now is a result of all that. So unless there are features that they did not think about, don't blame the designers for the USAF or not wanting or not asking for stuff that currently is not there. You ask them to build per requirements, so if you are forced to cut capability something that would have contributed to its effectiveness would naturally have to go away to accommodate such a demand. There is no doubt that the capability that was chopped at various stages of development resulted in a net reduction in mission effectiveness for the F-22 and that applies to changes made pre and post down select. But they had to do what they had to do in order to ensure that the program survived.

- IRST - An Advanced IRST was planned, and GE (The top OEM working on IRST's in the US) was contracted by Lockheed for it. The original DemVal design had an IRST in the wing-roots (one on each side), and as of 1997, Janes (Sweetman) claimed that they were still testing for its adoption around 1996.

LINK

Cheek Arrays were also part of the F-22 and there exists space to put them even now much the same way the PAKFA/T-50 has adopted them. This was dropped for cost reasons as part of other programatic adjustments -

https://s11.postimg.org/klyf4cb8z/F_22_Array_Layout_Coverage.jpg

It is now up to the USAF, Pentagon and the Congress to see to it that things that are needed are provided for but all that needs to be balanced with other costs especially since the Budget Control Act which has forced them to make short term decisions that quite often have negative long term consequences. Regardless, it seems like they will make a decision soon on an HMS as they have recently been cleared for the Aim-9X but won't get a lot of its capabilities till late 2017 or 2018 with the Increment 3.2B. Following 3.2B they will likely move ahead with the HMS acquisition over the next 2-3 years but that's about as fast as they can go given that the helmet isn't really going to be of much help prior to 2017-18. Slow Yes, but not by design. HMS integration was a program requirement that was chopped for cost reasons quite late in the program so again, they demanded it. They've evaluated a couple of off the shelf HMS solutions already but had to push the timelines till after 3.2B due to prioritizing the right capabilities once they were forced to go back due to sequestration. Other more expensive capabilities will probably need to wait for a more serious upgrade cycle not different from a traditional MLU.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-improved-day-night-f-22-raptor-helmet-by-413962/

The USAF had an in service F-22 by 2005, and were planning to have an in service F-35A much earlier than 2016 and therefore never created any requirements for an advanced 4.5+ generation F-15 or F-16 (recall the F-16U offer made to the USAF by the UAE which was promptly declined). This time-frame also coincided with a massive reduction i the USAF fighter fleet, largely demanded by a change in the threat environment, the type of missions it was expected to fight over a 10-20 year period, and the capability that it could get through smart munitions and unmanned aviation (that entire enterprise was created from scratch, no doubt taking money from other modernization efforts).

Political realities would have meant that any advanced version demanded would have most likely resulted in $$'s moving form either the ATF program, or the JSF program to support a lower cost, lower risk program which would have been counter productive to their eventual goals. One could disagree with their goals but political realities within the US basically mean that the services have to be careful with their requests and plan for such considerations. Much of then F-15 upgrades will now make them highly capable 4+ generation aircraft but they won't be buying new ones primarily because there is a lot of life left in a lot of them (especially the strike eagle fleet). The F-16 modernization program fell through post the BCA and had sequestration not hit, they would have pursued it too.

just ne thing: I have not placed any blame on the designer, that obviously do what they are asked to do but precisely with the ones that have made a mess with requirementm development and cutting.
They preferred to not compromise any part of the stringent stealth requirement but chopped all the rest so to have in the end a plane unable to operate with both the capabilities and the numbers needed.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

I have not placed any blame on the designer, that obviously do what they are asked to do but precisely with the ones that have made a mess with requirementm development and cutting.

Blame the ones doing the cutting? Why? They are asked to shed money from the development budget or risk loosing the entire program. They acted accordingly.

They preferred to not compromise any part of the stringent stealth requirement but chopped all the rest so to have in the end a plane unable to operate with both the capabilities and the numbers needed.

There is no evidence of that actually happening unless you can share some.

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Blame the ones doing the cutting? Why? They are asked to shed money from the development budget or risk loosing the entire program. They acted accordingly.

There is no evidence of that actually happening unless you can share some.

Cut from 750 to 187 is not evident? Fact that they have not side looking radar, aim-9x and HMCS still not implemented have to be proved?
It's seems me that are they instead that have to prove the f-22 can operate with the same expected efficacy.
They have made the decision to cut on those thing and not into the rear end stealth , the 2d trust vectoring, the flat noozless: their own choice, their own responsability.
It can have been right and wrong but can we debate or they are exempt by any possible critics for ?
IMHO acting in such a way, they have get an airplane with an alleged stealth lvl unsurpassed by even more modern designs but so complex, costly and single mission oriented to be stopped halfway in any case, so in the end making vain the same cutting measures they have undertaken.

Another thing, i can maybe understand that they were forced to do such by budgetary reason on F-22 but still I wonder because they have not installed a dedicated IRST on the F/A-18 and during the retrofit of their legacy model and after some time changed idea and adopted one mounted on a fuel tank...
Would you maybe consider the remote possibility that there has been an initial underestimation of such technologies from your parts or they have to be considered right by default?

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 8,850

Ermmm... so by deliberately creating a disingenuous chart, by your own admission, that somehow proves that a genuine attempt at laying out modern qualities was disingenuous?
Yes.. I personally think that your attempt was closely focused on showing that Russian designs are inferior by deliberately choosing features which they don't have and ignoring features which they do have..

The R-27ET is LOBL only and the maximum seeker range is 20km.
Errrr.. let's use some logic first..
The R-27T has 33km effective kill range (head-on) and 63km maximum range. If the seeker only has 20km range, why the hell would they bother with range extension? read R-27ET with ~53km head-on range and 104km maximum range.. You're not making any sense now.

Either the seeker range is by far not 20km or it's not LOBL only.. or both..

Well I would have thought most would appreciate that a seeker not susceptible to flares is better than one that is.
No one denies that.. but why is exactly this feature listed and IRST is not? And why did you ignore the RVV-MD which has a QWIP imaging seeker, as well?

The F-22 was originally intended to have IRST and will be getting both IRST and HMCS in future upgrades. TVC was to improve range and reduce drag in higher speed turns.
The F-22 will be getting IRST? When?

Other than the ability to engage an enemy on a 360deg basis thus presenting a threat with full spherical coverage, with no time delay and without having to bleed speed or adjust course.:confused:
LOAL is only a matter of control electronics and software.. no big deal, IMHO.. since the T-50 has internal bays, it will be forced to use a LOAL missile, anyway.. which tells me that the RVV-MD must have this feature, as well..
Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Ermmm... so by deliberately creating a disingenuous chart, by your own admission, that somehow proves that a genuine attempt at laying out modern qualities was disingenuous?

Okay.

It was not crystal clear to you he was making a casual list to underline the faulty logic underneath yours? :confused:
Man, you was supposed to be the native english speaker there!
Anyway better not overextend this quarrel , I have made you some remarks, you kindly have changed your own to reflect what I said, so I'm not have the impression you have done such a thing maliciously, nor he have done its own to trick someone, as he clearly explained from the beginning his list was not a serious one but just a reverse proof of the alleged paralogism in your's own.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 12,109

Cut from 750 to 187 is not evident? Fact that they have not side looking radar, aim-9x and HMCS still not implemented have to be proved?
It's seems me that are they instead that have to prove the f-22 can operate with the same expected efficacy.

That was not what I had asked for. There is no evidence that the rear aspect stealth requirement would have been traded away at a particular stage and money saved allowing them to buy a lot of F-22s. I'd recommend this book on the F-22 if you want to learn about the ATF program.

They have made the decision to cut on those thing and not into the rear end stealth , the 2d trust vectoring, the flat noozless: their own choice, their own responsability.

They get what they asked for in return. They met or exceeded the stealth requirements and the TVC helps it meet or exceed other performance requirements. The program looked at survivability in totality and used RCS, speed and EW to get it. They traded some aspects of these as well and you would find more on that in the book linked above.

act that they have not side looking radar, aim-9x and HMCS still not implemented have to be proved?

Side looking radar can come back, there is room for it. Aim-9X was deferred and its partly integrated now, with full capability coming over the next few months. HMS solicitation has gone out, and they will select the vendor (they want OTS solution) in late 2017 for induction a couple of years later. The capability addition on the F-22 is threat and budget related...ditto with the reduction in requirements. It has consistently been tough for the USAF to justify the F-22 getting capability enhancement because there is really no threat that justified it. This could change in the future and with OMS we may see accelerated capability adoption. As things stand, there is only the IRST that *could* run up against technical challenges in integration.

You couldn't get rear RCS back but can put cheek arrays and integrate a new missile or sensor.

Another thing, i can maybe understand that they were forced to do such by budgetary reason on F-22 but still I wonder because they have not installed a dedicated IRST on the F/A-18 and during the retrofit of their legacy model and after some time changed idea and adopted one mounted on a fuel tank...

USN wanted to do the Rhino on the cheap. Even now they don't plan on integrating every SH with the IRST, hence the integration with the tank. When they could influence other service's to spend money they did ask for such capability..as in they lobbied heavily for every F-35 to get the EOTS while USAF wanted to every third iirc.

Would you maybe consider the remote possibility that there has been an initial underestimation of such technologies from your parts or they have to be considered right by default?

No. ATF had an IRST requirement and so did the N-ATF. Those were your two main air-dominance platforms for the USAF and USN and everything in terms of studies and 'thinking' during the 80's, and 90's came out of these programs. The reason why these capabilities were not adopted had nothing to do with 'requirements' but with trading certain things away during the program's execution (and not inception). AIm-9x integration was deferred and so was the HMS which would have required time and money given the HMS"s of the time requiring cockpit mapping.

Member for

3 years 3 months

Posts: 949

Yes.. I personally think that your attempt was closely focused on showing that Russian designs are inferior by deliberately choosing features which they don't have and ignoring features which they do have..

Errrr.. let's use some logic first..
The R-27T has 33km effective kill range (head-on) and 63km maximum range. If the seeker only has 20km range, why the hell would they bother with range extension? read R-27ET with ~53km head-on range and 104km maximum range.. You're not making any sense now.

Either the seeker range is by far not 20km or it's not LOBL only.. or both..

No one denies that.. but why is exactly this feature listed and IRST is not? And why did you ignore the RVV-MD which has a QWIP imaging seeker, as well?

The F-22 will be getting IRST? When?

LOAL is only a matter of control electronics and software.. no big deal, IMHO.. since the T-50 has internal bays, it will be forced to use a LOAL missile, anyway.. which tells me that the RVV-MD must have this feature, as well..


Well I'm sorry you think that but IIR missiles with 90deg HOBS and LOAL are game changers. It previously wasn't possible to hit enemy fighters that were on your tail and immunity to flares is a big deal.

I'm quoting fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)#Variants

R-27T and ET variants can be used out of cloudiness, at least 15 degrees away from the bearing of sun, and 4 degrees away from the bearing of moon and ground based head-contrasting conditions. In cases of maximum head-on range launches where lock-command cannot be utilised, missile can be fired in PPS: In this mode, missile will fly straight until achieves target lock. As missile lacks capability of manoeuvering before lock, aircraft itself must maneuver so that missile will be pointed to no more than 15 degrees bearing of the target for confident capture by the IR seeker after launch. Equalising altitude is recommended but not required.[4]

So there is no way of firing it guided from beyond the 20km seeker range. It's a blind shot, doesn't even have INS, it flies roughly straight in PPS and might hit something if it sees them... and the sun and moon are in the right place... and the target doesn't pop flares. I would definitely rate the likes of a MICA IR well above it.

Show me any IR/IIR AAM seeker that can acquire a target more than 20-25km away. In fact it's not even 20km, more like 15km.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

R-27ET1 Acquisition range 5.4-8.0nmi

I missed IRST in my first run and Marcellago mentioned it, so I then added it here:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?139875-Gripen-Typhoon-Rafale-vs-F-15C-F-16C-F-15E-Su-27-Mig-29&p=2334596#post2334596
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?139875-Gripen-Typhoon-Rafale-vs-F-15C-F-16C-F-15E-Su-27-Mig-29&p=2334647#post2334647

Good question, don't know.

I understood that the SRAAMs on the PAK-FA would be pop-out like on the F-22?? There are a hell of a lot of things that are 'just' electronics and software.

Member for

5 years 5 months

Posts: 1,123


No. ATF had an IRST requirement and so did the N-ATF. Those were your two main air-dominance platforms for the USAF and USN and everything in terms of studies and 'thinking' during the 80's, and 90's came out of these programs. The reason why these capabilities were not adopted had nothing to do with 'requirements' but with trading certain things away during the program's execution (and not inception). AIm-9x integration was deferred and so was the HMS which would have required time and money given the HMS"s of the time requiring cockpit mapping.

I am under the impression that the physical integration of an IRST wouldn't even be the hardest part, even that some sort of saphire window is required. The F-22 software and all the fusion is likely to be the most difficult. If that's true, maybe they could have a minimal capability with no fusion, it would be better than waiting for ever for an IRST. They could also look at foreign IRSTs, the skyward for instance is very compact and is dual band.